The tracker dogs

[ferryman]

I think the most important sentence from that is " ... whilst the operation should be carried out as quickly as possible and not directed towards one but to all the apartments in the resort, it being appropriate for the handler not to know which apartment was chosen, so as not the be conditioned."

Which illustrates the total professionalism of the Portuguese handlers who seem to have had complete understanding of and no problem with acknowledging the possibility for dogs to be influenced subconsciously by the handler.

On that 100% agreed.

Which contrasts the professionalism (of these Portuguese dog-handlers) with the work of another (English!) dog-handler (whose name shall not be mentioned on this board) .....

[G-Unit]

By the time they were Madeleine's age my children were dressing and undressing themselves, the only problem for them being shoe laces. 

In my opinion the cite I used demands almost clinical conditions for a scent source which must be almost impossible to achieve under normal circumstances.
I think the most logical scent source for the dogs was Madeleine's blanket with other contaminating scents being overridden by the strongest, which must have been hers.

The witness sighting was discarded without further investigation when it was found that it did not fit the senior investigator's then working hypothesis.  The information used by Scotland Yard to "almost certainly" rule it out was available to that investigation in 2007.
The fact that it was at a remove of seven years that a foreign force "managed to reach the correct conclusion" using information available to the original investigators is a measure of the incompetence which evidences their neglect of elementary procedure.

The blanket was indeed the best source, but it wasn't offered to the best qualified dog, for unknown reasons. Nevertheless the towel provided produced the same result. That suggests;
The child's scent was on both items
Someone else's scent was on both items
There were different scents on the items, but both came from people who followed that route together or separately.

Jane Tanner's evidence was not highly regarded by the PJ, but not for the reasons you give. Do you have evidence that information used by SY was available to the PJ in 2007?

[misty]

Brietta, Misty and others are doing a sterling job, here, in establishing that the Portuguese deployed air-scenting dogs, including (as above) that other family-members (of the person searched for should not touch items used for scent-article purposes).

And yet, and yet, it is (after all!) just possible that G-Unit may have a point.

Here is what G-Unit rests his/her case on (that the Portuguese had ground-tracking dogs).

And in the light of the research Brietta, Misty and others have done (I suggest) this comment takes on a whole different perspective:

I (reluctantly) concede that G-Unit may (after all) have a point.

The abnormality of the situation (for tracking purposes) being precisely what Brietta and Misty have highlighted.

An interesting article here.
https://www.policeone.com/police-products/k9/k9-training/articles/6432355-Trailing-versus-tracking-The-keys-to-success/

[misty]

The blanket was indeed the best source, but it wasn't offered to the best qualified dog, for unknown reasons. Nevertheless the towel provided produced the same result. That suggests;
The child's scent was on both items
Someone else's scent was on both items
There were different scents on the items, but both came from people who followed that route together or separately.

Jane Tanner's evidence was not highly regarded by the PJ, but not for the reasons you give. Do you have evidence that information used by SY was available to the PJ in 2007?

If the scent belonged to Madeleine, the dogs would have shown interest at the side gate (and that led to an enclosed area where scent would have lingered). They didn't.

[G-Unit]

Brietta, Misty and others are doing a sterling job, here, in establishing that the Portuguese deployed air-scenting dogs, including (as above) that other family-members (of the person searched for should not touch items used for scent-article purposes).

And yet, and yet, it is (after all!) just possible that G-Unit may have a point.

Here is what G-Unit rests his/her case on (that the Portuguese had ground-tracking dogs).

And in the light of the research Brietta, Misty and others have done (I suggest) this comment takes on a whole different perspective:

I (reluctantly) concede that G-Unit may (after all) have a point.

The abnormality of the situation (for tracking purposes) being precisely what Brietta and Misty have highlighted.

I [reluctantly] thank you. The comment about the time which had passed was made on 8th, when it was asked if it was worth searching the apartment blocks. There was no problem with the first tracking exercise carried out at 11.30pm on 4th, it was within the preferred 48 hour window.

8 May 2007 at 23h45, the undersigned joined a search effected by the GNR dog team which targeted Blocks 5 and 4 of the Ocean Club resort........after 48 hours from the event it is difficult to obtain positive results................The GNR team performing the search had in its possession, packed in a plastic bag, a towel supposedly used to clean the missing youngster - Madeleine McCann - furnished by her parents.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INFORMATION-SERVICE.htm

[Robittybob1]

If only springs to mind  If only they had done full searches in the neighbouring apartments the next day!  Instead of all this dog searching miles around the village.  It doesn't make sense to me that Madeleine would have walked for miles through the countryside.

[Brietta]

If only springs to mind  If only they had done full searches in the neighbouring apartments the next day!  Instead of all this dog searching miles around the village.  It doesn't make sense to me that Madeleine would have walked for miles through the countryside.

Some children have been found after travelling a considerable distance from their starting point.  Sometimes they have moved under their own steam sometimes they have been moved there by another.
In that respect the work of the Portuguese dogs would have been invaluable and the quickest way to cover the terrain.  By a process of elimination they found nothing ... but that was because there was nothing there to be found, as the passage of time has proved.

I've always thought it remiss that neither Mrs Fenn nor Mr and Mrs Moyes were visited as a matter of priority, but in any case, I don't think such door to door inquiries would normally be carried out by the dog teams nor do I think that it would have been lawful to rampage through properties with them without just cause.

[ShiningInLuz]

By the time they were Madeleine's age my children were dressing and undressing themselves, the only problem for them being shoe laces. 

In my opinion the cite I used demands almost clinical conditions for a scent source which must be almost impossible to achieve under normal circumstances.
I think the most logical scent source for the dogs was Madeleine's blanket with other contaminating scents being overridden by the strongest, which must have been hers.

The witness sighting was discarded without further investigation when it was found that it did not fit the senior investigator's then working hypothesis.  The information used by Scotland Yard to "almost certainly" rule it out was available to that investigation in 2007.
The fact that it was at a remove of seven years that a foreign force "managed to reach the correct conclusion" using information available to the original investigators is a measure of the incompetence which evidences their neglect of elementary procedure.

I think to support this you would need to come up with several things.  Whether there actually was a crèche record, overlooked by Amaral AND Rebelo.  Why crècheman was going the wrong way.  Why crècheman did not come forward.  Whether crècheman really is Tannerman.  And whether Tannerman's description mutated, as is alleged.

[Carana]

I think to support this you would need to come up with several things.  Whether there actually was a crèche record, overlooked by Amaral AND Rebelo.  Why crècheman was going the wrong way.  Why crècheman did not come forward.  Whether crècheman really is Tannerman.  And whether Tannerman's description mutated, as is alleged.

I'm aware that the day crèche records aren't always complete, but I find the idea that no evening ones existed a little odd.

The PJ did manage to recuperate the day ones, but there is no record that I can find of even having asked for the evening ones. Perhaps they did and they got lost under the mountain of documents. Or perhaps no one thought to ask. If they had requested the evening ones and none existed, wouldn't that have been at least recorded as a note in the files?

[ferryman]

An interesting article here.
https://www.policeone.com/police-products/k9/k9-training/articles/6432355-Trailing-versus-tracking-The-keys-to-success/

Interesting article indeed.

Thanks, Misty.

[Brietta]

I think to support this you would need to come up with several things.  Whether there actually was a crèche record, overlooked by Amaral AND Rebelo.  Why crècheman was going the wrong way.  Why crècheman did not come forward.  Whether crècheman really is Tannerman.  And whether Tannerman's description mutated, as is alleged.

I have seen nothing to suggest that Jane Tanner's description 'mutated' nor have I seen anything which suggests she said she saw Murat ... quite the contrary.
If crècheman is Tannerman ... it seems obvious to me that the Portuguese investigators were remiss in not either eliminating or discovering that fact ... particularly as they were so much closer to the time of the event than were Scotland Yard.

[slartibartfast]

Madeleine was barefooted when she went missing. A ground-scenting dog, given the correct scenting item, stood a much better chance of tracking her if she'd wandered, don't you think?

Quite possible. Hence the tracker dogs.

[ferryman]

I have seen nothing to suggest that Jane Tanner's description 'mutated' nor have I seen anything which suggests she said she saw Murat ... quite the contrary.
If crècheman is Tannerman ... it seems obvious to me that the Portuguese investigators were remiss in not either eliminating or discovering that fact ... particularly as they were so much closer to the time of the event than were Scotland Yard.

Fully agreed (with the part I underline).

But even if she had, so what?

There is no dispute that Martin Smith (mistakenly) mis-identified Gerry (as the man he and his family saw that night) and no one has ever suggested any penal action should be taken against him for it (rightly so!)

Statements given to police (in good faith!) are protected in law.

The work of police would be impossible were it otherwise so.

[G-Unit]

I'm aware that the day crèche records aren't always complete, but I find the idea that no evening ones existed a little odd.

The PJ did manage to recuperate the day ones, but there is no record that I can find of even having asked for the evening ones. Perhaps they did and they got lost under the mountain of documents. Or perhaps no one thought to ask. If they had requested the evening ones and none existed, wouldn't that have been at least recorded as a note in the files?

so

They got the records relating to the McCann children. They never attended the night creche.

[Carana]

so

They got the records relating to the McCann children. They never attended the night creche.

Agreed, but there were two sightings of one or more unidentified men carrying a young girl who may or may not have been Madeleine between roughly 9 and 10 pm.

OK, the PJ isn't used to issuing public appeals... but did any of them ever check on the possibility of innocent male relatives / family friends carrying home a sleeping little girl that night?

Wouldn't that have been useful?