Cool to read about your experience with this, thank you! I didn't explain myself well and may be using an incorrect term. What I meant is that "blinds" or controls would have to be in place for an alert to be of interest to me. To me, leading a dog to a car is a cue in itself. For example, in the McCann case I still don't consider the dog alerts verifiable/scientific as in useful for in a court of law, but if a dog picks one car out of several cars in a garage on its own without being led, that piques my interest considerably more than if a dog is led straight to a particular car and encouraged to look at and smell that car. In the case where the dog is taken to a particular car for example, who's to say it doesn't finally sit down because it can't think of anything else to do with that car that it's being made to keep looking at and circle. Or because something about this search reminds it of the last time it alerted and got a reward? Or because it once found something and was rewarded when led in the same manner? Or because it smells another smell that is present which we are not aware of that was coincidentally present on a training sample container or object before, or present in another case where it found something, etc. Or it might hop up and paw at the trunk because it figures, ok, let's see what's in here, or he's still having me look here, that must be what my handler wants. I mean dogs are super intelligent, they're not machines you roll to the search object and switch on. They're going to be trying to figure out the entire time, why is he bringing me here, what does he want me to do here? They're going to see every cue from their handler, is my handler interested in this target? (being natural pack hunters). And, after all, do cadaver dogs never sit down other than when they alert? Do they stand at all times? What does a sit mean? What does a look mean? etc
If 3 dog handlers were on hand to see what a dog did, it's still just as subjective. His tail went up half way that means.....his eyes locked on to mine, that means....he acted kind of excited.....I could hear him breathing....etc Totally subjective. When people say what a dog meant, that's hearsay in my opinion, or even a step further. (Unless the dog cues in a place and then this cue is confirmed by remains actually being found.)
In other words, with no remains actually found, it's just not verifiable, or quantifiable, so not suitable to be used as evidence in a court of law imo.
Would I use dogs in case they could aid in finding something, of course, if they were available! Do I think they have amazing talents? Yes! But if they "alert" and then no remains/decomposing materials are found, do we then say, oh that means remains were once here but aren't any more? No, because there's no way of knowing if it's a false positive.
p.s. regarding dogs having an alertness to cues/gestures/behaviors by humans next to them that we are unaware of ourselves-- my personal experience in this is that as a kid our family dog knew that my brother was about to have a seizure several minutes before the seizure occurred and before my brother or any of us had any idea. What did our dog see, hear, smell, who knows?
Oh no, from what I've seen I think LDB is the one who uses the tactics you describe above! I appreciate the fact that Baez never resorts to a rude, mocking, bullying, or "you are stupid" tone, (which LDB even used on Dr. Fairgrieve, a Cambridge educated forensics expert LOL), and doesn't do the "tear them down", or the changing definitions on witnesses midstream, or he "pure confusion" etc. moo To me, it's most shocking when she's questioning the family of the victim, very insensitive at times imo.
