Sequence

The sites were first identified by cadaver dogs, and testing equipment had shown the possible presence of remains, police said.

Does it mean equipment testing was performed before confirmation by the dogs?

Thanks in advance!

The event described by perfect tense should always go first, as far as I know.

In March, search crews found indications that human remains could be buried within a few yards of the ranch in Death Valley in east-central California.

The sites were first identified by cadaver dogs, and testing equipment had shown the possible presence of remains, police said.

Here's the article:

[link]

CalifJim

To be sure, I think we'd need at least one paragraph that precedes this sentence.

Maybe the first part about the dogs should have read The sites had first been identified ..., but the author simplified the tense to the simple past because it was clear from context that the dogs were first and the testing next.

In isolation it's a strange sequence of tenses. 

CJ 

In March, search crews found indications that human remains could be buried within a few yards of the ranch in Death Valley in east-central California.

The sites were first identified by cadaver dogs, and testing equipment had shown the possible presence of remains, police said.

I think New2grammar said that, to him,  a past perfect always precedes a present. It seems that is not always correct, isn't it??

CalifJim wrote:  

To be sure, I think we'd need at least one paragraph that precedes this sentence.

Maybe the first part about the dogs should have read The sites had first been identified ..., but the author simplified the tense to the simple past because it was clear from context that the dogs were first and the testing next.

In isolation it's a strange sequence of tenses. 

I think iff the first clause didn't have the word 'first', then we could not make the assertion that the dog found the site first and later used the equipment to verify the result. Sorry I couldn't paste the original sentence.