The timeline revisited

[G-Unit]

Mark Harrison's job was to advise NATIONALLY on homicide searches. Not all forces had Forensic Cannines, so not all forces would use them as a matter of course. Harrison, Grime and the S.A.M dog teams from Dyfed Powys became available nationally to any force needing their expertise.

Mark Harrison was involved in many critical incidents, including the Soham murders;

"The search team was last night being directed by the national police search specialist advisor, Mr Mark Harrison, who recently advised both Surrey police in their hunt for Milly Dowler, and the Essex force in their investigation into the disappearance of Danielle Jones."
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/uk-police-question-school-pair-on-missing-children-1.1092228

It seems he felt that being able to call in nationally available Forensic Dog teams would be helpful.

[G-Unit]

You two are masters of evasion I must say…

Understanding the meaning of the written word has nothing to do with being evasive. Misunderstanding the meaning
and context can lead to mistaken assumptions. 

[Mr Gray]

Mark Harrison's job was to advise NATIONALLY on homicide searches. Not all forces had Forensic Cannines, so not all forces would use them as a matter of course. Harrison, Grime and the S.A.M dog teams from Dyfed Powys became available nationally to any force needing their expertise.

Harrison's role was to advise nationally on homicide cases... What was the role of the dogs which he would call in

[Mr Gray]

Mark Harrison was involved in many critical incidents, including the Soham murders;

"The search team was last night being directed by the national police search specialist advisor, Mr Mark Harrison, who recently advised both Surrey police in their hunt for Milly Dowler, and the Essex force in their investigation into the disappearance of Danielle Jones."
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/uk-police-question-school-pair-on-missing-children-1.1092228

It seems he felt that being able to call in nationally available Forensic Dog teams would be helpful.

The role of the dogs was to find the girls or their remains... The accepted role of cadaver dogs ..no mention of providing intelligence.
As, you are keen on the written word read the reason why Harrison suggested taking the dogs to Luz.
These dogs were known as VRD dogs... That's the clue

[Mr Gray]

What about when he called Eddie back to the Renault Scenic? Was he acting unconsciously? If not what do you think he was doing?

Also your theory about what Eddie alerts to "when there is no cadaver" doesn't stack up imo. Why no alerts in any other apartments? And "length of time" doesn't stand up to scrutiny either. Where is your peer reviewed forensic science which shows given enough time a cadaver dog will eventually alert even when there is no cadaverine? This is such a high profile case yet it seems no forensic scientist or police dog handler are critical of Grime and his work in the McCann case.

It's you who is making claims Re the value of the alerts so where are your peer reviewed papers on the reliability if the alerts at crime scenes where no evidence is found.. There, are none.
There was one using explosive dogs where the dogs gave false alerts when their handlers were told explosives were present.

A simple test would be to take two cadaver dogs and handlers to a site and see if theyvakerted and if theurvalerts matched.  Simple.

I simply have seen no evidence to show the alerts in Luz were accurate.. I believe based in all the evidence there never wad a cadaver in 5a... The PJ actually thought this was a priven fact.  On balance fir me it's most likely MM was abducted and did not die in the apt.... I think think a lot of people are going to look very foolish

[Vertigo Swirl]

Understanding the meaning of the written word has nothing to do with being evasive. Misunderstanding the meaning
and context can lead to mistaken assumptions.

Not replying directly to questions and giving "politician" style answers or not even bothering to reply at all means being evasive in my lexicon, what does it mean in yours?

[Mr Gray]

Not replying directly to questions and giving "politician" style answers means being evasive in my lexicon, what does it mean in yours?

In my mine it means, waffle and an inability to present a logical argument.
Grime and Harrison were inconsistent and contradictory in the meaning of the alerts.. Fact.  This to me supports the idea that the whole process of the alerts had not been properly thought through...

[G-Unit]

Not replying directly to questions and giving "politician" style answers or not even bothering to reply at all means being evasive in my lexicon, what does it mean in yours?

The nature of the questions being asked and reason they are being asked often shapes the response.

[G-Unit]

In my mine it means, waffle and an inability to present a logical argument.
Grime and Harrison were inconsistent and contradictory in the meaning of the alerts.. Fact.  This to me supports the idea that the whole process of the alerts had not been properly thought through...

Harrison and Grime downplayed the value of the alerts after the searches compared to before them. Unlike you, I don't think that was due to muddled thinking on their part.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The nature of the questions being asked and reason they are being asked often shapes the response.

Yes hard questions that expose the flaw in the opponent's logic and understanding often have that effect.

[Mr Gray]

Harrison and Grime downplayed the value of the alerts after the searches compared to before them. Unlike you, I don't think that was due to muddled thinking on their part.

Let's see who is muddled..

Harrison
No inference can be taken from the alerts unless supported by physical evince...
Then he says.
The alert may signify a corpse has been present and moved.. Thsts an inference


Grime..
Alerts need to be supported by evidence or anecdotal witness statements..


That contradicts Harrison.


Muddled.. Contradictory... Inconsistent.... Proven

[G-Unit]

Yes hard questions that expose the flaw in the opponent's logic and understanding often have that effect.

I was referring to questions which involve research which the questioner could do themselves. Also to questions about a scenario suggested by the questioner and not by me.

[G-Unit]

Let's see who is muddled..

Harrison
No inference can be taken from the alerts unless supported by physical evince...
Then he says.
The alert may signify a corpse has been present and moved.. Thsts an inference


Grime..
Alerts need to be supported by evidence or anecdotal witness statements..


That contradicts Harrison.


Muddled.. Contradictory... Inconsistent.... Proven

I think your timescale is wrong. On 23rd July Harrison wrote;

"In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed."

It was in a report dated 22nd August that he wrote;

"I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence"

So his opinion changed AFTER the dogs alerted.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I was referring to questions which involve research which the questioner could do themselves. Also to questions about a scenario suggested by the questioner and not by me.

You wrote
Quote from: G-Unit on November 12, 2021, 07:06:58 PM

That refers specifically to critical case investigations. I'm sure the dogs were used previously to provide intelligence, but maybe not always in that kind of investigation.

I replied:

Can you give an example of the sort of case where cadaver and blood dog intelligence might have been called upon in court prior to 2005 that weren’t homicide or abduction cases?

Now, can give an answer to this or not?  You say you are sure of something but seem unwilling to back up your claim, any reason for that?

[Mr Gray]

I think your timescale is wrong. On 23rd July Harrison wrote;

"In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed."

It was in a report dated 22nd August that he wrote;

"I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence"

So his opinion changed AFTER the dogs alerted.

It doesnt matter..he contradicted himself...that is the bottom line.
He also contradicts Grime.