Mark Harrison and the searches he recommended and took part in.

[G-Unit]

For those keen to support Ferryman's stance; it's nothing to do with dog alerts, or with Amaral, it's all about Harrison's text. It seems the failure to understand the subject of the thread isn't 'ours'.

[ferryman]

It's quite clear that new searches were added after the dogs alerted in 5A. In his final report Harrison claimed to have recommended them. Why would he do that if he didn't? Please don't insult people's intelligence by suggesting that he was intimidated in some way.

I don't know why Harrison issued PJ personnel with translated instructions on how to conduct inspections in buildings and vehicles at the point he did so, and neither do you. Unlike you, I haven't invented a reason.

I expect clothing was inspected because the dogs are capable of finding things on textiles even if they have been washed.

Your attempts to twist the events to suit your agenda are very obvious but the evidence to support your assertions isn't there, I'm afraid.

Quite clear how?

Both Harrison and Grime make plain no incriminating inference can be drawn from the reaction of either dog.

[G-Unit]

Quite clear how?

Both Harrison and Grime make plain no incriminating inference can be drawn from the reaction of either dog.

When the extra search warrants were requested after the search of 5A the reason given was that the dogs had alerted in 5A.

Harrison and Grime said after the event that no incriminating inference can be drawn from the reaction of either dog.

Interestingly, they gave the impression before the event that alerts are 'intelligence', so not meaningless as some suggest.

Harrison said;

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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

Grime;

 Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations.....Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

[slartibartfast]

Harrison's recommendations leave no doubt that they are Harrison's.

The rest are prefixed by the impersonal pronoun it!

Explains everything.

Harrison had nothing to do with those recommendations prefixed with it!

It, referred to his report. Strangely enough he didn't want to type  “Decision Support Document in the Search for Madeleine McCann” every time he wanted to refer to it.

[John]

It's quite clear that new searches were added after the dogs alerted in 5A. In his final report Harrison claimed to have recommended them. Why would he do that if he didn't? Please don't insult people's intelligence by suggesting that he was intimidated in some way.

I don't know why Harrison issued PJ personnel with translated instructions on how to conduct inspections in buildings and vehicles at the point he did so, and neither do you. Unlike you, I haven't invented a reason.

I expect clothing was inspected because the dogs are capable of finding things on textiles even if they have been washed.

Your attempts to twist the events to suit your agenda are very obvious but the evidence to support your assertions isn't there, I'm afraid.

I think this thread has reached the end of the road, repeating the same old mantra will not change the facts.