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

[G-Unit]

Can I have the exact quote?

Again? How many times do you need to see it? You know very well what it says. Just tell me what Harrison is referring to when he says 'it' and we'll take it from there.

[ferryman]

Do you have a cite for the bolded bit please? I can only find this;

Later the same day PJ officers conducted a screening procedure involving items removed from the McCann’s villa.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm


The warrant to search the McCann's villa and hire car wasn't applied for until after the alerts in G5A. Note the date at the bottom of Joao Carlos' request below.

Then consider who might suggest applying for these new search warrants? The PJ, who knew little about the capabilities of the British dogs, or the British, who knew that personal items such as clothes and soft toys retain scents? Perhaps that's why Harrison claims to have recommended the searches in his final report?

1 - Rua das Flores, no 27, Vivenda Vista do Mar, Luz Park, Luz, Lagos (the present residence of the McCann family in Luz)
2 - Hired vehicle used by the McCanns, the "Renault Scenic", number plate 59-DA-27.

Further, and of no small importance, it is also requested that a magistrate issue search warrants for [the above two locations] to enable us to recover new items/clues.

I ask that you consider the above and decide at your convenience.

Portimao, 1 August 2007
Inspector
Joao Carlos
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm

You've got the right wording (of Harrison's description of the inspection at the gym)

And it's not to do with the the abilities of the dogs.

It's to do with searches that even stood a chance of advancing the investigation.  Clothing examined 3 months after the crime didn't.

So the question (of how inspections, or components of inspections with clearly no prospect of likelihood of advancing the investigation) came about remains unanswered.

Nothing (in the public domain) helps us to answer them.

[G-Unit]

You've got the right wording (of Harrison's description of the inspection at the gym)

And it's not to do with the the abilities of the dogs.

It's to do with searches that even stood a chance of advancing the investigation.  Clothing examined 3 months after the crime didn't.

So the question (of how inspections, or components of inspections with clearly no prospect of likelihood of advancing the investigation) came about remains unanswered.

Nothing (in the public domain) helps us to answer them.

Just answer my question. What was Harrison referring to when he said 'it' in his final report.

[ferryman]

Just answer my question. What was Harrison referring to when he said 'it' in his final report.

Some recommendation made (by someone else) for inspections that were never going to carry the investigation forward.

And no mention of the inspection of the gym until (just) before it happens.

[ferryman]

The claim by Mark Harrison in his final report that he recommended all the searches which took place. It's quite clear.

Suggests? Only to those who are 'reading between the lines' and finding things which exist only in their fertile imaginations. 

It's not remotely clear for the reasons I have spelt out.

[Alfie]

I find the strongly worded denials of the usefulness of the alerts by Harrison and Grime interesting.

UK police use dog alerts in other situations as arousing 'reasonable suspicion'. Reasonable suspicion is not, of course, proof.

Suspecting a person of having committed a criminal offence falls a long way short of having demonstrable proof that this is the case
http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Arrest-Reasonable-Suspicion-and-Court-Appeal

Nevertheless, reasonable suspicion allows further action. If a drug sniffer dog alerts, the person alerted to can then be searched for possession. Without the dog alert they cannot [PACE forbids stopping and searching at random].
http://www.release.org.uk/blog/uk-festivals-sniffer-dogs-their-regulations-your-rights

If alerts by drug detection dogs create reasonable suspicion, it follows that alerts by cadaver dogs do the same. So it can't be said the alerts were meaningless.

if a sniffer dog alerts to a person and no drugs are found on them for how many more years must we remain suspicious of them?  Forever?

[Mr Gray]

We know about the evidential reliabity it was the intelligence reliability I was interested in.

It's been in grimes statement for the last nine years.... It seems some are not aware of what grime has said

[slartibartfast]

It's been in grimes statement for the last nine years.... It seems some are not aware of what grime has said

Well cite it then.

[ferryman]

The claim by Mark Harrison in his final report that he recommended all the searches which took place. It's quite clear.

Suggests? Only to those who are 'reading between the lines' and finding things which exist only in their fertile imaginations. 

Cite?

[G-Unit]

Some recommendation made (by someone else) for inspections that were never going to carry the investigation forward.

And no mention of the inspection of the gym until (just) before it happens.

That was not what Harrison was referring to when he said 'it'.

He was referring to the report “Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document”, and 'it' recommended searching;

All accommodation occupied by the McCann family and their friends as well as any hired vehicles.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

The author of that report he refers to was Mark Harrison;

I undertook a series of briefings and site visits. These were with GNR and PJ personnel who had been involved in the previous searches conducted the week following Madeleine McCann’s disappearance in Praia da Luz.The output of this process of reconnaissance and review was a written document entitled “Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document”

If the document was written by Harrison and he says 'it' recommended something then it was Harrison who recommended it. That's a logical statement, ferryman.

[Mr Gray]

Well cite it then.

Have you really never seen it
That says a lot about your knowledge of the alerts

[slartibartfast]

Have you really never seen it
That says a lot about your knowledge of the alerts

If you can't cite it just say so?

[ferryman]

That was not what Harrison was referring to when he said 'it'.

He was referring to the report “Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document”, and 'it' recommended searching;

All accommodation occupied by the McCann family and their friends as well as any hired vehicles.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

The author of that report he refers to was Mark Harrison;

I undertook a series of briefings and site visits. These were with GNR and PJ personnel who had been involved in the previous searches conducted the week following Madeleine McCann’s disappearance in Praia da Luz.The output of this process of reconnaissance and review was a written document entitled “Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document”

If the document was written by Harrison and he says 'it' recommended something then it was Harrison who recommended it. That's a logical statement, ferryman.

Not letting you get away with that.

What Harrison (personally) recommended I have already cited.

And those recommendations have a ring of logic: the places Madeleine either had been or (conceivably) might have been.

The McCanns moved into the villa after Madeleine vanished.

They hired the car 3 weeks later.

The gym?

All we can say about that is that Madeleine never (in her life) went near it.

No logic or rationale whatever.

Actually, there is .....

[slartibartfast]

Have you really never seen it
That says a lot about your knowledge of the alerts

Well I found it, so you don't need to worry about finding it. It would have been easier if you had cited it in the first place. If you want the link, let me know.

[ferryman]

Just answer my question. What was Harrison referring to when he said 'it' in his final report.

Recommendations (of someone else! not Harrison) that inspections be carried out in places where there was not the slightest chance of any outcome of benefit to the enquiry.