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

[G-Unit]

Sigh ....

Here, again, is what Harrison recommended:

Harrison also considered 'burial of a body', himself explored that option and, himself, ruled it out.

And yet (Amaral's version!) Harrison said that Madeleine is definitely dead; that her 'concealed remains' were somewhere in close proximity to the apartment; that Madeleine's parents were 'probably responisble' (for Madeleine's 'death')

You know ....

I started this thread to explore in detail Harrison's involvement because of your frequent pronouncements on the subject.

You keep referring to 'Amaral said' but provide no cites. I think you need to do that.

You are showing me [again] what Harrison recommended. That does not explain why he himself said he recommended the extra searches, which I have shown that he did say.


You inferred that Harrison was not wholly responsible for a report referred to as 'it'. That was untrue, he was.

You inferred he disagreed with some of the searches carried out. You have no evidence to support that.

Instead of posting new accusations and snippets of information it would be appropriate to clear up the above issues.

[ferryman]

I would like to know if you have a cite for the bolded bit? I can't find it in his book.

The request for Harrison's help was made to the NPIA on 20th July by Encarnacao. Harrison says the request mentioned murder. There is no copy of that request in the files, so it can't be checked.

Harrison would have talked about murder because that was his brief; to look for a murder victim. If Amaral hadn't seen Encarnacao's request he may well have concluded that murder was being suggested by Harrison.
 
It seems that Encarnacao was operating outside the files, as he did with the unrecorded interview with the McCanns on 8th August.

Amaral has been subjected to unrelenting criticism but Encarnacao and Neves seem to have been following an unrecorded agenda of their own which didn't help the investigation at all. Neves played down his contact with the McCanns, but he and Encarnacao met with them on a regular basis at the British Consulate. Had this arrangement not been in place then Amaral may have met and spoken to them at some point, but he was excluded by his superiors.

The final meeting took place at the Police Station, was unrecorded and should not have happened without arguido status for the McCanns. Not only that, if the parents were involved they were given advance warning about the direction of the investigation and another month to prepare themselves before the officially recorded investigation, following procedure, did make them arguidos.

It's in his El Mundo interview.

From Goncalo Amaral's interview to El Mundo

Q - What do you think that could have happened that night?

A - Both the British and Portuguese police, and even the prosecutor, who has already changed his mind, thought the same. We talked about death by others, not murder. In the room blood and cadaver odour was found just below a window where a sofa was. The father was talking to a friend just outside that window for a while. The girl did not have a a heavy sleep, that's what the parents said. Perhaps she heard her father and climbed to the sofa bellow the window. But the parents, for the girl not to go out,moved it away from the wall. Madeleine could have fallen.

[John]

Cadaver, not cadaverine.  Cadaverine is a (comparatively small) component of the whole 'bouquet' (of cadaver scent).  It is present in urine and semen and therefore can be found in living humans as well as dead.

But that aside, I'm sure Harrison understood that perfectly well.

A cadaver doesn't develop but cadaverine does.  Its very simple, either Harrison didn't understand the time the death scents take to develop or he was pursuing parental involvement.

The use of an EVRD in 5a has no relevance to an intruder.

In fact, I see no possible reason why an abductor would take the risk of abducting a child, carrying her openly through the streets to the harbour only to kill her and dump her at sea.  None of it makes any sense whatsoever.

[G-Unit]

It's in his El Mundo interview.

It's usual practice to provide a copy of the cite and a link allowing people to read it themselves, as, I'm sure, you would be the first to point out if others gave you a similar response to the one you have given above.

However, as it seems I'm asking too much expecting you to follow forum norms I went and found it for myself.

Q - What do you think could have happened that night?

A - Both the British and Portuguese police, and even the prosecutor, who has already changed his mind, thought the same. We talked about death by others, not murder.
SILVIA TAULÉS
06 September 2008
El Mundo
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id165.html

The only person who, it is said, talked about murder was Encarnacao in his request for search assistance to the NPIA.

To prove that Amaral lied as you have repeatedly said you need to prove that he knew what Encarnacao said in that request. The fact that there's no copy of that request in the files means it was not included in the official records of the investigation. Therefore it's not possible to prove that Amaral had knowledge of it's contents.

Do you have any proof that murder was discussed?

[ferryman]

It's usual practice to provide a copy of the cite and a link allowing people to read it themselves, as, I'm sure, you would be the first to point out if others gave you a similar response to the one you have given above.

However, as it seems I'm asking too much expecting you to follow forum norms I went and found it for myself.

Q - What do you think could have happened that night?

A - Both the British and Portuguese police, and even the prosecutor, who has already changed his mind, thought the same. We talked about death by others, not murder.
SILVIA TAULÉS
06 September 2008
El Mundo
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id165.html

The only person who, it is said, talked about murder was Encarnacao in his request for search assistance to the NPIA.

To prove that Amaral lied as you have repeatedly said you need to prove that he knew what Encarnacao said in that request. The fact that there's no copy of that request in the files means it was not included in the official records of the investigation. Therefore it's not possible to prove that Amaral had knowledge of it's contents.

Do you have any proof that murder was discussed?

The culmination of a murder investigation is that the McCanns were made arguidos in the (suspected) murder of their daughter, and offered a choice between either confessing (to hiding and concealing 'a body', that of her loved and cherished daughter Madeleine), for a which a comparatively lenient sentence would be imposed against one arguido (Kate); or that Kate and Gerry would face murder charges.

I repeat that the culmination of a murder investigation was that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos in the (alleged!) murder of their daughter.

Page 243 (hardback copy) Madeleine:

Carlos what the police had proposed.  If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I'd receive would be much more lenient: only two years ... as opposed to what I'd be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide.

In the spirit of providing full context, so as not to be personally guilty of libel, this

It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that neither of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.

Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.

[stephen25000]

The culmination of a murder investigation is that the McCanns were made arguidos in the (suspected) murder of their daughter, and offered a choice between either confessing (to hiding and concealing 'a body', that of her loved and cherished daughter Madeleine), for a which a comparatively lenient sentence would be imposed against one arguido (Kate); or that Kate and Gerry would face murder charges.

I repeat that the culmination of a murder investigation was that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos in the (alleged!) murder of their daughter.

Page 243 (hardback copy) Madeleine:

In the spirit of providing full context, so as not to be personally guilty of libel, this

Yet again ferryman for the umpteenth time , it has not been determined who is resppnsible , if anyone is , for Madeleine's disappearance, let alone an unproven and hypothetical abductor.

It is time you learned not to twist facts to suit your mantra.

[ferryman]

Yet again ferryman for the umpteenth time , it has not been determined who is resppnsible , if anyone is , for Madeleine's disappearance, let alone an unproven and hypothetical abductor.

It is time you learned not to twist facts to suit your mantra.

I am clinically providing all the facts.

You respond with (well-worn!) mantras.

[stephen25000]

I am clinically providing all the facts.

You respond with (well-worn!) mantras.

How could the original investigation determine who was responsible if the crime hasn't been determined ?

Let alone clear someone or persons if they haven't been charged.

[ferryman]

How could the original investigation determine who was responsible if the crime hasn't been determined ?

Let alone clear someone or persons if they haven't been charged.

Because the evidence (to bring Madeleine's abdcutor(s) to book had/has)? not been fully adduced.

[sadie]

Mark Harrison was employed to search for the scenario of Madeleine's deceased body being somewhere in PDL. Enter the  specialist dog team of Eddie and Keela to find evidence.

"These recommendations were based on the fact that these areas had not been previously searched with the specific intent to locate Madeleine McCann’s concealed and deceased body and that the areas recommended afforded likely and obvious places to consider for concealment in such an investigation."

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

p.s. If blood were on the clothes Keela would have alerted.

But from the full video, it appears that Keela was only used piecemeal.  She didn't examine all the clothes that Eddie did .... she didn't examine the clothes that Eddie alerted to.

To remind you. 
For there to be any indicators at all both dogs had to be shown everything ... and then only could anything be taken from Eddies alerts


For it to be an indicator to cadavar odour, it was necessary that both dogs sniffed and that Keela did not alert ,... but Eddie did    Both dogs sniffing was a must.

If Eddie sniffed without Keela, then it was most likely dried blood from a living person

If both dogs alerted then it was blood from a living person that they were both alerting to


Keela wasn't shown the clothes that Eddie alerted to, so the odour was NOT cadavar odour, but the odour of dried blood from a living person.


Eddie and Keela DID NOT find any evidence of a cadavar.  NONE.

Furthermore there were no forensics that confirmed anything bad.



It was all a myth, folks !

[stephen25000]

But from the full video, it appears that Keela was only used piecemeal.  She didn't examine all the clothes that Eddie did .... she didn't examine the clothes that Eddie alerted to.

To remind you. 
For there to be any indicators at all both dogs had to be shown everything ... and then only could anything be taken from Eddies alerts


For it to be an indicator to cadavar odour, it was necessary that both dogs sniffed and that Keela did not alert ,... but Eddie did    Both dogs sniffing was a must.

If Eddie sniffed without Keela, then it was most likely dried blood from a living person

If both dogs alerted then it was blood from a living person that they were both alerting to


Keela wasn't shown the clothes that Eddie alerted to, so the odour was NOT cadavar odour, but the odour of dried blood from a living person.


Eddie and Keela DID NOT find any evidence of a cadavar.  NONE.

Furthermore there were no forensics that confirmed anything bad.



It was all a myth, folks !

Supposition Sadie.

[John]

But from the full video, it appears that Keela was only used piecemeal.  She didn't examine all the clothes that Eddie did .... she didn't examine the clothes that Eddie alerted to.

To remind you. 
For there to be any indicators at all both dogs had to be shown everything ... and then only could anything be taken from Eddies alerts


For it to be an indicator to cadavar odour, it was necessary that both dogs sniffed and that Keela did not alert ,... but Eddie did    Both dogs sniffing was a must.

If Eddie sniffed without Keela, then it was most likely dried blood from a living person

If both dogs alerted then it was blood from a living person that they were both alerting to


Keela wasn't shown the clothes that Eddie alerted to, so the odour was NOT cadavar odour, but the odour of dried blood from a living person.


Eddie and Keela DID NOT find any evidence of a cadavar.  NONE.

Furthermore there were no forensics that confirmed anything bad.



It was all a myth, folks !

To be fair Sadie there were a load of substances that Eddie would alert to and in such a situation I would be surprised had he not alerted to something.  I'm surprised he didn't alert more often in those apartments and the two villas.  Frankly it was all one big waste of time imo.

[ferryman]

To be fair Sadie there were a load of substances that Eddie would alert to and in such a situation I would be surprised had he not alerted to something.  I'm surprised he didn't alert more often in those apartments and the two villas.

Fair to who, though?

The dog?

Or the McCanns?

I'm sure Eddie would have survived the odd (disparaging) comment (particularly written that he was never aware of or comprehended) without too much distress.

Not so the McCanns ....

[G-Unit]

The culmination of a murder investigation is that the McCanns were made arguidos in the (suspected) murder of their daughter, and offered a choice between either confessing (to hiding and concealing 'a body', that of her loved and cherished daughter Madeleine), for a which a comparatively lenient sentence would be imposed against one arguido (Kate); or that Kate and Gerry would face murder charges.

I repeat that the culmination of a murder investigation was that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos in the (alleged!) murder of their daughter.

Page 243 (hardback copy) Madeleine:

In the spirit of providing full context, so as not to be personally guilty of libel, this

This post is off topic, but I will answer.

On 7th of September 2007 Kate Healy was declared arguida on the basis of strong presumptions of the crime of concealing a body and simulating an abduction. At 4pm Gerald McCann was declared arguido for the same reasons.

According to Kate Healy/McCann after her interview on 6th May;

Paulo Ferreira stopped me in the corridor and said in a portentous tone, ‘You must go back now and listen very carefully to your lawyer. He has something important to say to you.’

Her lawyer did indeed speak to her and her husband and he advised them what to do, which is part of a lawyers job;

Carlos announced what the police had proposed. If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I’d receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I’d be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide. [Madeleine]

There was no offer of a plea bargain. It had all been "a misunderstanding", the McCann lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, explained the following day.'

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/17/mondaymediasection13

No mention of murder and a denial that a bargain was offered by the person alleged to have offered it. It seems you are adding your own opinions into the mix again. It's quite possible that de Abreu advised Kate Healy/McCann to think carefully about her position, but the idea that it was a bargain offered by the police comes solely from her.

[Robittybob1]

"Homicide" is something like murder though isn't it?