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

[G-Unit]

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?

You can please yourself but a police officer will conclude that the alert occurred because;

The person had no drugs but had been associating with people who had.
The person had drugs but disposed of them.

If the person is seen and recognised by the same police officer at a later date the dog will definitely be used to screen them again.

[G-Unit]

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 .....

What did he mean by 'it' in your opinion then?

[mercury]

That is, indeed, the key part.

There seems to be little or nothing to suggest that Harrison, personally and directly, had anything to do with those inspections apart from those he, personally, recommended.

wheres the evidence that harrison did not personally recommend inspection of the mccanns villa and car?

I quoted you the evidence, you are saying the black and white truth in the documents is not that, so which is it?

[G-Unit]

wheres the evidence that harrison did not personally recommend inspection of the mccanns villa and car?

I quoted you the evidence, you are saying the black and white truth in the documents is not that, so which is it?

It's all a conspiracy apparently. Someone else recommended searching the villa and car and somehow persuaded Harrison to say it was him! This search expert was persuaded to risk ruining his reputation by claimimg he had recommended something which he didn't actually recommend. This mysterious someone must have been very persuasive. 

[Robittybob1]

It's all a conspiracy apparently. Someone else recommended searching the villa and car and somehow persuaded Harrison to say it was him! This search expert was persuaded to risk ruining his reputation by claimimg he had recommended something which he didn't actually recommend. This mysterious someone must have been very persuasive. 

Had it resulted in an admission of guilt even to the lesser charge (accidental death and disposing the body) they would have considered it worthwhile.

[Mr Gray]

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.

again im surprised you were not aware of such a basic fact

[Mr Gray]

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.

reasonable suspicion is  a vague term......the fact that the McCanns are the parents of a missing child puts them under reasonable suspicion so thats about how much the alerts are worth. Some here use the alerts to raise unreasonable suspcion. The alerts without confirmation are basically of no evidential  or intelligence value

[Robittybob1]

reasonable suspicion is  a vague term......the fact that the McCanns are the parents of a missing child puts them under reasonable suspicion so thats about how much the alerts are worth. Some here use the alerts to raise unreasonable suspcion. The alerts without confirmation are basically of no evidential  or intelligence value

I tend to disagree.  If there was a cadaver at some stage in the apartment and it had been removed, and the dogs produce an alert.  What does it tell us?  It is just that we can't absolutely go backwards and say because there was an alert there must have been a cadaver but it opens that option as a possibility.

[Brietta]

Had it resulted in an admission of guilt even to the lesser charge (accidental death and disposing the body) they would have considered it worthwhile.

What is the immediate question that would have been asked before a "lesser" charge was made?

"What did you do with the body?" springs to mind.  Where do you think that might have taken the investigation if armed with a 'confession'?

Why was Mark Harrison eventually called in to advise the investigation?  For his expertise and experience, perhaps? 

Unfortunately the investigation did not take on board his and the handler's advice regarding the exact significance of the dogs' alerts.
Nor did the investigation seem to understand the importance of having the patience to await confirmation of the results of forensic investigation.  Or perhaps they did only too well.

The McCanns were easily accessible ... so why the rush to have them constituted arguido a few days before Portuguese law changes were due to come into effect which would have required firm supporting evidence.



Police 'rushed Madeleine McCann case'

A new penal code was introduced on Sep 15

By Fiona Govan in Praia da Luz5:01PM GMT 05 Dec 2007

Madeleine McCann’s parents might have been spared the anguish of being named suspects over her disappearance if Portuguese police had not rushed their case through before a change in the law, it has been claimed.

Kate and Gerry McCann were made arguidos - formal suspects - just eight days before new legal measures were introduced which would have required firmer evidence against them.

The couple’s Portuguese lawyer has claimed that detectives may have deliberately fast-tracked the investigation to ensure they were put in the frame.

Investigators named the McCanns, both 39, as arguidos on September 7 after allegedly finding microscopic traces of blood in their holiday apartment and "bodily fluids" they thought could have belonged to Madeleine in the boot of their hire car.

Carlos Pinto de Abreu, a Portuguese lawyer on the McCanns’ defence team, said that under Portugal’s new penal code, police must have more than just suspicions to make somebody an arguido.
"On September 15 a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen before they could be made an arguido.
"Before this date it wasn’t necessary. You could be made an arguido without actual evidence against you," he said.

"Maybe that is why the investigation took the turn it did - why they were named arguidos eight days before the new laws came in," said Mr Pinto de Abreu.

His comments followed those of Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal’s Attorney General, who recently admitted the McCanns may not have been made suspects under the new laws.
"At the time when the McCanns were made 'arguidos' the law did not demand justified suspicions. I do not know if they would be (arguidos) in light of the new Code," he said in an interview with the Portuguese magazine Visao.

Clarence Mitchell, the official spokesman of the McCanns, said he hoped the introduction of the new law would work in their favour.
"Being declared arguidos almost three months ago caused the McCanns’ immense anguish and continues to do so," he said.
 
"To think they could have been saved that under a law introduced only days later makes a mockery of the case against them.
"They are entirely innocent victims of a horrible crime that has taken away their daughter and they want to be cleared as soon as possible so the focus can return to finding Madeleine.

"If it is true that changes to the law would have meant that they would not have been made arguidos that’s all the more reason for their status to be dropped now.

"Regardless of any changes in the law they should be eliminated forthwith from the inquiry."
Portuguese police were told last week that forensic results requested from Birmingham’s Forensic Science Service had so far proved "inconclusive".

They plan to travel to Britain next week to re-interview the McCanns and the seven friends who dined with them at the Tapas restaurant on the night of May 3, when Madeleine went missing from the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html

[Robittybob1]

What is the immediate question that would have been asked before a "lesser" charge was made?

"What did you do with the body?" springs to mind.  Where do you think that might have taken the investigation if armed with a 'confession'?

Why was Mark Harrison eventually called in to advise the investigation?  For his expertise and experience, perhaps? 

.......

But if they or Kate made a confession hopefully she would be able to answer that question.  Hopefully she wasn't going to make a false confession.

[G-Unit]

What is the immediate question that would have been asked before a "lesser" charge was made?

"What did you do with the body?" springs to mind.  Where do you think that might have taken the investigation if armed with a 'confession'?

Why was Mark Harrison eventually called in to advise the investigation?  For his expertise and experience, perhaps? 

Unfortunately the investigation did not take on board his and the handler's advice regarding the exact significance of the dogs' aPJrts.
Nor did the investigation seem to understand the importance of having the patience to await confirmation of the results of forensic investigation.  Or perhaps they did only too well.

The McCanns were easily accessible ... so why the rush to have them constituted arguido a few days before Portuguese law changes were due to come into effect which would have required firm supporting evidence.



Police 'rushed Madeleine McCann case'

A new penal code was introduced on Sep 15

By Fiona Govan in Praia da Luz5:01PM GMT 05 Dec 2007

Madeleine McCann’s parents might have been spared the anguish of being named suspects over her disappearance if Portuguese police had not rushed their case through before a change in the law, it has been claimed.

Kate and Gerry McCann were made arguidos - formal suspects - just eight days before new legal measures were introduced which would have required firmer evidence against them.

The couple’s Portuguese lawyer has claimed that detectives may have deliberately fast-tracked the investigation to ensure they were put in the frame.

Investigators named the McCanns, both 39, as arguidos on September 7 after allegedly finding microscopic traces of blood in their holiday apartment and "bodily fluids" they thought could have belonged to Madeleine in the boot of their hire car.

Carlos Pinto de Abreu, a Portuguese lawyer on the McCanns’ defence team, said that under Portugal’s new penal code, police must have more than just suspicions to make somebody an arguido.
"On September 15 a new procedural penal code was introduced making it necessary for there to be evidence against the citizen before they could be made an arguido.
"Before this date it wasn’t necessary. You could be made an arguido without actual evidence against you," he said.

"Maybe that is why the investigation took the turn it did - why they were named arguidos eight days before the new laws came in," said Mr Pinto de Abreu.

His comments followed those of Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro, Portugal’s Attorney General, who recently admitted the McCanns may not have been made suspects under the new laws.
"At the time when the McCanns were made 'arguidos' the law did not demand justified suspicions. I do not know if they would be (arguidos) in light of the new Code," he said in an interview with the Portuguese magazine Visao.

Clarence Mitchell, the official spokesman of the McCanns, said he hoped the introduction of the new law would work in their favour.
"Being declared arguidos almost three months ago caused the McCanns’ immense anguish and continues to do so," he said.
 
"To think they could have been saved that under a law introduced only days later makes a mockery of the case against them.
"They are entirely innocent victims of a horrible crime that has taken away their daughter and they want to be cleared as soon as possible so the focus can return to finding Madeleine.

"If it is true that changes to the law would have meant that they would not have been made arguidos that’s all the more reason for their status to be dropped now.

"Regardless of any changes in the law they should be eliminated forthwith from the inquiry."
Portuguese police were told last week that forensic results requested from Birmingham’s Forensic Science Service had so far proved "inconclusive".

They plan to travel to Britain next week to re-interview the McCanns and the seven friends who dined with them at the Tapas restaurant on the night of May 3, when Madeleine went missing from the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html

Kate McCann tells us in her book that DCS Bob Small informed the PJ that they were going back to the UK. She doesn't say when this was done, but on 3rd September Paiva appeared to tell them they were going to be interviewed;

He clarified with us the date of our planned departure back to the UK and told us that the PJ wanted to ‘interrogate’ me on Wednesday and Gerry on Thursday. We’d waited almost four weeks for these interviews and it was obvious they had been hastily arranged once Bob Small notified the PJ that we would be leaving the country. Otherwise, why now? As far as we knew, they didn’t have the forensic results back yet. [Madeleine]

It was the planned departure of the McCanns that forced the hand of the PJ. It was speak to them now or never.

[Brietta]

Kate McCann tells us in her book that DCS Bob Small informed the PJ that they were going back to the UK. She doesn't say when this was done, but on 3rd September Paiva appeared to tell them they were going to be interviewed;

He clarified with us the date of our planned departure back to the UK and told us that the PJ wanted to ‘interrogate’ me on Wednesday and Gerry on Thursday. We’d waited almost four weeks for these interviews and it was obvious they had been hastily arranged once Bob Small notified the PJ that we would be leaving the country. Otherwise, why now? As far as we knew, they didn’t have the forensic results back yet. [Madeleine]

It was the planned departure of the McCanns that forced the hand of the PJ. It was speak to them now or never.

Hmmm ... I see ... information about European Arrest Warrants hadn't filtered through to Portugal at that time?

Had the Policia Judiciaria gained evidence to justify recalling the McCanns to Portugal to face questioning, charges and trial, the police in Britain would have complied.

The fact that they had no evidence with which to prefer charges when they made the McCanns arguidos is self evident.  The fact that there was no future evidence to justify charges being laid against them is self evident.

That making them arguidos was precipitate is affirmed by Portugal’s Attorney General, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html as well as on February 4th 2008 when - Portugal's top detective, Alipio Ribeiro, says in a radio interview that police were "hasty" in making Madeleine's parents suspects in her disappearance.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-officially-cleared-729039

It is disingenuous to suggest the McCann's proposed return home was responsible for yet another devastating lapse of judgement in the conduct of Madeleine's case.
Nor is it a decision on which Harrison was consulted despite his expertise and consultancy status ... unless you know different?

[slartibartfast]

Hmmm ... I see ... information about European Arrest Warrants hadn't filtered through to Portugal at that time?

Had the Policia Judiciaria gained evidence to justify recalling the McCanns to Portugal to face questioning, charges and trial, the police in Britain would have complied.

The fact that they had no evidence with which to prefer charges when they made the McCanns arguidos is self evident.  The fact that there was no future evidence to justify charges being laid against them is self evident.

That making them arguidos was precipitate is affirmed by Portugal’s Attorney General, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html as well as on February 4th 2008 when - Portugal's top detective, Alipio Ribeiro, says in a radio interview that police were "hasty" in making Madeleine's parents suspects in her disappearance.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-officially-cleared-729039

It is disingenuous to suggest the McCann's proposed return home was responsible for yet another devastating lapse of judgement in the conduct of Madeleine's case.
Nor is it a decision on which Harrison was consulted despite his expertise and consultancy status ... unless you know different?

We have no idea if Harrison was involved and any claim one way or another is pure speculation.

[Alice Purjorick]

Hmmm ... I see ... information about European Arrest Warrants hadn't filtered through to Portugal at that time?

Had the Policia Judiciaria gained evidence to justify recalling the McCanns to Portugal to face questioning, charges and trial, the police in Britain would have complied.

The fact that they had no evidence with which to prefer charges when they made the McCanns arguidos is self evident.  The fact that there was no future evidence to justify charges being laid against them is self evident.

That making them arguidos was precipitate is affirmed by Portugal’s Attorney General, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html as well as on February 4th 2008 when - Portugal's top detective, Alipio Ribeiro, says in a radio interview that police were "hasty" in making Madeleine's parents suspects in her disappearance.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-officially-cleared-729039

It is disingenuous to suggest the McCann's proposed return home was responsible for yet another devastating lapse of judgement in the conduct of Madeleine's case.
Nor is it a decision on which Harrison was consulted despite his expertise and consultancy status ... unless you know different?

The EAW was introduced in 2004. If you take the scuttlebutt on this here site as being pukkah gen then Portugal is a backwoodsy, third worldy, slow moving hicksville type of a place so I guess by 2007 the cleft stick runner bringing the news from Aix to Ghent the EU Directive was stuck up in the Serra da Estrela.

A EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, not merely an investigation, or enforcing a custodial sentence. It can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months or more in prison. Where sentence has already been passed a EAW can only be issued if the prison term to be enforced is at least four months long.

[G-Unit]

Hmmm ... I see ... information about European Arrest Warrants hadn't filtered through to Portugal at that time?

Had the Policia Judiciaria gained evidence to justify recalling the McCanns to Portugal to face questioning, charges and trial, the police in Britain would have complied.

The fact that they had no evidence with which to prefer charges when they made the McCanns arguidos is self evident.  The fact that there was no future evidence to justify charges being laid against them is self evident.

That making them arguidos was precipitate is affirmed by Portugal’s Attorney General, Fernando Jose Pinto Monteiro
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571699/Police-rushed-Madeleine-McCann-case.html as well as on February 4th 2008 when - Portugal's top detective, Alipio Ribeiro, says in a radio interview that police were "hasty" in making Madeleine's parents suspects in her disappearance.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-officially-cleared-729039

It is disingenuous to suggest the McCann's proposed return home was responsible for yet another devastating lapse of judgement in the conduct of Madeleine's case.
Nor is it a decision on which Harrison was consulted despite his expertise and consultancy status ... unless you know different?

I am simply reporting how Kate McCann saw it. I have no idea why you think the opinion of someone who was a search advisor would be sought? The McCanns were made arguidos because the intention was to question them about matters to which their answers could have incriminated them. Witnesses were not allowed to remain silent or have a lawyer present.