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

[stephen25000]

No I don't

That is a matter of opinion.

[G-Unit]

I've yet to spot an interpretation as valid as mine.

Thank you. You have just confirmed that your assertions are based on your interpretation of the evidence, not on what it actually says.

Therefore your interpretation isn't factual, however much you try to say it is.

You can only say you think, you cannot say you know.

[ferryman]

Thank you. You have just confirmed that your assertions are based on your interpretation of the evidence, not on what it actually says.

Therefore your interpretation isn't factual, however much you try to say it is.

You can only say you think, you cannot say you know.

I can only point to the facts that confirm my interpretation as correct, which I have done, repeatedly.

[G-Unit]

I can only point to the facts that confirm my interpretation as correct, which I have done, repeatedly.

All the facts tell us is that two of the searches carried out were not recommended in the first report. If you pointed that out to the author and he said he thought they were, but he now remembers it was a verbal recommendation, you cannot disprove that statement.

[ferryman]

All the facts tell us is that two of the searches carried out were not recommended in the first report. If you pointed that out to the author and he said he thought they were, but he now remembers it was a verbal recommendation, you cannot disprove that statement.

Three of the searches were not recommended by Harrison (at all).

Harrison played no part in the decision to extend the length of vehicle-inspection (from vehicles owned or driven by Murat) to 8 other vehicles (including the Renault Scenic, hired 3 weeks after Madeleine's abduction)

[G-Unit]

Three of the searches were not recommended by Harrison (at all).

Harrison played no part in the decision to extend the length of vehicle-inspection (from vehicles owned or driven by Murat) to 8 other vehicles (including the Renault Scenic, hired 3 weeks after Madeleine's abduction)

You are now contradicting the man himself. He wrote down in black and white that he recommended all the searches. Even though the precise recommendations are not in his first report, he claims they were. He made a mistake, big deal. The fact remains he wouldn't agree with you, his final report proves that.

[mercury]

Three of the searches were not recommended by Harrison (at all).

Harrison played no part in the decision to extend the length of vehicle-inspection (from vehicles owned or driven by Murat) to 8 other vehicles (including the Renault Scenic, hired 3 weeks after Madeleine's abduction)

Which three?

villa, cars and clothes?

Villa and cars is documented by harrison as agreed recommendations

[Robittybob1]

The fluency of the additional parts of the report could be different.  Obviously there won't anyone owning up to this but it still might be provable.

[ferryman]

Cite for these allegations?

It is plain barking to suppose that Harrison would have recommended canine-inspections of a vehicle hired (by the McCanns) 3 weeks after her disappearance.

The written record demonstrates that Harrison didn't (recommend such an inspection).

Who did?

It is similarly plain barking that there should have been canine inspections in the residence the McCanns moved into after vacating the holiday apartment and after Madeleine had vanished.

Who recommended those?

Not Harrison.

He just recommended that holiday apartments be inspected.

[ferryman]

The question is why are you making allegations which you cannot prove?

I am stating a fact (that Harrison had nothing to do with inspections Madeleine never lived in or went near) and inviting speculation as to who might have.

It is plain barking to suppose that Harrison would have recommended canine inspection of a vehicle hired 3 weeks after Madeleine vanished (the Renault Scenic) and Harrison was not plain barking.

He recommended only that vehicles (sic) owned or driven by Murat should be inspected.

That's what the record says.

Who recommended the (other) searches?

Obviously not Harrison.

Harrison just touched his forelock and accepted a fait accompli that these other searches should be conducted.

[G-Unit]

It is plain barking to suppose that Harrison would have recommended canine-inspections of a vehicle hired (by the McCanns) 3 weeks after her disappearance.

THAT IS MERELY YOUR AMATEUR OPINION.

The written record demonstrates that Harrison didn't (recommend such an inspection).

THE REPORT WRITTEN BY HARRISON CLAIMS HE DID RECOMMEND IT.

Who did?

ACCORDING TO HARRISON HE DID.

It is similarly plain barking that there should have been canine inspections in the residence the McCanns moved into after vacating the holiday apartment and after Madeleine had vanished.

THAT IS MERELY YOUR AMATEUR OPINION.

Who recommended those?

HARRISON WROTE IN HIS REPORT THAT HE DID

He just recommended that holiday apartments be inspected.

IN HIS FIRST REPORT. BUT THE SITUATION CHANGED LEADING TO ADDITIONAL SEARCHES, WHICH HE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECOMMENDED

I have answered each point underneath it.

[slartibartfast]

I am stating a fact (that Harrison had nothing to do with inspections Madeleine never lived in or went near) and inviting speculation as to who might have.

It is plain barking to suppose that Harrison would have recommended canine inspection of a vehicle hired 3 weeks after Madeleine vanished (the Renault Scenic) and Harrison was not plain barking.

He recommended only that vehicles (sic) owned or driven by Murat should be inspected.

That's what the record says.

Who recommended the (other) searches?

Obviously not Harrison.

Harrison just touched his forelock and accepted a fait accompli that these other searches should be conducted.

The one thing it isn't is a fact, it is your deduction based on your own bias.

[ferryman]

I have answered each point underneath it.

No you haven't.

You have cobbled together a formula of words that answers nothing.

[Robittybob1]

Could the actual words used to support an argument be referenced please?

[G-Unit]

I only giving someone a clue as to a feature that might be in the document.  It is not intended as a speculation.

If you posted passages from a document which seemed inconsistent in style that's one thing. Speculating that they might exist is another. The moon might be made of green cheese, but there's no point in saying that without supporting evidence, is there?