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

[G-Unit]

The only thing to emerge from the so-called 'search' of the villa was perfectly obscene extended video shots of boxes of anti-Parkinsonian medication taken by Kate's father, no doubt intended to reinforce the impression of some link between drugs and Madeleine's alleged 'demise'.

The 'inspection' of the villa was a disgrace, capped only by the following 'inspection' in the gym ....

You mean the search recommended by Mark Harrison and conducted in his presence and according to his instructions? Well, the UK police meant well I expect.

[Brietta]

After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm

As far as I am concerned Ferryman has not deviated from the information imparted by Britain's best to Portugal's best at a meeting in Amaral's office.

[G-Unit]

Brietta
Your quotes don't address the thread topic at all, though do they? The question is whether Harrison recommended and took part in all the searches. The evidence says he did and Ferryman says he didn't.

[John]

This thread has now been edited in its entirety.  Please do not post comment which is irrelevant to the thread topic. TY.

[John]

Brietta
Your quotes don't address the thread topic at all, though do they? The question is whether Harrison recommended and took part in all the searches. The evidence says he did and Ferryman says he didn't.

I would think that the latter searches were decided upon after careful consideration of the initial results.  Objectives at the outset of any live enquiry are seldom set in stone.

[ferryman]

I would think that the latter searches were decided upon after careful consideration of the initial results.  Objectives at the outset of any live enquiry are seldom set in stone.

There was nothing, even theoretically, that might have come from inspections in places Madeleine never went near that could have advanced, or even assisted, the enquiry. 

[jassi]

There was nothing, even theoretically, that might have come from inspections in places Madeleine never went near that could have advanced, or even assisted, the enquiry.

Is it not for the police to decide what is and what is not relevant to their inquiries?

[ferryman]

Is it not for the police to decide what is and what is not relevant to their inquiries?

Of course it is, to an extent.

They follow where they believe information that might advance an investigation might be found.

Sometimes they are right; (perhaps) more often they are wrong.

But always, they undertake investigations in the hope that their efforts will unearth something of worth.

[stephen25000]

There was nothing, even theoretically, that might have come from inspections in places Madeleine never went near that could have advanced, or even assisted, the enquiry.

You don't know that.

You weren't there, were you ?

[stephen25000]

Of course it is, to an extent.

They follow where they believe information that might advance an investigation might be found.

Sometimes they are right; (perhaps) more often they are wrong.

But always, they undertake investigations in the hope that their efforts will unearth something of worth.

Other than abduction ?

That would make sense.

[G-Unit]

There was nothing, even theoretically, that might have come from inspections in places Madeleine never went near that could have advanced, or even assisted, the enquiry.

According to some you are the forum 'expert', but the accredited expert, Mark Harrison MBE, National Search Adviser, NPIA, appears to have disagreed with you.

[ferryman]

According to some you are the forum 'expert', but the accredited expert, Mark Harrison MBE, National Search Adviser, NPIA, appears to have disagreed with you.

Why did Harrison (retrospectively) acknowledge Grime and his dogs only in those inspections Harrison recommended?

[G-Unit]

Why did Harrison (retrospectively) acknowledge Grime and his dogs only in those inspections Harrison recommended?

I have no idea why Harrison wrote his report in the way he did and neither do you. I could make wild guesses like you do but I prefer to stay with the facts. Your guesses will never be facts no matter how often you repeat them.

[ferryman]

I have no idea why Harrison wrote his report in the way he did and neither do you. I could make wild guesses like you do but I prefer to stay with the facts. Your guesses will never be facts no matter how often you repeat them.

Everything I state is factual, including that Harrison originally, personally and directly, recommended only inspections in the places Madeleine either had been; or conceivably might have been.

Also, it is factual that retrospectively Harrison owned the input of Grime and his dogs only in those places Harrison (originally) recommended.

[Alice Purjorick]

Everything I state is factual, including that Harrison originally, personally and directly, recommended only inspections in the places Madeleine either had been; or conceivably might have been.

Also, it is factual that retrospectively Harrison owned the input of Grime and his dogs only in those places Harrison (originally) recommended.

What are you actually trying to demonstrate with all this?