Morais blog in the Portuguese press

marigold wrote:Mark Harrison was the first police office to suggest that Madeleine Mccann was probably dead and it was he who advised that Eddie and Keela be brought in. Why don't they sue him?

Why would they? He hasn't pushed an agenda, or gone about in public making claims about the dogs that were never substantiated.

Raffle wrote:

littlepixie wrote:Yes we all know it is not evidence without corroboration and that is the frustrating thing.

Interesting how Harrison doesnt mention that Eddie might smell blood or cadaver though.

Maybe that is because Harrison isn't setting himself up as a dog expert like some people on forums think they are?

It is my understanding that Mark Harrison IS a dog expert.

littlepixie wrote:

Raffle wrote:

littlepixie wrote:Yes we all know it is not evidence without corroboration and that is the frustrating thing.

Interesting how Harrison doesnt mention that Eddie might smell blood or cadaver though.

Maybe that is because Harrison isn't setting himself up as a dog expert like some people on forums think they are?

It is my understanding that Mark Harrison IS a dog expert.

Not according to himself he's not, he a general adviser of the UK NPIA - it's all in the files, did you not read them?

Well according to his report and his recommendations he knows an awful lot about them.

Far more of an expert than you or I.

Mark Harrison also said he was on the Soham case, but he never was involved in the case.

marigold wrote:Mark Harrison was the first police office to suggest that Madeleine Mccann was probably dead and it was he who advised that Eddie and Keela be brought in.

Did he? When, where? Is it in the files?

My understanding was that Mark Harrison was specifically tasked by the PJ to come up with some suggestions as to where the body would be IF Madeleine were dead.
He suggested areas that should be searched based on patterns of offending and behaviour noted from paedophile child murders.

CARTAS ROGATORIAS 3 Pages 19 to 20

MARK HARRISON 02-05-08

LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE SQUAD
WITNESS TESTIMONY OF MARK HARRISON
Occupation: Police Agent

This statement, consisting of two pages, each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have willfully states in it anything I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

Date: 2 May 2008
Signature:

I am an official with the British Police at the service of the UK National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and work there as a special advising investigator. I was asked to respond to four questions by the Policia Judiciaria in a document sent by them. The questions appear in this statement in italics.

On 20.07.2007 I was sent by NPIA to Portugal with the goal of helping the Leicestershire police and the Policia Judiciaria relative to the disappearance of a child, Madeleine McCann, missing since 03.05.07 from Praia da Luz, Algarve, Portugal.

The terms of assistance we agreed to provide were directed by the PJ Regional Director, Guilhermino ENCARNACO after consultation with DI Neil HOLDEN of the Leicestershire Police and myself, the details of which are on page two of the document I authored, titled ?Decision Support Document in the Search for Madeleine McCann? dated 23.07.2007 and presented as evidence MH4.

1. What criteria was used in the selection of local searches?
2. Considering the geographic location of Praia da Luz, where would a corpse be hidden?

In accordance to the referenced terms, the charge given to me by Guilhermino ENCARNACO was to comment on prior search activity by the PJ and the GNR in Praia da Luz and to offer a new scenario for the searches with the consideration of the hiding of a corpse and human remains. Assisted by Professor Oscar Ferreira and Alverinho Dias of the University of the Algarve, we conducted an assessment of the terrain of the immediate excavation areas relative to the viability of a superficial burial of human remains and also considering the possibility of a human cadaver having been thrown into the ocean in Praia da Luz. This assessment and the respective conclusions are detailed in the evidence MH4 and in ?Decision Support Document in the Search for Madeleine McCann?Praia da Luz & Marina? dated 23.07.2007, presented as evidence MH5.

The documents were submitted to the Leicestershire Police and the Policia Judiciaria and are detailed as to the areas of consideration in additional searches using GNR, and using canines and geophysical elements. My rational was based in the proximity of the location where Madeleine McCann went missing and the scenario of occultation of human remains. The prior search activities in these zones were concentrated in a scenario of a missing child, hurt or maintained captive.

After the submission of two documents, I attended two meetings in the Portimao Police headquarters on the 23/07.2007 with DI NEIL HOLDEN of theLeicestershire Police and the other on 30.07.2007 with DI ALAN ORCHARD of the Leicestershire Police. At both meetings, PJ agents were present and they were presided over by the Regional Director of the PJ Guilhermino ENCARNCAO who selected and established the priorities for the search areas.


3. How did the searches evolve?
Between the 31.07.2007 and 07.08.2007 the searches took place in Praia da Luz were under the command and supervision of the Chief Inspector Vitor MATOS of the PJ. He was personally present at the searches and at his request I accompanied him as an advisor. The searches evolved were multidisciplinary and involved the PJ, GNR, UK Police and the University of Aveiro. All the searches that occurred were documented in video by the PJ, including location, time and date stamps.

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 theLeicestershire 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.


4. In this particular case, based on the information and on your experience, what is the possibility that a cadaver was occulted?
To this question I am not in possession of any information or sufficient knowledge to comment.

On 10.08.2007 I concluded my posting and returned to the United Kingdom.

This statement was made by me and is truthful and in accordance with my knowledge.

"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."

Grime actually said this in a meeting with GA.

He clearly wasn't listening, or perhaps something got lost in translation.

badmanners wrote:He clearly wasn't listening, or perhaps something got lost in translation.

Of course the meeting was before the forensic results were known.

DCB1 wrote:

badmanners wrote:He clearly wasn't listening, or perhaps something got lost in translation.

Of course the meeting was before the forensic results were known.

And when the forensic results were known, he ignored what the experts wrote. Or may be it was too difficult or inconvenient for him to understand?