Re: New DCI

by aiyoyo 23.12.14 3:19

Elça Craig wrote:

I am happy to discuss with you what you feel about the dogs and what the dogs said on a thread on this forum of your own choice.

What the dogs said ? Are you serious?

by ultimaThule 23.12.14 3:41

aiyoyo wrote:
"I'm a bit different," she admits. "The jury nearly fell over last time I was in the box!"

That remark of DCI Wall is so self conceited, bad.

As bad as Kate's full of herself remark "Rome is preparing itself"

My late mentor, a woman of towering intellect and commensurate achievement in an overwhelmingly male dominated profession, never dressed down when she could dress up.

Her pride in her femininity, coupled with her meticulous attention to grooming, owed nothing to vanity; it was a manifestation of the innate respect she had for herself and for others.

I see nothing more in DCI Wall's remark than her telling it how it is, aiyoyo, and it seems to me that those who have disparaged this hard-working high-achieving dectective merely on the basis of her appearance are one and the same as those who would be the first to protest should they be judged solely on the way they present themselves to the world.

by missbeetle 23.12.14 5:03

Smoky eyes, honey-coloured tidy hair and black nail polish...

...this chick rocks! I'm liking her style.

Do they still make the English policewomen wear those bowlerish hats?

Can the ladies wear those bobby helmets if they wish to?

Best of luck to DCI Wall.

by Woofer 23.12.14 9:37

Unbelievable the thuggish behaviour towards new posters on this forum - no better than muratfan`s ugly mouth. We basically have a good forum here but when no one is moderating the bullies it will slide quickly into the gutter and I don`t want that. Shame as it reflects so badly on the forum.

by Liz Eagles 23.12.14 10:24

Woofer wrote:Unbelievable the thuggish behaviour towards new posters on this forum - no better than muratfan`s ugly mouth. We basically have a good forum here but when no one is moderating the bullies it will slide quickly into the gutter and I don`t want that. Shame as it reflects so badly on the forum.

You can always go and have a moan on the other site Woofer - in that special topic you like for moaning about this forum...that would be the forum that allowed muratfan to join.

by Liz Eagles 23.12.14 11:20

ultimaThule wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
"I'm a bit different," she admits. "The jury nearly fell over last time I was in the box!"

That remark of DCI Wall is so self conceited, bad.

As bad as Kate's full of herself remark "Rome is preparing itself"

My late mentor, a woman of towering intellect and commensurate achievement in an overwhelmingly male dominated profession, never dressed down when she could dress up.

Her pride in her femininity, coupled with her meticulous attention to grooming, owed nothing to vanity; it was a manifestation of the innate respect she had for herself and for others.

I see nothing more in DCI Wall's remark than her telling it how it is, aiyoyo, and it seems to me that those who have disparaged this hard-working high-achieving dectective merely on the basis of her appearance are one and the same as those who would be the first to protest should they be judged solely on the way they present themselves to the world.

Tell me, was your late mentor an officer of the law paid for by the UK taxpayer to do the same job as any other member of the Police Service regardless of gender?

Tell me also, would you like a male police officer to do an interview with a glossy magazine to say how he likes his masculinity? Perhaps a gay male police officer could wear nail varnish to a meeting in PDL and that would be ok?

Tell me also, would you consider it appropriate for say Andy Redwood to turn up in PDL with long hair?

Or would you rather, like me, have a senior police officer turn up appropriately dressed for the role of a UK police officer with respect for the uniform they lead and represent (that's hair tied back for women and short hair for men and no nail varnish on either).

I don't want to see any female senior police officer in a glossy magazine. It's not what she's paid to do and I find it appalling how a female senior officer could ever hope to have the respect of her colleagues and other females in the lower ranks by doing such a thing.

Just my opinion.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.12.14 12:28

Woofer wrote:Unbelievable the thuggish behaviour towards new posters on this forum - no better than muratfan's ugly mouth. We basically have a good forum here but when no one is moderating the bullies it will slide quickly into the gutter and I don't want that. Shame as it reflects so badly on the forum.

The words 'thugs' and 'bullies' and the direct comparison of myself and 'aquila' with 'muratfan' by Woofer are particularly odious, offfensive and nasty, as they were meant to be - and an obvious breach of forum rules.

I hardly think Woofer's warning about CMOMM 'sliding quickly into the gutter' is likely to be fulfilled anytime soon, given that the forum has been going for over 5 years and for over three years has been by far the most popular Madeleine McCann discussion group anywhere on the internet.

When I get the opportunity, I take time out to welcome new members here.

But not Elsa Craig. Nor anyone else who suddenly joins here and seeks to divert us from the task in hand.

To save others wading through her blog articles on Madeleine McCann, they do not analyse the many contradictions between the various witness statements of the McCanns and the Tapas 7. Nothing whatsoever is said, for example, about the 20 contradictions between Dr David Payne and Dr Kate McCann about his alleged visit to Apartment G5A at 6.30pm on 3 May 2007 - supposedly the last time that Madeleine was seen by anyone other than the McCanns. Nor will you find any discussion by Elsa Craig of the various changes of story by the McCanns, and the apparent backfitting. All you will find is material that tends to undermine the case against the McCann, whilst professing to be 'neutral'.

Such as the relentless undermining by Elsa Craig of the alerts of Eddie and Keela. Here's a representative sample of Elsa Craig's offerings:

"If I am correct, what we have is no credible evidence of blood, that would pass a test in court. Just Eddie and Keela and Martin Grime".

"A number of samples were tested for blood. None of these found blood. The tile where Madeleine’s DNA may have been found had to use LCN, due to the size of the sample. LCN cannot tell whether a sample is blood or otherwise. Spit would do for LCN".

"This means it is down to Keela, not Eddie. A lot has been said about Eddie and his capabilities. Keela is an altogether darker quantity".

"According to Martin Grime, she only finds human blood. Not pig blood or beef blood but only human blood."

"This leaves me with a major headache. If Keela reacts to something other than human blood then the options are wide open. If Keela actually does restrict to only an alert of human blood, then what have we got?"

"Between Eddie (the cadaver dog that alerts to blood) and Keela (the dog that only alerts to human blood) and the FSS (which cannot say what bodily fluid it may be, only that it appears to match Madeleine), what have we got?"

"Madeleine might or might not have bled in 5A according to the dogs. Or sweated, or perhaps she may, or may not, have shed a tear, according to the FSS".

"Or perhaps she sneezed, and Eddie reacts to this, Keela reacts to this, and the FSS can’t tell. Perhaps".

"Check out the Correio da Manha video in the link above and you’ll find Martin Grime re-directs Eddie to cars other than the McCanns many a time i.e. Eddie did not work like a laser-guided missile but would wander about before eventually marking".

"The McCanns, having been made arguidos, both reported that they could not explain the dogs’ behaviour when shown a video of the exercise. This is hardly surprising, given that they did not know the dogs’ capability, or what the dogs actually detected".

"The anti-McCann camp tends to quote the ‘fact’ that the dogs don’t lie, therefore end-of story. The weaknesses in this assumption are several, but you need go no further than Martin Grime himself says only forensic evidence can act as proof. The dogs are not enough".

"A further point overlooked by many on both sides is that, if you look at the detail in Martin Grime’s statements, he is clear that Eddie will alert to blood. Eddie is not a dog that unerringly points to a death having occurred. Decomposing blood will set him off".

"So at this particular point, all that was fairly accurately known was that someone human had bled inside 5A, that the blood could have been there for years, and that there is no evidence that the blood belonged to Madeleine. If it is correct that apartment 5A was handed back to the owner, the blood could also date to some time after Madeleine disappeared. Moreover, based purely on the dogs, there was no evidence of a human corpse within 5A, just human blood".

"In her book “Madeleine”, Kate says that, in the interview after she was made an arguido, she watched the dogs being re-directed by Martin Grime, and came to the same conclusion as Inspector Paulo Dias, namely that the video was far from convincing".

++++++++

I am not in the least surprised that Elsa Craig, like Woofer, welcomes and backs DCI Nicola Wall, who has accepted the narrow remit - the poisoned chalice - of investigating only 'the abduction'.

by ScarletLaw 23.12.14 12:46

Tony Bennett wrote:
Woofer wrote:Unbelievable the thuggish behaviour towards new posters on this forum - no better than muratfan's ugly mouth. We basically have a good forum here but when no one is moderating the bullies it will slide quickly into the gutter and I don't want that. Shame as it reflects so badly on the forum.
The words 'thugs' and 'bullies' and the direct comparison of myself and 'aquila' with 'muratfan' by Woofer are particularly odious, offfensive and nasty, as they were meant to be - and an obvious breach of forum rules.

I hardly think Woofer's warning about CMOMM 'sliding quickly into the gutter' is likely to be fulfilled anytime soon, given that the forum has been going for over 5 years and for over three years has been by far the most popular Madeleine McCann discussion group anywhere on the internet.

When I get the opportunity, I take time out to welcome new members here.

But not Elsa Craig. Nor anyone else who suddenly joins here and seeks to divert us from the task in hand.

To save others wading through her blog articles on Madeleine McCann, they do not analyse the many contradictions between the various witness statements of the McCanns and the Tapas 7. Nothing whatsoever is said, for example, about the 20 contradictions between Dr David Payne and Dr Kate McCann about his alleged visit to Apartment G5A at 6.30pm on 3 May 2007 - supposedly the last time that Madeleine was seen by anyone other than the McCanns. Nor will you find any discussion by Elsa Craig of the various changes of story by the McCanns, and the apparent backfitting. All you will find is material that tends to undermine the case against the McCann, whilst professing to be 'neutral'.

Such as the relentless undermining by Elsa Craig of the alerts of Eddie and Keela. Here's a representative sample of Elsa Craig's offerings:

"If I am correct, what we have is no credible evidence of blood, that would pass a test in court. Just Eddie and Keela and Martin Grime".

"A number of samples were tested for blood. None of these found blood. The tile where Madeleine’s DNA may have been found had to use LCN, due to the size of the sample. LCN cannot tell whether a sample is blood or otherwise. Spit would do for LCN".

"This means it is down to Keela, not Eddie. A lot has been said about Eddie and his capabilities. Keela is an altogether darker quantity".

"According to Martin Grime, she only finds human blood. Not pig blood or beef blood but only human blood."

"This leaves me with a major headache. If Keela reacts to something other than human blood then the options are wide open. If Keela actually does restrict to only an alert of human blood, then what have we got?"

"Between Eddie (the cadaver dog that alerts to blood) and Keela (the dog that only alerts to human blood) and the FSS (which cannot say what bodily fluid it may be, only that it appears to match Madeleine), what have we got?"

"Madeleine might or might not have bled in 5A according to the dogs. Or sweated, or perhaps she may, or may not, have shed a tear, according to the FSS".

"Or perhaps she sneezed, and Eddie reacts to this, Keela reacts to this, and the FSS can’t tell. Perhaps".

"Check out the Correio da Manha video in the link above and you’ll find Martin Grime re-directs Eddie to cars other than the McCanns many a time i.e. Eddie did not work like a laser-guided missile but would wander about before eventually marking".

"The McCanns, having been made arguidos, both reported that they could not explain the dogs’ behaviour when shown a video of the exercise. This is hardly surprising, given that they did not know the dogs’ capability, or what the dogs actually detected".

"The anti-McCann camp tends to quote the ‘fact’ that the dogs don’t lie, therefore end-of story. The weaknesses in this assumption are several, but you need go no further than Martin Grime himself says only forensic evidence can act as proof. The dogs are not enough".

"A further point overlooked by many on both sides is that, if you look at the detail in Martin Grime’s statements, he is clear that Eddie will alert to blood. Eddie is not a dog that unerringly points to a death having occurred. Decomposing blood will set him off".

"So at this particular point, all that was fairly accurately known was that someone human had bled inside 5A, that the blood could have been there for years, and that there is no evidence that the blood belonged to Madeleine. If it is correct that apartment 5A was handed back to the owner, the blood could also date to some time after Madeleine disappeared. Moreover, based purely on the dogs, there was no evidence of a human corpse within 5A, just human blood".

"In her book “Madeleine”, Kate says that, in the interview after she was made an arguido, she watched the dogs being re-directed by Martin Grime, and came to the same conclusion as Inspector Paulo Dias, namely that the video was far from convincing".

++++++++

I am not in the least surprised that Elsa Craig, like Woofer, welcomes and backs DCI Nicola Wall, who has accepted the narrow remit - the poisoned chalice - of investigating only 'the abduction'.

I'm a social campaigner Tony and I spot this stuff quicker now, I've worked on injustices for over twenty years now, than I can identify my own child in a crowd. Always obvious and sad that the powers that be, and who we pay for out of tax payers money and pay for to give us justice, spend their time trying to un-rail good people who are basically doing their job for them. If it's not them then the McCann team who really should ask themselves, "is manipulating a little girls death a good thing for me to be doing with my life?
At least if Saint Peter is there Tony? We know we did good, is how I look at it.

by **PeterMac** 23.12.14 13:45

I find it interesting that the "diss the dogs" campaigners always, erroneously as it happens, argue that there has to be extra 'forensic evidence", by which they clearly mean scientific evidence to corroborate the dogs' alerts,
BUT those same people never apply that test to the alleged commission of the original offence,
The unlawful entry to an apartment, the removal and or killing of a child, and the exit from that apartment with the said child, either alive or dead . . .
for which there is absolutely no evidence at all. No witness, no scientific evidence, no fingerprints, marks, NOTHING.
Less, even by their standard of proof, than a dog's alert.

Why do they permit themselves such double standards ?

by ScarletLaw 23.12.14 13:47

More interesting for me with the dog evidence is the reaction in the video interview when asked about them. There's a defiant smirk that is very out of place with a normal reaction for Gerry, while Kate closes her eyes and refuses to look at the female interviewer. His says "PROVE IT" she says "DON'T LOOK AT ME I'M LYING". They knew the evidence was right.

by ScarletLaw 23.12.14 13:55

PeterMac wrote:I find it interesting that the "diss the dogs" campaigners always, erroneously as it happens, argue that there has to be extra 'forensic evidence", by which they clearly mean scientific evidence to corroborate the dogs' alerts,
BUT those same people never apply that test to the alleged commission of the original offence,
The unlawful entry to an apartment, the removal and or killing of a child, and the exit from that apartment with the said child, either alive or dead . . .
for which there is absolutely no evidence at all. No witness, no scientific evidence, no fingerprints, marks, NOTHING.
Less, even by their standard of proof, than a dog's alert.

Why do they permit themselves such double standards ?

The dog evidence, even though we know it can't be used on it's own, is the biggest problem they have Peter. This is why it has to be crushed because it's the strongest evidence there is on the McCanns-yet!

by **Tony Bennett** 23.12.14 13:56

ScarletLaw wrote:
the powers that be, and who we pay for out of tax payers money...

...At least if Saint Peter is there...

@ ScarletLaw

An interesting juxtaposition, especially at Christmas-time.

Peter was a humble fisherman. The powers-that-be in Judah and Galilee in those days were the Jewish Sanhedrin - the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the lawyers, the scribes, the rabbis etc. And the Roman and Jewish politicians of the day, like Herod.

When He chose His 12 apostles, Christ chose the ordinary and the humble - like Peter: 'Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man'.

Christ didn't choose the well-qualified, educated, celebrity political and religious leaders of the day. No, they were the ones who collaborated to kill Him - for nothing. And KIng Herod had John the Baptist beheaded and his head brought to his table on a plate at his birthday party.

Today in the UK, the powers-that-be, inter alia, allow child rapists and murderers in their very midst to go free (look at my signature below) and insist that we believe that Madeleine McCann was abducted.

Later Stephen became the first Christian martyr - stoned to death by Jewish leaders. He spoke home truths (Acts Chapter 7 - a great speech). How they hated him for it.

And so it came to pass that Detective Chief Inspector Nicola Wall joined the powers-that-be of today.

There is only one useful thing she can possibly do.

Change the remit

by ultimaThule 23.12.14 14:43

PeterMac wrote:I find it interesting that the "diss the dogs" campaigners always, erroneously as it happens, argue that there has to be extra 'forensic evidence", by which they clearly mean scientific evidence to corroborate the dogs' alerts,
BUT those same people never apply that test to the alleged commission of the original offence,
The unlawful entry to an apartment, the removal and or killing of a child, and the exit from that apartment with the said child, either alive or dead . . .
for which there is absolutely no evidence at all. No witness, no scientific evidence, no fingerprints, marks, NOTHING.
Less, even by their standard of proof, than a dog's alert.

Why do they permit themselves such double standards ?

Of late there seems to have been an increasing number of articles in the MSM about the amazing abilities of medical detection dogs and I'm particularly taken with the headline of this latest one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2884233/The-doggy-doctors-save-owners-lives-day-diabetes-allergies-specially-trained-sniff-danger-raise-alarm.html
lol4

by **PeterMac** 23.12.14 15:01

It makes one wonder whether it is deliberate policy. I hope so.

"By the time Guinness was five months old, he was incredibly accurate . . ."

'I've had no allergy attacks in the two years since Nano was trained, and he's warned me each week.
'Once I went to a restaurant where, despite the owner insisting my food was completely nut-free, Nano seemed agitated.
'However, I chose to believe the owner over Nano, and had an allergic reaction. I have never doubted him since."

by plebgate 23.12.14 15:08

Well said aquila I agree with you about Elsa craig, PMR and woofer. Here to attack Tony. Great (NOT) especially at this time of year.

by j.rob 23.12.14 15:25

Woofer wrote:Unbelievable the thuggish behaviour towards new posters on this forum - no better than muratfan`s ugly mouth. We basically have a good forum here but when no one is moderating the bullies it will slide quickly into the gutter and I don`t want that. Shame as it reflects so badly on the forum.

I agree. Who moderates these days?

by j.rob 23.12.14 15:27

plebgate wrote:Well said aquila I agree with you about Elsa craig, PMR and woofer. Here to attack Tony. Great (NOT) especially at this time of year.

Well I am certainly not here to attack Tony, or anyone else for that matter. Why is it okay for Aquila to make personal attacks on other posters. But the minute someone pulls her up on it, she throws a hissy fit? Double standards here?

by plebgate 23.12.14 15:39

aquila has not attacked anybody - that is my reading of the posts, she has defended Tony. Woofer normally jumps in to infer aquila is a bully which I think is wrong.

woofer, I think, is still upset at the tigger episode when she jumped in to defend her and nobody was interested.

last word on it from me. Keep going Tony, yer still up their noses, so to speak. titter

by **Tony Bennett** 23.12.14 15:56

j.rob wrote:
plebgate wrote:Well said aquila I agree with you about Elsa craig, PMR and woofer. Here to attack Tony. Great (NOT) especially at this time of year.

Well I am certainly not here to attack Tony, or anyone else for that matter. Why is it okay for Aquila to make personal attacks on other posters. But the minute someone pulls her up on it, she throws a hissy fit? Double standards here?

@ j.rob

I think you have badly misunderstood 'aquila'.

I have looked back through her last two dozen or so posts and the 'worst' one I can find is this (to Elsa Craig):

"Get over yourself. You're here to have a fight with Tony Bennett - even a lightweight like myself can see that.

If you have your own blog or whatever it is, you're not beyond knowing how to search for dogs on this forum.

Another feckin ego with an agenda".

It is certainly robust. And personally I would have left out the word 'feckin'.

Look back at who 'aquila' has been 'rude' to on the forum, and it is mostly those who have been disruptors of one kind or another. Like Elsa Craig, for example.

Agreed, she can be critical. I was 'told off' by her only the other day on another thread. I responded politely and disagreed with what she said. She has strong opinions and IMO is often right - her 'take' on Cristobell being a classic example.

But OK, let's accept for a moment that she can be hard on other posters, including some newcomers.

How can that possibly be compared with the vitriolic words of 'Woofer' here earlier today?

Some people here, Woofer said - meaning 'aquila' and probbaly others - were...

'thuggish...'

'bullies...'

'taking CMOMM swiftly into the gutter...' and, perhaps most offensive of all

'making comments as bad as those of 'muratfan'...'

How can anyone who has been a member of this forum as long as 'Woofer' possibly compare aquila's forthright opinions with those of Ian West/'muratfan', who has for years made up and circulated the vilest possible allegations against numerous Mccann-sceptics?

Please give aquila the credit for having, in the past, rumbled some of our most disruptive posters very early on.

And no, you are mistaken, there really are no 'double standards' here.

by j.rob 23.12.14 16:11

Well, points taken.

But this is incredibly rude:

Get over yourself. You're here to have a fight with Tony Bennett - even a lightweight like myself can see that.

If you have your own blog or whatever it is, you're not beyond knowing how to search for dogs on this forum.

Another feckin ego with an agenda".

by jeanmonroe 23.12.14 16:55

“she’s just a twisted, fecked up bitch who gets her kicks from hurting people”.

a “cowardly bully”, “piece of work”
------------------------------------

aquila?

Er, NOPE!

A 'mainstream' Daily Mirror 'journalist' 'describing' a defenceless, widowed, old aged pensioner, who had the temerity to question the McCann's 'version' of events!

by Liz Eagles 23.12.14 17:52

I've been out today and I'm catching up....cor it's all been going on innit!

I'm not sure whether to sit in the naughty corner or the dog-house. Perhaps I should put the dog-house in the naughty corner. That might make a few on here happy.

Seriously though, I'll try and cut down on my expletives.

Now onwards and upwards and back on topic I hope.

by Liz Eagles 23.12.14 18:34

PeterMac wrote:I find it interesting that the "diss the dogs" campaigners always, erroneously as it happens, argue that there has to be extra 'forensic evidence", by which they clearly mean scientific evidence to corroborate the dogs' alerts,
BUT those same people never apply that test to the alleged commission of the original offence,
The unlawful entry to an apartment, the removal and or killing of a child, and the exit from that apartment with the said child, either alive or dead . . .
for which there is absolutely no evidence at all. No witness, no scientific evidence, no fingerprints, marks, NOTHING.
Less, even by their standard of proof, than a dog's alert.

Why do they permit themselves such double standards ?