New DCI

PMR 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"

No it isn't and no it isn't .

Elça Craig wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Elça Craig wrote:

Her job description and the PR coming out of Scotland Yard mean little.  I have been employed more than once on one job description, and carried out a different job.  As for PR, I have been employed more than once where one set of PR went out while I was actually being tasked to do something quite different.  I have been a shark circling blood for multiple reasons.

PR is called PR because it is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  PR is called PR because it is PR.

If you want to debate the dogs, I am up for it, but please point me at the dogs thread.  There must be one, or probably several, so please take your choice.  Link, please.

DCI Nicola Wall isn't stuck with anything.  She might CHOOSE to stick with what has gone before.  But she isn't stuck with it.  She has a choice.

In my day it was called managing your manager.  I did that quite well.

All of the above is delightfully irrelevant, in the light of my previous post.

A police investigation remit is a legal document. Go beyond your remit, and that may be a sackable offence for gross misconduct. And Operation Grange's remit has been made public. Wall is tied, arms and legs, hands behind her back, to the official remit.

Viz., to investigate an abduction. 

I visited your blog: http://shininginluz.wordpress.com/

The only thing that shines out in your blog is the subtlety of your efforts to discredit, in every way possible, the significance of the 16 alerts of Eddie & Keela to the scent of a corpse and blood in Apartment G5A - and on other items connected with McCanns.

You have tried in your articles to appear studiedly neutral. Sorry, I don't buy your professed neutrality.

You wrote: "If you want to debate the dogs, I am up for it, but please point me at the dogs thread. There must be one, or probably several, so please take your choice. Link, please".

Well, I for one don't want to debate your views on the dogs. That's because I already know what they are. It may be that others want to debate the dogs with you, but IMO if they did, they would be wasting their time.

Nevertheless I thank you for joining our forum and for sharing your views in so many posts here today. 
 
Elça Craig?

Lovely name.

It puts me in mind of Ailsa Craig, that pyramid-shaped lump of uninhabited rock half-way between Scotland and Ireland.

On which so many ships have been wrecked

You are welcome to my view on the dogs.  I am happy to ENGAGE with people on whether my views about the dogs are reasonable or rubbish.  Thank you for visiting shinginluz.wordpress.com

HOWEVER, please note my posts.  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.  Give me a thread.  I will read the entire thread, God help me, even if it is a hundred pages long.  And then I will debate.

If however, I have now made it up to 57 posts on shininginluz.wordpress.com, in total, over 6 months, and you are running scared on a forum where you have legendary status, then I have no case to answer.

Either, post a link to where you want to debate the dogs, or feel free to decline the exchange.

(PS Thanks to the poster who stuck a link above, much appreciated, but it is not up to me to take Tony to my patch.  It is about whether Tony feels comfortable on his patch.)

aquila wrote:

PMR 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"

No it isn't and no it isn't .

PMR, why don't you go back to a forum in which you feel comfortable...and take TexMac with you - you can hold hands and skip on your journey. Ta...Merry Christmas.

PMR wrote:

aquila wrote:

PMR 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"

No it isn't and no it isn't .

PMR, why don't you go back to a forum in which you feel comfortable...and take TexMac with you - you can hold hands and skip on your journey. Ta...Merry Christmas.

Sorry I was under the impression this was a discussion forum , but it hasn't been for some time has it, but never  mind Aquila we can always rely on you to be Fragrance sorry fragrant .

aquila 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"

When you are a senior officer in the police there is no need to talk about either your femininity or masculinity to any magazine.

You begin your service in uniform. It's respect for that uniform that's of paramount importance. That uniform and all it stands for is why you joined.

OK, OK, I'll 'fess up....I did recruitment advertising for the police many many years ago (my team even won an award!). I'll say now that the police advertising budget was so incredibly low but it was a prestigious account for an ad agency's portfolio.

As a part of my brief in recruitment advertising for the service, I went through the recruitment process in its entirety as a prospective candidate. I took all the psychometric tests and had a mock interview (scary). I got to know many officers of all ranks. I got to know many officers of both sexes and various ethnic backgrounds. I balked at using female officers/officers from ethnic minorities as poster people. I disagreed with it. It's a uniform was my argument. It doesn't matter what sex, race blah blah you are it's about attracting the right people for the job on merit, providing the training (and it is marvelous training) to go and do their job in whatever capacity that is. It's about the uniform and what the uniform stands for.

There was a particular problem in the Police Service (I don't know if there still is) with the service life of a female officer. At that time it was about 7 years iirc. It was the shift pattern and the lack of return to work after having babies that was a budgetary problem. It costs a lot of money to train a police officer.

Two people stick out in my mind to this day. One was a black female police officer of a few year's service who was approached to be the poster girl for a Police in-house magazine. She declined. I won't tell you what she said to me. She was, how can I put it...effing furious. The second was a new male recruit who was black and was assisted to join the service and was completely useless. He was also asked to be in a Police Magazine. I like him. He tried so hard.

This all happened a very long time ago. I expect better from the likes of Wall. Doing interviews with Vogue is damning to the uniform. I thought we'd moved on from the crap of being female in the male world of policing...obviously not.

The police (MET) also chose an officer - black female - to be their poster girl to promote the 2012 Olympics. She was shown in a vogue-esque photograph toting a machine gun. She has since taken the MET to a tribunal for unrelated matters but has been awarded a payout for discrimination.

So, Wall, tie your hair back, have some respect for the uniform you represent.

There you go, I've got that off my chest.

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. 

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"

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.

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.

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.

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'. 

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 ?

ScarletLaw wrote:

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

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

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 ?

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.

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.

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?