Re: New DCI

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:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
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 ?

by Doug D 23.12.14 19:01

Sorry, still off-topic, but Aquila, I know which I'd choose!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Liz Eagles 23.12.14 19:15

Doug D wrote:Sorry, still off-topic, but Aquila, I know which I'd choose!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

When Dr Amaral wins his case I'll meet you there for a pie and a pint.

by Guest 23.12.14 19:27

As I said originally, I came here to find if you lot had anything of interest on Nicola Wall, start-end.

I have not come here to pick an argument with someone I didn't know was a member here. Plus I did not start the exchange with the member-I-did-not know about. He commented on my Nicola Wall post, and he has every right to do so. This is a forum after all.

I have offered twice to visit the relevant dogs thread, and exchange views on my thoughts there. That offer has been declined. Fair enough, that is the poster's right and I have not complained.

Quite why this thread has been diverted by said poster to my take on the dogs, rather than simply going to a dogs thread, is intriguing.

To the other poster who said I should search for dogs. Please give me a break. Let me try to list some more common search terms that will lead me nowhere. Madeleine, McCann, Kate, Gerry, apartment 5A, Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Mark Warner, abduction etc.

Back to first poster. The one who tackled me on Nicola Wall (fair enough). Who declined to debate the issue with me on his choice of dogs thread (fair enough). Who has quoted me extensively about the dogs in this thread about Nicola Wall (sorry, that's a yellow card.)

To the poster credited as being most hostile to my entry to the forum. Since I am totally new to the forum and haven't learned who is who or who sides with whom, it was water off a duck's back. If I had thought that it was offensive, I would have reported it as such. I didn't.

I happen to think you are wrong, but I can't report you to the moderators for being wrong, can I? That would be ludicrous.

And to the person who objected to my welcome to Nicola Wall. You are equally entitled to your opinion, therefore I have no problem whatsoever that your opinion is different to mine. This is a forum, and you are entitled to your opinion.

I have not claimed that Nicola Wall will act in a different manner to her predecessor, given that I don't know Nicola personally and thus I have limited knowledge of the way she works.

I expressed the hope that Nicola will be different to Andy, and rather than sticking to the remit, she will explore ways to work outside of the box.

I have sent an email to Operation Grange to this effect, to the extent that she would do better by engaging the citizens of Luz. I fully expect a 100% automated thank you in response, and then complete silence. But one can only hope.

Final question. Is this a dogs thread or a Nicola Wall thread?

by ScarletLaw 23.12.14 19:28

Those who question the dogs can't be the Yard because even Redwood accepted the dog evidence because he's clarified already that she's dead and died in the apartment. If they are plotting to cause unrest, I haven't read the posts to clarify, then they must be McCann supporters. Sorry been on the cocktails with my man, should've worked that out much earlier.

by Liz Eagles 23.12.14 20:20

Dogs aren't intellectuals.

Dogs don't debate.

Dogs do what they're trained to do.

Blood and cadaver dogs sniff out blood and cadaver scent.

Eddie and Keela did just that.

Eddie and Keela had a fantastic track record.

Eddie and Keela were sent into PDL and their exercise was recorded.

Bring in the intellectuals, apologisers et al and it won't alter that fact.

by ultimaThule 23.12.14 20:49

PeterMac wrote: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."

As no doubt you're aware, PeterM, in those times when the gentlemen (I use the term loosely) of the press are constrained from publishing what they're itching to put into print, they frequently resort to commissioning seemingly unrelated articles and derive considerable pleasure from conjuring up headlines which give the hint to those, such as your very good self, on whom irony is not lost.

Having noticed a number similar stories of late, henceforth I am resolved to be on 'dog watch' and will report my findings here. big grin

by ultimaThule 23.12.14 20:59

Doug D wrote:Sorry, still off-topic, but Aquila, I know which I'd choose!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Good selection of ales, indifferent food, nearest boozer to Cleaver Street, still frequented mainly by locals, but I much preferred it before the makeover, Doug and, sadly, my favourite Dog in Dulwich Village is undergoing refurbishment of the type which may also rob it of its former charm.

by aiyoyo 23.12.14 23:10

ultimaThule wrote:

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.

That self conceited statement of hers isn't just about a simple matter of taking pride in her appearance. It went beyond that ultima thule -- that is her ego/vanity talking.

I don't see it as telling it as it is, but telling it as she perceived it --as in over reading into people's reaction. That, to me, is self conceit.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.12.14 23:37

aiyoyo wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
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.

That self conceited statement of hers isn't just about a simple matter of taking pride in her appearance. It went beyond that ultima thule -- that is her ego/vanity talking.

I don't see it as telling it as it is, but telling it as she perceived it -- as in over-reading into people's reaction. That, to me, is self conceit.

@ ultimaThule

Who on this thread or elsewhere has criticised DCI Wall either for being attractive or for being smart and well-groomed?

Not me.

Nor anyone else so far as I can see.

aiyoyo has IMO ably highighted the inherent vanity in her comments about how she thinks the jury members perceived her - and may be how she wanted the jury members to perceive her. And that's not her only 'just look at me' comment in that Vogue article.

Let's be clear - there are two main criticisms of Wall:

1. The element of personal vanity in the Vogue article, and

2. Taking over as the Investigating Officer from Redwood knowing she inherits a remit which only permits her to carry on Redwood's futile hunt for an abductor.

I have no issue with a woman looking attractive or a bloke looking handsome. But if that's accompanied by an element of vanity and self-promotion, then to me she has lost sight of her role as a police detective.

Why did she appear in Vogue? Why did she volunteer to accept an investigation remit which ~~may~~ will restrict her ability to get to the truth?

She did not have to do either...

by Guest 24.12.14 0:15

So, this 'remit' thing.

If the police are investigating something according to their 'remit', surely this doesn't mean that if real evidence pointing to people, methods, times and places being involved in said crime, AND WHICH MAY LEAD TO CONVICTIONS they just go, oh well, we've found the perpetrator(s) but it doesn't fit the remit so we'll just ignore all that and keep looking for an 'abductor'?

This is what I am reading from many previous posts mentioning remits, and it's doing my head in so had to just ask.

Even though they have an initial remit, to work to, surely this can't stop them getting a result based on investigations and evidence? Or lead on to the opening of another case to prosecute the crime?

If that is not the case, my brain might just pop.

by Loving Mom 24.12.14 0:35

Tony Bennett wrote:
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.

I can understand your wariness when members are clearly disrupting. However, I personally feel that the main posters here have missed the mark with certain posters. The shame in that is there could have been/be some very valuable discussion if the main posters/researchers/ moderators were not so elitist. Missed opportunities to explore and help sort out what really happened to Madeleine which is what this forum is suppose to be striving for.

by ultimaThule 24.12.14 0:48

It has to be said that Nicola Wall is something of a head turner, aiyoyo, and I can easily imagine the impact on a jury when non-gender specific 'DCI Wall' is called to the stand as, in the visual sense at least, she confounds generally held expectations of 'a police officer', and, more particularly, a plain-clothes female police officer who, according to some, should dress as if she's still in uniform and not make herself available for interviews with publications such as Vogue even though she was undoubtedly put forward for the article by her superiors officers as one of three female faces of modern policing.

I suspect the Vogue article sparked an increase in female recruits to the service which, it seems to me, is precisely what it was intended to do, but whether any those new entrants will be able to rise through the ranks as those 3 officers have done is entirely another matter. .

However, whether DCI Wall's self-awareness of the impression she makes on others is tinged with vanity or is a mark of self-confidence is irrevelant as the only issue that should be of interest is her ability to get results.

by aiyoyo 24.12.14 3:49

ultimaThule wrote:I can easily imagine the impact on a jury when non-gender specific 'DCI Wall' is called to the stand as, in the visual sense at least, she confounds generally held expectations of 'a police officer',

Your imagination/belief of the impact she made on a jury has nothing to do with the context.
Your supposition is just that, just like hers, just that (supposition) - not fact, not something the jury said to her. The reason for her remark is not relevant. Her remark is reflection of a not humble personality, that's all. Not saying it's a reflection of anything else. A humble person, even taking pride in her looks and appearance would not have said it that way.

by Joss 24.12.14 4:42

It seems to me what DCI Wall is doing is making a fashion statement, that is why she was in Vogue magazine i would imagine? Maybe her true calling is as a fashionista? Her job right now first and foremost is an officer of the law, so who cares if she paints her nails or what she wears as long as she looks presentable and acts professionally in the workplace and does the job she is meant to do and does what she gets paid for? Maybe she could do some modelling in her spare time for Vogue magazine. big grin

by ultimaThule 24.12.14 6:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
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.

That self conceited statement of hers isn't just about a simple matter of taking pride in her appearance. It went beyond that ultima thule -- that is her ego/vanity talking.

I don't see it as telling it as it is, but telling it as she perceived it -- as in over-reading into people's reaction. That, to me, is self conceit.
@ ultimaThule

Who on this thread or elsewhere has criticised DCI Wall either for being attractive or for being smart and well-groomed?

Not me.

Nor anyone else so far as I can see.

aiyoyo has IMO ably highighted the inherent vanity in her comments about how she thinks the jury members perceived her - and may be how she wanted the jury members to perceive her. And that's not her only 'just look at me' comment in that Vogue article.

Let's be clear - there are two main criticisms of Wall:

1. The element of personal vanity in the Vogue article, and

2. Taking over as the Investigating Officer from Redwood knowing she inherits a remit which only permits her to carry on Redwood's futile hunt for an abductor.

I have no issue with a woman looking attractive or a bloke looking handsome. But if that's accompanied by an element of vanity and self-promotion, then to me she has lost sight of her role as a police detective.

Why did she appear in Vogue? Why did she volunteer to accept an investigation remit which ~~may~~ will restrict her ability to get to the truth?

She did not have to do either...

@Tony Bennett

As far as I'm aware, there is no criticism of DCI Redwood's replacement 'for being attractive' on this thread, but what appears to be our jointly held opinion that DCI Wall's appearance is 'smart and well-groomed' is not shared by all, as evidenced by this post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Without wishing to dwell on the complexities of individual and collective perception, it can fall to lawyers to suggest to certain of their clients that they adopt a style of dress which will effect a favourable impression on the jury and it may be that DCI Wall considered it necessary to select whatever she chose to wear when giving evidence in a particular case according to, as you have suggested, 'how she wanted the jury members to perceive her'.

In the absence of the unedited transcript of the Vogue article prior to its publication, it is not possible to determine whether DCI Wall exhibited what could be said to be 'personal vanity' to the writer which fact, to my mind, negates no.1 of the 'two main criticisms of Wall'.

In addition, and as per my response to aiyoyo at 12.48am, it's highly improbable that the 3 female detectives who were selected to participate in the article did so without the prior knowledge and approval of their superior officers, who would undoubtedly have reserved right of veto if the finished product fell short of the image the Met wished to project.

With regard to no.2, I fail to see in what way DCI Wall is deserving of criticism for 'Taking over as the Investigating Officer from Redwood knowing she inherits a remit which', in my view, has seen Operation Grange move seamlessly from an investigative review to an ongoing murder investigation.

NB: In using the term 'my view' I fully accept that others may not share my opinion in which case, time permitting, I am willing to engage with those who are cognisant of the rules of polite debate until some accord or agreement to differ has been reached on this, or any other issue,.related to the CMOMM.

As to why DCI Wall chose to participate in the Vogue article, why shouldn't she? I seem to recall that PeterMac has posted to the effect that he featured in a not dissimilar publication aimed at male readers.

Having regard to 'Why did she volunteer to accept an investigation remit which ~~may~~ will restrict her ability to get to the truth?' I would suggest that, as opposed to any voluntary act on her part, DCI Wall was offered the opportunity to succeed DCI Redwood and in accepting what some may opt to believe is a poisoned chalice, as above and as Rose Quartz's post at 12.15am, I don't see that her proven ability to bring perpetrators of heinous crimes to account is in any way restricted.

To conclude, I wish you a Merry Christmas, TB, and hope that you enjoy a well-deserved rest after your exertions on this forum of late.

by ultimaThule 24.12.14 6:42

Joss wrote:It seems to me what DCI Wall is doing is making a fashion statement, that is why she was in Vogue magazine i would imagine? Maybe her true calling is as a fashionista? Her job right now first and foremost is an officer of the law, so who cares if she paints her nails or what she wears as long as she looks presentable and acts professionally in the workplace and does the job she is meant to do and does what she gets paid for? Maybe she could do some modelling in her spare time for Vogue magazine.

I wish I could remember which mag PeterM said he appeared in while he was a serving police officer, Joss, but it may be that he could be, courtesy of the Urban Dictionary and with a little help from the icons above, said to be a 'fashionister':

~~He's~~ PeterM's such a fashionister ... we all look like slobs standing next to him.

"Is that ~~Daniel~~ PeterM?" ... "no! ~~Daniel~~ PeterM is a fashionister! he wouldn't be caught in those ~~sweatpants~~ standard issue navyblue serge trousers!" big grin

by Grim 24.12.14 6:58

I dunno police women doing articles in Vogue magazine ....whatever next ? Policemen in the 'Big Brother' house? Oh hang on !!!
As long as DCI Wall has joined to solve the case alls well , if her presence at Strange is merely to dab a flesh coloured shade of foundation over the whitewash then it adds more shame to the establishment ... I guess time will tell ( they seem to have plenty of that ) I'm not going to hold my breath though.