Re: New DCI

by deafoldbat 06.12.14 14:28

BlueBag wrote:Man.. woman.. black.. white.. gay.. straight...

Makes no difference.

Short of a revolution the decisions made will be political.

Blue Bag - I am sorry to say that is my view as well. sad1

by Brian Griffin 06.12.14 17:14

by canada12 06.12.14 17:55

I think it somewhat significant that the McCanns thanked AR for his work and acknowledged his retirement... but have had nothing to say about the new DCI. Not even a whisper of, "We welcome DCI Wall. Perhaps new eyes on the investigation will at last be able to discover what happened to Madeleine."

Their silence to me speaks volumes.
Not a good thing for the McCanns, imo.

by Guest 06.12.14 18:27

canada12 wrote:I think it somewhat significant that the McCanns thanked AR for his work and acknowledged his retirement... but have had nothing to say about the new DCI. Not even a whisper of, "We welcome DCI Wall. Perhaps new eyes on the investigation will at last be able to discover what happened to Madeleine."

Their silence to me speaks volumes.
Not a good thing for the McCanns, imo.

I wonder if they will get on first name terms - call me Nicola ???

I'm encouraged by this new DCI (could be wrong I admit), but she sounds like an ambitious go-getter.

Quiet Christmas in Rothley on the cards perhaps ?

by j.rob 06.12.14 20:00

jeanmonroe wrote:SERIOUSLY, PEOPLE.

THe Leicestershire Social Services NEED to 'check' on the 'twins'..........right NOW!

TODAY, preferably!

But certainly in the 'next' week.

"Press button and we'd ALL be gone"

"Car crash wipes us ALL out"

If, IF, this new 'boss' is totally 'kosher' there's no telling what 'some' people might do, is there?

I agree. I have always been concerned about the welfare of the twins. And the scenes of 'ordinary family life' chez McCann depicted in the truly dreadful 'Madeleine was Here' series - where Gerry is quite literally unable to make eye-contact with Amelie, are very , very disturbing, imo. Amelie is also not enthusiastic about Kate letting Gerry into the kitchen. If this is how they behave when the cameras are rolling, I dread to think what happens behind closed doors.

An opinion only.

by j.rob 06.12.14 20:05

MRNOODLES wrote:Please move or remove if need be.

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

The Mirror link about Redwood leaving has an extremely telling clip of video (which for me has made a penny drop)

Kirsty Young asks about going staight to the swimming pool when the McCanns first get there. Is the Mirror trying to say something to its readers?

I have always been very curious about the alleged swimming episode. Knowing the Mcs, it never happened and it's a metaphor for something else. I've been to the Algarve at that time of year and the water, even in a shallow small pool, is cold. The most a child of nearly four would do would be to jump in and maybe do one small length. That would be it, imo.

by j.rob 06.12.14 20:12

Ladyinred wrote:From today's Telegraph:

"...Portuguese police closed down their investigation into her death in 2008 but the Met launched its own operation three years later.

Mr and Mrs McCann paid tribute to Mr Redwood's work on the investigation into their daughter's disappearance.
In a statement, they said: "We would really like to thank Andy Redwood for his commitment to the search for Madeleine. We appreciate everything he has done and the great progress that has been made under his leadership.
"We are sure the investigation will continue in the same positive way under his successor DCI Wall.
"We don't think Andy could have done more for our family, especially for Madeleine."

What a load of BS! So Redwood's remit was simply to add confusion, was it? And find a sock and a few bones. All paid for by the tax-payer. And no doubt he is leaving with a nice big golden handshake! Disgraceful.

by ultimaThule 06.12.14 20:22

j.rob wrote:
MRNOODLES wrote:Please move or remove if need be.

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

The Mirror link about Redwood leaving has an extremely telling clip of video (which for me has made a penny drop)

Kirsty Young asks about going staight to the swimming pool when the McCanns first get there. Is the Mirror trying to say something to its readers?

I have always been very curious about the alleged swimming episode. Knowing the Mcs, it never happened and it's a metaphor for something else. I've been to the Algarve at that time of year and the water, even in a shallow small pool, is cold. The most a child of nearly four would do would be to jump in and maybe do one small length. That would be it, imo.

That's as may be for the average child and/or its parent, jrob, but we're talking about an almost 4year old who, according to Uncle Phil~~yerboots~~, plunged into the icy waters off the coast of Donagal barely a month earlier during the grand Easter reunion of 26, 36, 40 members of clan McCann which, as far as I can recall, included a long deceased relative who was disinterred for the occasion, big grin

by Brian Griffin 07.12.14 6:20

canada12 wrote:I think it somewhat significant that the McCanns thanked AR for his work and acknowledged his retirement... but have had nothing to say about the new DCI. Not even a whisper of, "We welcome DCI Wall. Perhaps new eyes on the investigation will at last be able to discover what happened to Madeleine."

Their silence to me speaks volumes.
Not a good thing for the McCanns, imo.

She just hasn't been told she's their 'bitch' yet.
The second she veers from the official version of events she'll be put in her place.

In my opinion.

by Brian Griffin 07.12.14 6:26

j.rob wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:SERIOUSLY, PEOPLE.

THe Leicestershire Social Services NEED to 'check' on the 'twins'..........right NOW!

TODAY, preferably!

But certainly in the 'next' week.

"Press button and we'd ALL be gone"

"Car crash wipes us ALL out"

If, IF, this new 'boss' is totally 'kosher' there's no telling what 'some' people might do, is there?

I agree. I have always been concerned about the welfare of the twins. And the scenes of 'ordinary family life' chez McCann depicted in the truly dreadful 'Madeleine was Here' series - where Gerry is quite literally unable to make eye-contact with Amelie, are very , very disturbing, imo. Amelie is also not enthusiastic about Kate letting Gerry into the kitchen. If this is how they behave when the cameras are rolling, I dread to think what happens behind closed doors.

An opinion only.

I've wondered about them recently too. I wonder how their school is briefed to deal with children who make hurtful comments, as children do! I can't see any way they can grow up without being damaged by the whole affair and none of it is their fault. They will always be 'Maddie's brother and sister' and I imagine they will be brainwashed to carry on searching and believing. In my opinion.

by IKNOWWHATHAPPENED 07.12.14 6:27

Females usually take a harder view on people that harm children.

Perhaps REDWOOD doesn't want to be remembered for playing a part in a whitewash ?

If WALL is career oriented she will tow the party line.

A sad fact of life in the force is that every day of the week deals are made, favours are called in and Rank always decides. DCI WALL is in the scheme of the 'Maddie affair' nothing. There are forces way above her involved in this and they will decide the outcome, not her.

by deafoldbat 07.12.14 8:57

with above post

by **PeterMac** 07.12.14 9:35

1 - Helen Monteiro (PJ),
2 - Nicola Wall (Op. Grange)
3 - Alison Saunders (CPS)
and of course
4 - Theresa May (Home Secy)

It would be good to see GM brought down by women. He would not like that at all

And let us not forget
5 - Mrs Martorell (C-R) who famously said, under oath, on the record, in the High Court, that she had NO EVIDENCE of abduction,
and was merely repeating what the two principal suspects had told her. An astonishing admission which led Tugendhat J to muse, again in open court and on the record,
about the legal situation if it turned out that Madeleine had NOT been abducted

by plebgate 07.12.14 9:44

PeterMac wrote:1 - Helen Monteiro (PJ),
2 - Nicola Wall (Op. Grange)
3 - Alison Saunders (CPS)
and of course
4 - Theresa May (Home Secy)

It would be good to see GM brought down by women. He would not like that at all

And let us not forget
5 - Mrs Martorell (C-R) who famously said, under oath, on the record, in the High Court, that she had NO EVIDENCE of abduction,
and was merely repeating what the two principal suspects had told her. An astonishing admission which led Tugendhat J to muse, again in open court and on the record,
about the legal situation if it turned out that Madeleine had NOT been abducted

Is it usual for a person's solicitor to get in the box and give evidence for their client?

So their solicitor was merely repeating what her clients had told her, in that circumstance what would be the benefit of her agreeing to go in the witness box?

by aiyoyo 07.12.14 9:58

PeterMac wrote:1 - Helen Monteiro (PJ),
2 - Nicola Wall (Op. Grange)
3 - Alison Saunders (CPS)
and of course
4 - Theresa May (Home Secy)

It would be good to see GM brought down by women. He would not like that at all.

If we are including CPS, how about including Portugal parallel number, the new Prosecutor Ines Sequeira ?

Collective Women's power.
No chance Kate can act damsel in distress. She will be ignored.
GM brought down to his knees by women, can't wait, I will give anything to witness that.

by plebgate 07.12.14 10:06

So far the best thing I have seen was Tony Bennett sitting behind Mr. at the PCC hearing/meeting. That made me laugh, it really did.

I have tried to find the photo but can't so if anyone can post it, please do.

by Realist 07.12.14 13:22

plebgate wrote:
Is it usual for a person's solicitor to get in the box and give evidence for their client?

It wouldn't be unusual for a legal rep. to give evidence if they had anything of evidential value to add to the matter. The most common reason a legal rep. would give evidence is where there is conflict over anything relating to their client's detention in police custody, particulary their IUC.

The legal reps. notes made at the time would then become relevant evidence upon which they could be cross examined by the prosecution. I don't know about civil law, but that's how criminal law works in the UK.

by **PeterMac** 07.12.14 14:03

Realist wrote:
Is it usual for a person's solicitor to get in the box and give evidence for their client?

The case was a Breach an undertaking, NOT a Libel hearing, hence it was done by affidavit, not by direct evidence.
Carter-Ruck are masters at playing this legal game, ensuring that their clients never go anywhere near the court.
They used to boast about it on their web site, but I think they have toned it down a bit recently.

In any event the question was whether TB had breached an undertaking, and so the question of whether M had been abducted was pretty well irrelevant.
The wondrous thing is that TB managed to ask the question, and the reply was given and recorded.

by paddinton 07.12.14 14:41

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"Her appointment means an all-woman team now heads the international investigation.
DCI Wall will be working closely with Portuguese state prosecutor Ines Sequira.
She will also attend meetings with Ana Paulo Rito, the criminal coordinator of the Policia Judiciaria in nearby Portimao, and Helen Monteiro, who leads the team of Portuguese detectives.
Meanwhile, in Lisbon on Wednesday the libel trial brought by Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry McCann against former police chief Goncalo Amaral resumes."

So according to the Express:

The libel trial resumes on Wednesday, does this mean Mr & Mrs McCann will be in Lisbon?

There seems to be an awful lot happening and fairly suddenly........key people in Portugal next week........a woman being put in charge of OG, in fact an international 'all woman team.' Why?

by Grim 07.12.14 14:51

PeterMac wrote:1 - Helen Monteiro (PJ),
2 - Nicola Wall (Op. Grange)
3 - Alison Saunders (CPS)
and of course
4 - Theresa May (Home Secy)

It would be good to see GM brought down by women. He would not like that at all

And let us not forget
5 - Mrs Martorell (C-R) who famously said, under oath, on the record, in the High Court, that she had NO EVIDENCE of abduction,
and was merely repeating what the two principal suspects had told her. An astonishing admission which led Tugendhat J to muse, again in open court and on the record,
about the legal situation if it turned out that Madeleine had NOT been abducted

Yvonne Martin is another lady who could play a major role here , I wonder what Redwood made of her concerns?

by Guest 07.12.14 15:03

paddinton wrote:

The libel trial resumes on Wednesday, does this mean Mr & Mrs McCann will be in Lisbon?

They have given their evidence as have Amaral's side its the closing statements by the Lawyers,after which the judge will go away and make her/his decision.No need for them to be there seeing how difficult it is to arrange childcare.

by JackieL 07.12.14 15:10

WMD wrote:
paddinton wrote:

The libel trial resumes on Wednesday, does this mean Mr & Mrs McCann will be in Lisbon?

They have given their evidence as have Amaral's side its the closing statements by the Lawyers,after which the judge will go away and make her/his decision.No need for them to be there seeing how difficult it is to arrange childcare.

LOL!!

by paddinton 07.12.14 15:15

WMD wrote:
paddinton wrote:

The libel trial resumes on Wednesday, does this mean Mr & Mrs McCann will be in Lisbon?

They have given their evidence as have Amaral's side its the closing statements by the Lawyers,after which the judge will go away and make her/his decision.No need for them to be there seeing how difficult it is to arrange childcare.

Thanks for explaining that.

To me the timing appears to be strangely coincidental, with the OG detectives being in Portugal at the same time.

by Realist 07.12.14 16:05

PeterMac wrote:
Realist wrote:
Is it usual for a person's solicitor to get in the box and give evidence for their client?
The case was a Breach an undertaking, NOT a Libel hearing, hence it was done by affidavit, not by direct evidence.
Carter-Ruck are masters at playing this legal game, ensuring that their clients never go anywhere near the court.
They used to boast about it on their web site, but I think they have toned it down a bit recently.

In any event the question was whether TB had breached an undertaking, and so the question of whether M had been abducted was pretty well irrelevant.
The wondrous thing is that TB managed to ask the question, and the reply was given and recorded.

I think that you may have been directing your response to Plebgate, Peter, as it was he who asked the question ''
Is it usual for a person's solicitor to get in the box and give evidence for their client?'' not I.

by **PeterMac** 07.12.14 16:54

Sorry, trying to cut down the quotes sometimes backfires.

by plebgate 07.12.14 17:56

PeterMac wrote:
Realist wrote:
Is it usual for a person's solicitor to get in the box and give evidence for their client?
The case was a Breach an undertaking, NOT a Libel hearing, hence it was done by affidavit, not by direct evidence.
Carter-Ruck are masters at playing this legal game, ensuring that their clients never go anywhere near the court.
They used to boast about it on their web site, but I think they have toned it down a bit recently.

In any event the question was whether TB had breached an undertaking, and so the question of whether M had been abducted was pretty well irrelevant.
The wondrous thing is that TB managed to ask the question, and the reply was given and recorded.

Thanks PeterM. So Mrs. solicitor went into the witness box to save her clients having to give evidence? Twas indeed a wondrous thing that TB managed to ask the question and got the reply which was given and recorded.

big grin

Clever TB.

by **PeterMac** 07.12.14 23:12

plebgate wrote:
Thanks PeterM. So Mrs. solicitor went into the witness box to save her clients having to give evidence? Twas indeed a wondrous thing that TB managed to ask the question and got the reply which was given and recorded. Clever TB.

It was one of those master strokes, where LESS IS MORE.
TB's one "forensic" question shot the whole of the McCann's case to pieces, and furthermore exposed to the world that everyone,
including some of the the highest paid solicitors in the world are doing notheng more than repeating,
Parrot fashion, ' There was an abduction, There was an abduction, Pretty Polly, Pretty Polly
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The issue under consideration that day was irrelevant to what we are talking about. That was proved or not on the basis of other things.

Tugendhat J, that day started to muse - out loud and on the record - about the legal situation if it subsequently should turn out that
Madeleine Beth McCann had NOT been abducted between 9.15pm and 9.55pm 3/5/7
Remember that he has, in his official capacity, found it his legal duty to send a man to prison (suspended) on the basis of what he was told.

The damages would be "substantial". False Imprisonment, Perjury, Conspiracy to Pervert in the Civil Court, ever mind the Criminal court . . .

by suzyjohnson 08.12.14 0:59

PeterMac wrote:

Oh, yes, and everyone hates you, because you are blocking the promotion ladder.

Brilliant PeterMac :)

by suzyjohnson 08.12.14 1:04

aiyoyo wrote:

ETA: Redwood will probably be remembered for his clever invention of the Brit "Creche Father". An invention unparalleled in the history of the MET Police Force.

Haha aiyoyo

by suzyjohnson 08.12.14 1:21

plebgate wrote:
PeterMac wrote:1 - Helen Monteiro (PJ),
2 - Nicola Wall (Op. Grange)
3 - Alison Saunders (CPS)
and of course
4 - Theresa May (Home Secy)

It would be good to see GM brought down by women. He would not like that at all

And let us not forget
5 - Mrs Martorell (C-R) who famously said, under oath, on the record, in the High Court, that she had NO EVIDENCE of abduction,
and was merely repeating what the two principal suspects had told her. An astonishing admission which led Tugendhat J to muse, again in open court and on the record,
about the legal situation if it turned out that Madeleine had NOT been abducted
Is it usual for a person's solicitor to get in the box and give evidence for their client?

So their solicitor was merely repeating what her clients had told her, in that circumstance what would be the benefit of her agreeing to go in the witness box?

I don't think she did go into the witness box, I think this was at an earlier hearing, a few years ago, where she assumed that Madeleine had been abducted and the judge pointed out that this was not fact. I could be wrong though.
ETA, Just realised you have some replies to your question already.