CLPEX Chat Board

Daktari:

Let me start by saying that I was not there at the crime scene where Miss Ross was killed. But the television program you refer to has been shown at a number of conferences in the US and I have seen it. If memory serves me correctly, the reason Shirley McKie was mentioned once as enterring the porch, and on two other occasions not mentioned at all in the log was that on those two other occasions she only enterred the front yard of the house and did not even step foot across the threshold onto the porch.

Once again you have tried to distort and twist what really happened. It might be said by some that you have "lied."

Please do not continue in your ridiculous and transparent efforts to rewrite history. This discussion string should be about fingerprints, not about your personal agenda to destroy the McKie family. What have they ever done to you? Perhaps they caught you in a mistake that cost you your job? But didn't you collect your £70,000 and gladly sign a gag agreement so you wouldn't have to take credit personally for what you've done?

I might also note that when Dick Dastardly asks embarrassing questions on the other discussion string you have hijacked, you shift your comments to this string rather than answer his questions. I wonder why?

Once again you have tried to distort and twist what really happened. It might be said by some that you have "lied."

No, not "lied" or even distorting or twisting what really happened.
I was merely saying that the log keeping at the crime scene left something to be desired. You, or anyone else for that matter, can read what you want into that!

If I understand this bit about the "log book," it was kept to record the names of people entering the crime scene, that is, the house itself. Wasn't it kept and manned by an officer assigned to sit in the front vestibule 24 hours a day, whose sole job it was to record the names and exact times of people entering and leaving the house? So, two times Shirley McKie, as part of the investigative team, was in the front yard but was not logged in because she did not enter the house. And Daktari is trying to make it sound like she was doing something wrong? And the officer in the vestibule was somehow negligent for not logging her as being inside the house when, in fact, she was only in the front yard? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I read this, officers stopping by to pick something up, drop something off, or confer with other investigators were ONLY logged in if the went INSIDE the house. So what did Ms. McKie or the logging officers do wrong? Anything? Anything at all?

I'm sorry, but this is exactly what I get out of Mr. James' last post and Daktari's response. That leads me to wonder how many other "facts" of Daktari's have been equally . . . inaccurate.

I also note Mr. James' other comments and questions that went unanswered. And I note the comments and questions of Taggart and Dick Dastardly that go unanswered. Sorry, Daktari, your credibility is lacking. Give us answers, give us reliable citations, give us your name, or quit giving us your disinformation.

Thomas and Hank,

You are quite right about what you understand relating to the log. Because of my involvment in the case, I know what the evidence of the loggists was. There was no "gap" in the log. In fact, Shirley's job was to uplift the actual log, and then return it, under orders from her superior officer as part of the inquiry.

She did not enter the house. While the log was away, a temporary log was used. The officers keeping the log testified that she did not go in to the house. This was evidence actually led by the prosecution. I cannot state my involvement in the case, but some posters know who I am. But I actually know that the prosecution team, once they heard this evidence, privately accepted that they knew Shirley was innocent. At the end of the trial, amazingly, the lead prosecutor came over and shook Shirley's hand. I think that we can take it that to be added to thelist of those who think that Shirley is innocent were the prosecutors. And they had access to all of the statements of SCRO...

It is now clear to me that Daktari and Adroit have themselves demonstrated, in public, that they are liars. We have to assume that they work or worked for SCRO. When they are prepared to make a statement that is at best ambiguous, are then happy to allow people to be misled, then insist that the letter if not the spirit of what they say is correct, then that in my book is a lie. They were, no doubt, great assets to the SCRO.

It has been asked what the McKie's ever did to them?

They exposed the lies. And for that, they will never be forgiven. The hounding of Ian in particular will never cease. But I know him and know he will never be intimidated by the SCRO.

Hi Daktari,

I have been looking over past posts and see that I am still waiting for evidence that there were two "Fiscal's Inquiries" in to the logs.

The fact that the logs were not complete (and, as I said above, went on to temporary logs at the request of the senior officer) does not mean that they are inaccurate. You are making this up, aren't you?

Rather than generally refer me to the mackay report, please tell me where it is said that there were two inquiries into this that leaves any room for Shirley to be in the house.

Have you read the trial evidence? Do you know what you are talking about?

I have been looking over past posts and see that I am still waiting for evidence that there were two "Fiscal's Inquiries" in to the logs.

I never said that there two Fiscal's Inquiries. What I said was that is was acknowledged that two visits of Shirley's visits to 43 Irvine Rd went unrecorded. I said that, and it's in MacKay, that the Fiscal was so concerned about the poor quality of log keeping that he ordered an Inquiry into the log keeping at the site. According to MacKay at least five other visits, not necessarily by McKie, went unrecorded.
You also say that

They (the McKies) exposed the lies.

Pray tell what lies did they expose?
And then go on to explain how these uncovered lies, maybe even Perjury have gone unprosecuted?

Nice to hear from you Daktari.

I commence with an apology. You did not say there were two fiscals inquiries. Only one.

For our American and Aussie readers, a "Fiscal's Inquiry" is not a term of art. Any criminal investigation is carried out by the Crown, and the officer appointed is a procurator fiscal (a career prosecution lawyer). Thus, what Daktari is saying is that when the criminal investigation was carried out, it was found that there were some visits that were not logged. No problem there.

However, when he suggests that it was an inquiry, it elevates it to a status that it does not deserve. The truth, as you have all apparently worked out, is that as Shirley did not keep the logs, there is no blame on her for this. Further, not even Daktari suggests that this proves that she was in the house. And, of course, the evidence from the loggists was to the effect that she was not in the house, and ther ewere in fact no gaps in the log. No challenge there, I think.

So, my friends, what on earth was Daktari trying to do by raising this matter? He was trying to suggest that Shirley was actually in the house. And, again, when challenged about this, he says that he did not say that. Trustworthy as a correspondent? I think not....

Therefore, there was no fiscal's inquiry as a discreet matter, and any suggestion to the contrary was, frankly, a lie.

And, Daktari, I don't know where to begin in listing the lies that were exposed by the McKies. If that is a mystery to you, you must have been in a coma for the past few years. But for starters, when SCRO produced a report that said it was her print, and they lied about it, Shirley McKie comprehensively established that the authors of that report lied at her trial. That is one big lie, and for that being exposed, you shall never forgive the McKies. Or did that one escape you Daktari?

Therefore, there was no fiscal's inquiry as a discreet matter, and any suggestion to the contrary was, frankly, a lie.

Far be it for me to call James MacKay a liar but he did state, on Page 23 at 15.5.1.4 The Procurator Fiscal also instructed additional enquiry relevant to the integrity of the log keeping at the locus, .......
MacKay also comments on the log keeping on page 51 at 15.10.1.2
Cheers

Daktari,

On 29th July you wrote that the logs:

were the subject of a Fiscal's investigation and it was discovered that several visits to the scene were not logged, including two by Shirley!

You clearly intended to suggest: that there was a discreet investigation in to the veracity of the logs; and that it was discovered in that investigation that Shirley actually visited the "scene" [your word, not mine]

You cannot substantiate either that there was a discreet investigation [it being part of the general investigation in to the murder] or, critically, that Shirley visited the "scene", by which we have to assume that you meant of the crime and not simply the porch area where she was actually ordered to go.

As you should know, or othewise should not be offering ill informed statements on this [consistent with the SCRO approach] the evidence discovered by the fiscal in the murder investigation was to the effect that there was no actual evidence that Shirley had been at the murder scene.

I hope you can now understand where I am coming from on this. We can leave it to other readers to make their minds up whether you sought to mislead [again] but I defy you to challenge any of the facts in this post.

What I have said is in no way contradicted by the Mackay report, which as we all know supports the position of shirley. Had it had evidence available that supported that Shirley had been at the crime scene, I would expect that to be in the report. Can you point us to the bit in the report that says she was there? No, I thought not... Just another example of the way SCrO behaves. And you want us to have confidence in SCrO from your postings? When on earth will you understand how damaging your posts are?

And will you tell us what Bob Mackenzie was up to at Tulliallan, since Adroit has gone very quiet?

DD

Daktari,

I have been amused by your postings as your desperation seems to reach even greater depths. One thing however maybe you could clarify for me. A little while back you made this statement:

Sorry Jim, aka Taggart, you know by now that I, like Iain Mckie, don't respond to anonymous posters.

I for one though Dick Dastardly was maybe in fact an alias??? Just a hunch, but your obvious response based on your earlier quote must lead me to believe that you believe that is in fact their real name. Just for the record can you confirm you do believe this or was it the fact my questions were just too awkward to reply to? I did give you the chance to answer them, however I will post soon and give the readers the real answers.
Why do you continually hang yourself in such a manner??? Sorry shouldn't ask because I know you won't respond!

Taggart and Dick Dastardly

Why oh why do you both continue to give this Daktari the chance of spouting more mince and venom about Shirley McKie ?
Surely it would hurt him more if no-one answered his unsubstantiated comments, Send him to Coventry so to speak and ignore him.
I for one along with many others on these threads await many replies from my questions put to him and yes when he cannot answer, he opts for he doesn't reply to anonymous posters, How pathetic are these Disgruntled SCRO workers.
Please Please Daktari Accept you were all wrong and Fairly Sacked and get on with your life

And will you tell us what Bob Mackenzie was up to at Tulliallan, since Adroit has gone very quiet?

Suggest you contact the Scottish Nationalist (yes, it's them again) MSP Alex Neil.
He claimed at Justice 1 to be quoting from the Minute of that meeting having been privy to its contents. (although he was unable to produce a copy of them when requested)

Daktari:

I have the minute of the Tulliallan meeting. Alex Neil did not have it in his hand when asked to produce it, but knew its contents. Your point is .....what exactly? Do you deny it exists? Do you carry all the paperwork with you at all times? Another pathetic point you are making. Please grow up.

I also have the disgraceful presentation given at Tulliallan by SCRO, orchestrated by McKenzie, which was supposed to show that Y7 was Shirley McKie's. [but you and adroit of course know exactly what I am talking about]. It was presented, by ambush on Arie Zeelenberg, without prior intimation to him. When he took it away and analysed it, it actually proved the mark was not SMs; and had been wholly misrepresented.

That type of behaviour by SCRO is the type of behaviour that is utterly intolerable and indefensible.

Wullie: I cannot sit back and let the ignorant pretend that they are informed and right. Every now and then I get bored with the whole thing. But I know a lot of people read this stuff and it gives me something to do.

And, in case you are wondering, Dick Dastardly is not my real name. So, do you or don't you respond to anonymous postings, Daktari?

Sorry folks but:

Therefore, there was no fiscal's inquiry as a discreet matter, and any suggestion to the contrary was, frankly, a lie.

is not a question. It's what is known as a statement. Albeit an incorrect one.
Turning to:

I have the minute of the Tulliallan meeting. Alex Neil did not have it in his hand when asked to produce it, but knew its contents. Your point is .....what exactly? Do you deny it exists?

To quote Willie Rae, I will answer the second question first.
No, I don't deny it exists. Merely question how Alex Neil became party to its contents.
My point is answered partly your posting. You mention Zeelenberg being 'ambushed'. Let's suppose that Zeelenberg was given a copy of the minute, then gave it to his pal McKie who later copied it Alex Neil. Pure fanatasy or what?
Wullie, it's quite clear that you have been duped. I have no intention of taking any of your increasingly manical ravings seriously.

Daktari

Duped you say, This must be better than (like you) being known as doped or dopey Daktari, Seriously you are the biggest laughing stock in Scotland.
Funny though we dont see you on any of the Scots Forums eh
Sorry Daktari are you responding to anonymous posters now or what?
Why are you so incestuous in your venom spilling about untruths?
Why can you not answer any of the serious questions the many posters on these threads have asked you?
Did you lose your Job for wrongly identifying Shirley? Is this your problem?
Why was Fiona McBride allowed to Sign another two workers signature on the wrongly identified print Y7? And has she done this kind of thing before?
This last question raises serious implications within the ranks of SCRO if one worker can sign many names?
At the very least she should have been charged with Fraud.
Daktari, You are nothing but a serious conspiracy theorist who has got it wrong this time, Alarmingly you cannot accept this