CLPEX Chat Board

I hate to pedantic, but;
There is absolutely no proof, just a load of wild allegations mainly from the twisted, vindictive mind of Iain McKie.

You will have noticed how the SCRO people are treating these allegations.
By facing their accusers in public, under oath, at the Inquiry Iain McKie tried to stop.

Can you therefore confirm the allegation of criminality against Pat Wertheim is now in writing along with the supportive evidence as instructed by Sir Anthony Campbell?

Why don't you ask Stuart?
After all, you are sat right next to him!
That's right? Isn't it?

Sorry daktari I haven't the foggiest clue what you are talking about!

The only thing that is obvious is your reluctance or refusal to answer the question.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Daktari

Since the moderator has not seen fit to remove the word Bam, How about the word F---"Moderated"

I have moderated my comment above so as not to lower my Standards to the same as McKenzie Junior and apologise unreservedly for any offence caused to other viewers.

I must stress here that before my posting I had told others to treat it lightheartedly as it was meant more of a wind up than to be derogatory

I really should have known better to rise above them.

I only wish others would attack the posts rather than the posters.

Your stupid wee childish smirk was well noticed today after you posted here above.

You are that stupid you walked right into the trap today and didn't even notice it

By facing their accusers in public, under oath, at the Inquiry Iain McKie tried to stop.

Certainly can't say the same for your Father who had his back turned and head down to everyone during his evidence eh.

The fact remains your Father was afraid to face anyone, let alone Iain McKie, he is the worst witness I have ever had the pleasure of watching give evidence.

A coward cowering in the corner like the little Child I described ealier in another post.

And he had the cheek to claim this was how he was trained to give evidence.

Please explain then, how Mr Dunbar faced Andrew Smith while being questioned ?

Are they not all trained the same ?


Sad sad People

I've been learning a lot by reading the transcripts, statements etc and also by reading the comments on the evidence by knowledgeable people on here. Some of what is written here can also raise a smile (and I don't mean of disdain, I mean because it is witty). But I do think people should refrain from personal attacks. Attack views but not the person. Sorry to be pedantic and boring, just my view.

Sorry daktari(sic) I haven't the foggiest clue what you are talking about!

Err! That's a falsehood. Isn't it?

I have moderated my comment above and Apologise unreservedly for any offence caused to viewers.

I was appalled at the evidence of Mr Dunbar today.

He was the Quality Assurance Officer at SCRO at the time Shirley McKie was prosecuted and admitted he never saw fit to inform the Prosecuting Authorities nor Defence Team of Shirley that he could not reach the required 16 point standard needed to base any conviction on.

At least two Experts would need to assure the courts they could reach this 16 point standard in any case let alone Shirley McKie's.

It was said today that Bruce, Geddes and Foley along with McKenzie and Dunbar could not reach this 16 point standard and yet as quality assurance officer and "Trainer" Mr Dunbar did not see anything wrong with not informing Crown Office they could not reach the required points.

It was also suggested that at least two officers were capable of disputing at least 8 points of the 16.

We also heard that Mr Dunbar would have anticipated the Fiscal would have informed him if there was any dispute over the Identification yet he never saw fit to Inform the Fiscal of his dispute.

As quality assurance officer one would have expected Mr Dunbar to know what was happening in his Bureau yet he asked us to believe he first heard about any dispute and Pat Wertheim's evidence after the trial started from the Daily Record.

I find this hard to believe I don't know about other readers.

Mr Dunbar also enlightened us today as to the techniques within SCRO at the time.

When officers could not see the 16 points they would be showed it by the one who could find 16 and even after this exercise some officers could not find the 16 points required.

No-one in SCRO said it was not Shirley's print they just could only find 8 and 10 points but none claimed they could not identify Y7 claimed Mr Dunbar.
So exactly what does it mean when an officer cannot find the 16 points then ?
Even after being taken through point by point they still could not find the 16.

I am 100% sure the Defence team would have loved to have had this info at the time of trial, and I am more than 100% certain had Crown Office known of these disputes within SCRO over the 16 point standard then there simply would not have been any prosecutions At-All.

I am shocked Crown Office were not told the two most senior experts could not reach the required standards for Court Purposes along with at least another three experts of equal eminence

Mr Bruce only found 8 points also capable of casting doubt over the other 8 claimed by the other experts, Foley 10 and Geddes 10, capable of casting doubt over 6 points had they given evidence.

Now Mr Dubar is asking us to believe they all Identified Y7 as Shirley McKie's and there was no dispute over this, Doh.

It just does not seem to sink in to these people that any Defence Team would have had a field day with this ammunition at any trial let alone of a Police Officer

I give Mr Dunbar 10 out of 10 for his acting skills though, at one point I thought he was going to burst into tears when he was claiming Arie Zeelenberg threatened him.

He seemed to be suggesting that Arie Zeelenberg was threatening his family too, well at least this was what he was expecting the Inquiry to believe.

It will be interesting to hear what Arie Zeelenberg claims took place tomorrow.

Do not miss out on his evidence.

My view is a bit like the viewers here when they say we should not attack the posters and attack the post, SCRO are not capable of attacking the work of Arie and pat so they have resorted to a dirty tactic of attacking his credibility however there are always two sides to a story Listen to Arie Tomorrow

Mr McKenzie

at the Inquiry Iain McKie tried to stop.

Please explain the root of this nonsense.

I was present at Elmbank St when Alex Neil announced this inquiry at the bequest of the McKie's where were the SCRO and their MSP.

The truth of this nonsense is quite clear: If the McKies hadn't pushed for this Inquiry it would quite simply have been brushed under the carpet and SCRO would have continued to set people up whenever Strathclyde Police asked them to.

The head of SCRO was a police, That's right isn't it, Mr Bell I believe.

Where was the independence they speak of then ?

Mr McKenzie

I see no apology to the McKie's yet, Not capable of such a deed ?

Perhaps it runs in the family.

That's right isn't it.

Perhaps I should also apologise now to Mr Geddes for accusing him of a dirty deed perpetrated by you.

Please accept my humble apologies Mr Geddes for attributing any of these posts to you under the SueMedname of Daktari

However Mr McKenzie I see your illness hasn't stopped you attending the Inquiry, and what kind of man sits back and lets another take the blame for something he has done ?

At least I am man enough to Apologise and man enough to put my name to my posts.