Check out
http://www.dcthomson.co.uk/MAGS/POST/news.htm
McKie Cops break silence?
-
redlion62
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:01 pm
Dear Daktari,
Any information which may come to light which in any way convinces you or anyone else that Ms McKie was in fact in the house where Marion Ross was found will undoubtedly cause some celebration among the SCRO `experts`and its small gang of supporters.
Please remember though that even if Ms McKie was to admit tomorrow that she was in the house and that she did stand before the door frame and that she did place her left thumb on the door frame......it still aint her print!
So we still have the misidentification but now we have a reason why the SCRO `experts` might have really, really thought they had made the elimination.
Sorry, any proof, admission or anything else which places Ms McKie in the house still doesn`t change the erroneous identification.
And don`t forget Mr Asbury. Some more explaining to do when any dust does settle over this mess.
Any information which may come to light which in any way convinces you or anyone else that Ms McKie was in fact in the house where Marion Ross was found will undoubtedly cause some celebration among the SCRO `experts`and its small gang of supporters.
Please remember though that even if Ms McKie was to admit tomorrow that she was in the house and that she did stand before the door frame and that she did place her left thumb on the door frame......it still aint her print!
So we still have the misidentification but now we have a reason why the SCRO `experts` might have really, really thought they had made the elimination.
Sorry, any proof, admission or anything else which places Ms McKie in the house still doesn`t change the erroneous identification.
And don`t forget Mr Asbury. Some more explaining to do when any dust does settle over this mess.
-
Dick Dastardly
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:53 am
Hey, an exclusive for the Sunday Post!!!!
For our American readers, the Sunday Post is a publication of (how can I put this diplomatically) not the highest journalism. Its features include a cartoon strip entitled "Oor Wullie", a tale of a wayward youth who spends his time sitting on a bucket pondering, no doubt, miscarriages of justice as well as how to outwit Police Constable Murdoch. The other gem of intellectual challenge in the Sunday Post is a similar contribution known as "The Broons", the scots dialect for "The Browns", a tale of a large family and their poverty. As far as I know, Les Brown, the source of the exclusive to the Sunday Post, is not related to any of the Broons, but you never know. Maybe his exclusive will be played out, with Paw Broon solving the mystery of the Ross case (is Les one of "the twins"?) I wonder how much the Sunday Post readers will really follow the article about the McKie case if it does not have pictures to accompany it.
The other interesting thing about this is that the publishers of the Sunday Post also publish the Beano and The Dandy, two works of questionable literature - unless you are under eight years old that is. Some may recall an MSP (Alex Neil) mocking Peter Swann for using an image from a newspaper and asked if the Beano or the Dandy would be as good.
I think that these coincidences are too important to ignore. There is clearly something going on here, and I am glad that the Sunday Post has got its finger on the pulse. What a pity that the other quality newspapers did not run the story. I wonder, by any chance, whether they were overcome by a lack of enthusiasm for the quality of the evidence passed by Les. Or was it just that they started with The Sunday Post.... I guess we will never know. Quality stuff indeed.
Since you have the inside information, daktari, when can we expect to see Shirley being interviewed about this? The evidence must be REALLY good to have passed it on to the police. Are you going to tell us who the witnesses are to all of this, or is it just another teaser? Time to go and sit on my bucket and reflect......
For our American readers, the Sunday Post is a publication of (how can I put this diplomatically) not the highest journalism. Its features include a cartoon strip entitled "Oor Wullie", a tale of a wayward youth who spends his time sitting on a bucket pondering, no doubt, miscarriages of justice as well as how to outwit Police Constable Murdoch. The other gem of intellectual challenge in the Sunday Post is a similar contribution known as "The Broons", the scots dialect for "The Browns", a tale of a large family and their poverty. As far as I know, Les Brown, the source of the exclusive to the Sunday Post, is not related to any of the Broons, but you never know. Maybe his exclusive will be played out, with Paw Broon solving the mystery of the Ross case (is Les one of "the twins"?) I wonder how much the Sunday Post readers will really follow the article about the McKie case if it does not have pictures to accompany it.
The other interesting thing about this is that the publishers of the Sunday Post also publish the Beano and The Dandy, two works of questionable literature - unless you are under eight years old that is. Some may recall an MSP (Alex Neil) mocking Peter Swann for using an image from a newspaper and asked if the Beano or the Dandy would be as good.
I think that these coincidences are too important to ignore. There is clearly something going on here, and I am glad that the Sunday Post has got its finger on the pulse. What a pity that the other quality newspapers did not run the story. I wonder, by any chance, whether they were overcome by a lack of enthusiasm for the quality of the evidence passed by Les. Or was it just that they started with The Sunday Post.... I guess we will never know. Quality stuff indeed.
Since you have the inside information, daktari, when can we expect to see Shirley being interviewed about this? The evidence must be REALLY good to have passed it on to the police. Are you going to tell us who the witnesses are to all of this, or is it just another teaser? Time to go and sit on my bucket and reflect......
-
zizou
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:27 pm
DD,
In my native France, we have a similar thing. The story is called Les Browns. I believe the plot in Scotland is also the same: i.e. Les Browns sees or hears some piece of information, misunderstands it, tells the other Les Browns about it, they repeat the misunderstanding because they always proceed on the basis that whatever the other Les Browns say must be true, and in the end they all make complete fools of themselves. But never mind, because the very next day no one remembers/cares what they said because by then Les Browns are being used to wrap their chips or as we say in my native France, les chips.
I am not so familiar with your Wullie, DD. And I trust you do not take that the wrong way, no? Did this bold gendarme, Murdoch, try to frame Wullie, try to send him to jail for something he did not do, did he lie on oath in order to achieve this end, not care whether this Wullie languished in jail or committed suicide and not even own up when the whole world, including Les Browns, I assume, could see the truth?
ZZ
In my native France, we have a similar thing. The story is called Les Browns. I believe the plot in Scotland is also the same: i.e. Les Browns sees or hears some piece of information, misunderstands it, tells the other Les Browns about it, they repeat the misunderstanding because they always proceed on the basis that whatever the other Les Browns say must be true, and in the end they all make complete fools of themselves. But never mind, because the very next day no one remembers/cares what they said because by then Les Browns are being used to wrap their chips or as we say in my native France, les chips.
I am not so familiar with your Wullie, DD. And I trust you do not take that the wrong way, no? Did this bold gendarme, Murdoch, try to frame Wullie, try to send him to jail for something he did not do, did he lie on oath in order to achieve this end, not care whether this Wullie languished in jail or committed suicide and not even own up when the whole world, including Les Browns, I assume, could see the truth?
ZZ
-
Daktari
- Posts: 582
- Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:50 am
- Location: Glasgow
-
Taggart
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:33 am
Daktari,
Since you are such an expert in "lies" any idea why Fiona McBride lied by telling the press last week
Of course if you fail to evidence her claims you will expose her as a liar which of course will destroy any credibilty she ever had.
Since you are such an expert in "lies" any idea why Fiona McBride lied by telling the press last week
and"I am delighted. All the marks they claimed we had misidentified have proven to be correct."
unless of course you can show us where the evidence to support her statements? I've tried and failed, but please let me see where it proves she is not a liar?"We have been vindicated and it's still the case that all the marks that were disputed, so called, where we were supposed to be in error, were all found to be correct by SCRO. The only one that they haven't looked at is Y7."
Of course if you fail to evidence her claims you will expose her as a liar which of course will destroy any credibilty she ever had.
-
Taggart
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:33 am
Daktari,
Was hoping you clarify your logic for me as I’m struggling a bit to be honest. You refuse to give your opinion whether or not YOU think Fiona McBride lied to the media, and say we need to ask Fiona McBride. And you think that will end that particular line of questioning. Okay we’ll try your reasoning, which of course you will need to accept and we can move forwards. When you and adroitcaledonian keep going on and on about what Shirley McKie said at trial and asked people too explain, then if you believe in your own theory you will accept when I say to you
“If you have questions ask Shirley McKie.”
Please tell us you both accept this answer and we can move on, and you won’t feel the need to raise it again. Because I will accept you cannot answer for Miss McBride.
Although I am not sure you need to be an “expert” in lie analysis to be able to reach an opinion on her conclusion. I suspect a trainee lie detector would be able to identify those "lies". I’ll give you it would take more than say 60 or 90 seconds, but it can be done. Of course my downfall might be the fact I used “lies” taken from the internet and I stress at no time have I seen the “original lies”. I’m suspecting that’s where I’ve gone wrong. Has anyone seen the “original lies”? I’m in serious danger of being discredited and attacked over my obvious mistake! So I do apologise in advance.
And trust me I’ve turned those “lies” 66 degrees around (both ways) and still I cannot get the “lies” to fit! I’ve even taken my protractor and tried other angles, but nothing! I have closely studied the “lies” and they do appear to me to be all one "lie", although I can’t discount the fact it may be several clusters of “lie” which may be the real reason I have a different conclusion! And of course maybe I’m not seeing all the “lies”. I think I’ve been working from a “plain lie”. Maybe if someone can supply with a “rolled lie” I might see detail I’ve been missing!
I’m not sure but does anyone have a copy of the “lies” anywhere in the Daily Mail? I was using a “lie” taken from the Daily Record which may make a difference! I have studied the “lies” in detail against the comparison Justice 1 Report
Anyone care to second check my comparison and findings?
Was hoping you clarify your logic for me as I’m struggling a bit to be honest. You refuse to give your opinion whether or not YOU think Fiona McBride lied to the media, and say we need to ask Fiona McBride. And you think that will end that particular line of questioning. Okay we’ll try your reasoning, which of course you will need to accept and we can move forwards. When you and adroitcaledonian keep going on and on about what Shirley McKie said at trial and asked people too explain, then if you believe in your own theory you will accept when I say to you
“If you have questions ask Shirley McKie.”
Please tell us you both accept this answer and we can move on, and you won’t feel the need to raise it again. Because I will accept you cannot answer for Miss McBride.
Although I am not sure you need to be an “expert” in lie analysis to be able to reach an opinion on her conclusion. I suspect a trainee lie detector would be able to identify those "lies". I’ll give you it would take more than say 60 or 90 seconds, but it can be done. Of course my downfall might be the fact I used “lies” taken from the internet and I stress at no time have I seen the “original lies”. I’m suspecting that’s where I’ve gone wrong. Has anyone seen the “original lies”? I’m in serious danger of being discredited and attacked over my obvious mistake! So I do apologise in advance.
And trust me I’ve turned those “lies” 66 degrees around (both ways) and still I cannot get the “lies” to fit! I’ve even taken my protractor and tried other angles, but nothing! I have closely studied the “lies” and they do appear to me to be all one "lie", although I can’t discount the fact it may be several clusters of “lie” which may be the real reason I have a different conclusion! And of course maybe I’m not seeing all the “lies”. I think I’ve been working from a “plain lie”. Maybe if someone can supply with a “rolled lie” I might see detail I’ve been missing!
I’m not sure but does anyone have a copy of the “lies” anywhere in the Daily Mail? I was using a “lie” taken from the Daily Record which may make a difference! I have studied the “lies” in detail against the comparison Justice 1 Report
and"I am delighted. All the marks they claimed we had misidentified have proven to be correct."
And I do admit that that there is evidence to suggest some of the words are common to both, i.e. in the (b)latent “lie” and the Justice 1 Report, however the words do NOT appear in the same coincident sequence, and therefore I conclude the “lie” cannot be substantiated by the comparison Report."We have been vindicated and it's still the case that all the marks that were disputed, so called, where we were supposed to be in error, were all found to be correct by SCRO. The only one that they haven't looked at is Y7."
Anyone care to second check my comparison and findings?
-
Dick Dastardly
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:53 am
I was not tongue in cheek when asking when Shirley will be interviewed. I have a suspicion that the investigations carried out by Les Brown will be less than convincing. If there is no further investigation and interview of Shirley, it will not be surprising.
We are continually promised that the truth will come out; that no lie lasts forever; that excuses will soon be required to explain how all the experts supporting Shirley are right; etc. etc etc. I keep waiting for the day that all this comes to fruition and, ya know what, it does not come.
Why don't you provide us with an email address for Fiona, and we can all email her and ask her why she apparently lied?
Is she still under the "gagging order"? She certainly seems to be talking now. Will she enter the debate now under her real name and not the pseudonym that she used previously?
So go on, Daktari, tell us her email address....
We are continually promised that the truth will come out; that no lie lasts forever; that excuses will soon be required to explain how all the experts supporting Shirley are right; etc. etc etc. I keep waiting for the day that all this comes to fruition and, ya know what, it does not come.
Why don't you provide us with an email address for Fiona, and we can all email her and ask her why she apparently lied?
Is she still under the "gagging order"? She certainly seems to be talking now. Will she enter the debate now under her real name and not the pseudonym that she used previously?
So go on, Daktari, tell us her email address....