Low Number DNA has not exactly shone a light unto the nations, in this Irish case.

It appears Portugal does not in any event recognise this enhanced technology in its Courts of Law.

Good or bad? Without excessive reliance on challengable material, does not a cast-iron case have to be constructed from more traditional, investigative material?

In my personal opinion the PJ are amassing sufficient evidence to secure a conviction without undue reliance on DNA evidence. One wonders what the crime is. Of course, for the admitted crime of child neglect, the laborious analysis of DNA material is hardly essential.

DNA can point the way, and in this case perhaps DNA is the dog that did not bark in the night. Perhaps “dogged” detective work can do the rest.

NOt many news about Madeleine today, only the D.Mail reveals that housands of telephone calls from and to mobiles, made in PDL and surroundings from May 3rd onwards, are being tracked by the PJ. Other paper, don’t remember which one, says that the testimony of the waiter, best witness up to now, is the trump card of the PJ.
***
That was an interesting report.
I was thinking it goes along with when the police seized hundreds of computer of known paedos.
If you can eliminate the known paeodophiles and you can eliminate everyone else in the area by virtue of the phone calls.
And if you can then locate all the Tapas 9 by virtue of their cell phones–which give off a signal as long as it is on.
Then by process of elimination and proving the whereabouts of the Tapas, then you would have a very strong case for the abduction being a hoax.

+++++++++++++++

Hideki – You are a troll. Just my opinion of course.

+++++++++++++++

Hideki – You are a troll. Just my opinion of course.

+++++++++++++++

Hideki – You are a troll. Just my opinion of course.

+++++++++++++++

Hideki – You are a troll. Just my opinion of course.

Please ignore the posters that constantly give you grief.
If I recall Peter O was relentlessly going after Stevo for a moment in time.
Edit….

++++++++++++++++

Unsubstantiated nonsense.. Your powers of “recall” are incorrect.

I ignore the vast majority of pro-McScum posts. When I do answer, there is a specific reason for doing so; it is never because I am annoyed.

“If I recall Peter O was relentlessly going after Stevo for a moment in time.Now that you are posting more often you are the target.”

PeterO is the deftest and most agile and able of the pro-McScams posting here. He can be aggressive, but usually prefers to appear neutral, and even sympathetic. Much can be learned from his posting by paying attention to who he defends and who he does not defend.

“Has Maria ever answered Tony’s question about ever meeting one of the Mc’s? I don’t believe so.”

Not in her recent “last post” — as I understand it is one of several “last posts” she has written. I find her style as obnoxious and as disgusting as her inclination to defend the criminals Kate and Gerry.

777
Julie Says:
“Hideki - you are a troll. ”

The McCanns are running from justice. My job is to prevent the McCanns from crossing that bridge. Sometimes I toss their henchmen into the river below…

“You twist people’s words to suit your own agenda. You copy other’s posts then add a word or two in of your own so as to make yourself look super-intelligent.”

I copy others’ words so that (1) the reader does not have to scroll up to see what I am referring to (2) so that context can be noted (3) if readers do want to check, they can use “search function more easily”. I then address the copied text and make a point.

I don’t follow other’s method of copying whole posts because it is a waste of space, and makes it harder to quickly see what the point is. IMO it also shows laziness.

“You degrade other posters in manners that you consider to be “correct”, then when you are confronted about it you complain that other posters dragged your comments over to the next day’s forum, and then end up “twisting” your OWN words so as to make yourself look good - not a very intelligent move!”

This sentence does NOT make you “look good”. Trust me. I did not “complain” about PeterO taking my comments from the previous thread — I merely noted that he had unnecessarily done so. The comments were directed at Maria and at Murder on another thread. There was NO REASON for PeterO to drag them here EXCEPT to stir up trouble. I found that interesting, and was not “complaining” about it.

” You are an absolute waste of time IMHO.”

Skip my posts, then. I’ve never read any of yours until I noticed you were talking about me , when I used the search function.

“My looks should not concern you, it is not becoming to be jealous of what others look like!”

Judging by your prose, I do not want to even imagine what you look like.

“You are a troll, and will always remain as such.”

And you will never reach the bank on the other side. Which side of the family do you hail from, Julie? Are you a cousin?

Please ignore the posters that constantly give you grief.
If I recall Peter O was relentlessly going after Stevo for a moment in time.
Now that you are posting more often you are the target.
Just skip their comments. They are neither here nor there and really should
not be defended or argued.
Has Maria ever answered Tony’s question about ever meeting one of the Mc’s?
I don’t believe so.

Not quite true about the Mediums, I mean you can’t actually ask to speak to Dear-Departed Granny, or Aunty Flo, and if you will insist on basing your concept of Mediums on those who hold seances, “Psychic Evenings” or sit at the end of the pier surrounded by incense sticks, then you will always have a misconception of what it is truly all about and - as I keep saying - if Mediums are so crap in your opinion, why do Police etc use them ?

A last reply.

Odd that Jane thought you and TB might be one and the same person! That thought had certainly crossed my mind, not because of the “fora” (horribly vulgar), which I hadn’t seen, but because of the obsession with religion and, in particular, a pre-Vatican 2 form of catholicism. Did I say “pre-Vatican 2″? Perhaps I meant “medieval”! A vein of anti-catholicism runs through both your and TB’s posts, although yours is presented in a different manner.

I noted the deliberately adopted convoluted style last night….and Jane’s accurate responses! Not a disguise, possibly, Murder?! To be sure, I’d have to trawl through all your earlier posts and I have neither the time nor the interest to do so. I know I may be wrong. Anti-catholicism is quite common, after all.

Forgive me, if this suspicion is wrong!

You know very well what the answer to your questions is and you know just as well that to answer more directly than I have would be to collude with a particularly nasty, if playground, form of cyber-bullying, which is to accuse anyone who argues against any of the “anti” arguments of belonging to Team McCann. (”You’re not in OUR gang!”!!!) I think you’ll find I have answered your questions adequately, if you read my posts carefully, without submitting directly to that bullying. Ever the good Jesuit! Don’t want to be guilty of collusion and I’ve just about managed it!

Meejician’s pique arose from the fact that she (she claims to be a “she”, I think,) made a small and totally unimportant blunder about the school to which KM went. I wish I’d never even referred to it!! She mentioned “one of her closest friends” who had attended a GPDS school with KM. I had been mystified at first as to where she got her info as I knew enough about the schools the McCanns went to to know that she was wrong. I knew that her other information about them was essentially correct. When she mentioned the fact that her close friend was a member of Team McCann, the penny dropped, that’s all. I always thought it had been nothing more than an innocent error on Meejician’s part but had been a bit puzzled how it could have come about. I then remembered someone who had been at college with KM and guessed how the error had occurred. (In fact, at one point, I had thought the “at college” referred to university but a number of newspaper articles did make it clear it was a college in Liverpool.)

Meejician allowed her annoyance to goad her into saying something she should not have done about this woman, at least, not on the internet. She may now regret doing that, but maybe not. She is probably happy to discredit this friend because she is member of Team McCann. I suspect she was angry with herself for not knowing something about “one of her closest friends” which was, apparently, freely mentioned in a number of newspapers, local and national.

The conclusion you drew was entirely wrong. I knew nothing at all of this friend of Meejician’s. Even when I guessed to whom Meejician was referring, I didn’t remember her name until I looked up some of the articles mentioning her. It was a long time earlier that I had googled her along with the other fund directors. Very little info available on any of them. However, I was always very impressed with the way KM’s uncle, the first Brian Kennedy, came over on TV. He seemed intelligent, honest and honorable, discreet and anxious for the case never to be sensationalised or sentimentalised. It was thanks to him that I gave my modest donation! He acted as one of the spokespersons in the early days and, in my view, his behaviour was impeccable. He seemed to me to dislike the vulgar side of the publicity, BUT it was obvious, at a later date, that he believed K and G to be innocent and was totally shocked at the idea that they could Madeleine, desecrate her body etc. He has known KM all her life and GM for some years, presumably. I have never met the man but was impressed by what I saw and heard. Of course, he may be mistaken, or lying, but that wasn’t my impression. I certainly don’t know him but he did, I admit, influence my thinking somewhat. I didn’t think he’d be attached to anything dodgy. He appeared to be someone with integrity, and astute as well. I could be very wrong. I can only go on impressions.

You should also remember that a major focus for me in the early days was the trial by media (mediums are people who say they can put you in touch with the dead) of Murat. My early posts make that absolutely clear.

You are mistaken. Many of your assumptions about me are wrong. Other than as my faith leads me to be very careful before making judgements, my feeling that the McCanns may not be guilty of sinister involvement in Madeleine’s death or disappearance has absolutely NOTHING to do with “faith” or religion. The idea is absurd. I am not stupid enough to allow such a thing to influence my thinking. In fact, it’s insulting even to suggest it might! You’d know that if you knew me.

Since Jane answered your question, I’ll repeat that I have absolutely no idea who she is. I may meet her on the British Democracy forum but not otherwise. What if she’s TB in another disguise?!

(I don’t really think that, Jane! Forgive me. And God bless!)

Who said the Mccanns only had two photos of Madeleine from their week long holiday?? Who said the playground pic was withdrawn from public viewing and who said the photos were fake, just YOU Hedeki. Prove it!!!!!!!

You twist people’s words to suit your own agenda. You copy other’s posts then add a word or two in of your own so as to make yourself look super-intelligent. You degrade other posters in manners that you consider to be “correct”, then when you are confronted about it you complain that other posters dragged your comments over to the next day’s forum, and then end up “twisting” your OWN words so as to make yourself look good - not a very intelligent move! You are an absolute waste of time IMHO.

My looks should not concern you, it is not becoming to be jealous of what others look like!

You are a troll, and will always remain as such.

You’re the one posting derogatory comments about others’ IQ’s, Julie. That is just a cute and fancy way of calling people “idiot”, “retarded” and so on. Do you fancy yourself cute, Julie?

You have no response to my clever and good-natured retort, but to call me a troll?

Bad news for you — you are not cute at all. And your IQ is at an “undesirable” level — not quite high enough to discourse with my dog.

Try talking to PeterO — he goes for girls like you. (do you pole dance too?)

December 20th, 2007 at 6:33 am
I think if you only think bad things about the Mccans then only bad things will happen to you, the mccanns made a mistake so get over it!!
**********************************************
“Evil to him who evil thinks of it” and all that………..but the McCanns are not exactly the most likeable pair on the planet, they don’t exactly evoke much compassion and their extremely odd behaviour from Day One, which has been far removed from the “norm” in most people’s eyes, has not exactly endeared them to anyone and I think we all agree that what they did - or actually - did not do, as far as discharging their parental responsibilites is concerned, has touched many a nerve among all the parents here. You just don’t do what they did, you just don’t say what they say, you just do not behave in the weird ways they have behaved and - as has been said many times before - if ti were any of us lesser mortals, we would have been shoved in clink for child abandonment and criminal neglect and our kids taken away, faster than you can say ” Clonk…and she’s gone ” !!

“Hideki – I have to say that is quite possibly one of the most balanced and objective discussions of this subject I have ever read. Thank you.”

Not bad for a troll, eh?

“Nor can I really argue with your line of reasoning. You have described a thoroughly plausible chain of possible events. All we currently lack is the evidence to prove it.”

“We” lack evidence — the police don’t necessarily lack evidence.

“Perhaps the only possible alternative I can offer as to why the McCann’s and M3 should consistently push the paedophile line, in my opinion, is as some kind of bizarre “sympathy” sham/there has to be a bogeyman etc.. i.e. An extension of the PJ’s accident theory and the McCann’s are trying to shift the blame/gain public sympathy. ”

Still no reason why the “bogeyman” has to be a paedophile and no explanation of how they know that it is a NETWORK of organized bogeymen.

“If the McCann’s are allegedly fabricating the whole paedophile “story” simply to deflect from their own culpability…”

Clever, PeterO, clever. This is not what I was saying, and you know it. It is YOUR “only possible alternative”. I certainly DO NOT believe that they fabricated the paedophile “story” simply as a deflection. And you cannot show that they did — you do not know their motivation.

“then I think this is possibly “sicker” than the poor girl having actually suffered such a fate. ”

Yes, even then the McCanns come out as depraved monsters. But if they are NOT inventing the paedophile “story” simply as their personal deflecting shield, it means much more. It means that NOT ONLY are the McCanns depraved monsters, but they have been associating, directly or indirectly, with a wide network of depraved monsters. JMO.

So, where do the Jehovahs Witnesses fit into this evil conumdrum?

Goodness, saying it two times was not enough. Are you aware that posting redundantly like this is trollish, boorish behavior?

Stop acting like a troll and a boor, PeterO and if you have an argument to make, make it. Otherwise, go run back to your girls and comfort them.