Recently the inventor of DNA fingerprinting Alec Jeffreys, joined the list of inter-connected experts, gurus and celebrities wheeled out to support or, "give hope" to the McCanns - the couple who left their children alone in the hope that nothing would happen to them. Jeffreys took the view that DNA matches alone could not establish guilt and was widely reported to have said he would act as a witness if it came to a trial over the girl's disappearance.
If that is his view - then why did he not offer to appear as a witness for Bradley John Murdoch, convicted of the murder of British backpacker, Peter Falconio. Murdoch was convicted largely on the strength of DNA evidence - backed up by another British DNA expert, Dr Jonathan Whittaker.
Reporting on Murdoch's trial in October 2005, Lindsay Murdoch of The Age, wrote -
"Prosecutor Rex Wild revealed to the Northern Territory Supreme Court in Darwin this afternoon that Dr Jonathan Whittaker had uncovered new evidence linking the DNA of Murdoch, 47, a mechanic from Broome, Western Australia, to Mr Falconio and Ms Lees.
"Mr Wild told the court that Dr Whittaker, using a new technique, had matched DNA on the gearstick of the Kombi van in which the couple were allegedly ambushed to that of Murdoch. He said Murdoch's DNA also matched the DNA found on cable ties used to bind Ms Lees. Mr Wild said tests had established a very high probability that a small smudge on Ms Lees' T-shirt matched Murdoch's profile. "
I realise that Murdoch does not have any connection to Leicester, nor could he be described as middle class - so one can only assume that Jeffreys sudden interest in justice is restricted to those belonging to the right circles.
Media hacks such as Ron Mackenna in The Scotsman, who is allegedly a journalist but fails to provide enough valid evidence to prove it, are now trying to discredit the whole concept of DNA evidence. Yet until the McCanns ignored the welfare of their children, they had been quite happy to carry headlines such as "Danielle's DNA 'found on lipgloss' " a reference to the trial of the man convicted of the murder of Danielle Jones, in which Whittaker was a key witness.
In the case of the McCanns, the British media have thrown out the concept of innocent until proven guilty and replaced it with, "innocent no matter what you say." They condemn and discredit Internet bloggers for speculating without being in possession of proof - yet they use the words "abducted" and "missing" as though it has already been established in a court of law.
Other "journalists" such as India Knight, in an article so contrived the author ends up getting lost up her own back passage, picks on the most lurid comments of "anti-McCanners" and presents them as being typical of the sort of people who have doubts about England's Sacred Cows.
Such reporters never mention this blog - even though it is overwhelmingly "anti-McCann" and widely regarded as having more credibility than many other forums. Even Team McCann respects it, as time and again they have addressed issues raised in this blog - a blog that is constantly monitored, (if we talk so much nonsense, then why go to the bother of monitoring it - I don't think they are members of my alleged fan-club). That is why we have seen the sudden of appearance of previously silent friends.
The problem is, when they do address issues, they make matters even worse through sheer incompetence and the inability to understand the public is not as thick as they believe.
The media fails to realise or mention that many of us are in possession of far more facts and information than reported in traditional media- and I am not just talking about the obvious examples referred to below.
We have all seen the media gloss over the McCanns neglect - dismissing it as a "mistake" or "none of us are perfect". But how many times do they mention that the McCanns took the deliberate decision to neglect their children on a nightly basis? How many times do these self-righteous defenders of two people who have only themselves to blame for their plight, inform their readers the McCanns refused all offers of child supervision? Do they mention the long list of contradictory statements and equally long list of provable lies? Of course not.
There is another thing that puzzles me about the media's approach to this case. It seems as though they think the Tapas Nine materialised out of nowhere the day they set off for Portugal - as though beamed down by some alien version of Scotty. There has been little investigation of their past - although there has been investigation of mine, including contacting old clients going back a number of years.
The "old media" also fail to mention the roads that through a verifiable network of connections, seem to lead to 10 Downing Street. There are many other links - in particular links to two cities that in any other case, would have the same media falling over themselves to be first to report.
Yes, this blog does speculate, it does engage in detective work. Someone has to - and after all, we are only doing what "investigative journalists" did in the past. We are digging and delving - and doing it well.
In the past, journalists would talk about issues with friends, discuss cases over a few jars with their colleagues, contacts or informants (who were usually unnamed when the first editions hit the news-stands). The difference is we discuss it in public and that makes us a prime target for a traditional media scared stiff of the growing reliance on new media for information.
It is not the first time I have been painted an "arm-chair" expert by traditional media. There were veiled references to newsgroup posts where I questioned the existence of WMDs and pointed out that the "Coalition of The Blackmailed" would have little difficulty getting in to Iraq - but would face a long on-going guerrilla war of exactly the type we are seeing now. I back my judgement against the likes of Knight and Mackenna.
As I said earlier, the McCanns have only themselves to blame for the criticism and scorn directed their way - and not only because of their actions in Portugal.
From the start they had the assistance of media consultants and PR gurus. It was up to those advisors to sell an acceptable image of the McCanns - and they failed badly. Every man and his dog knew the McCanns did not present well - yet Team McCann either failed to identify this - or completely ignored it. If people don't like me - that's my fault - the same goes for the McCanns.
Oh how silly of me - I keep forgetting, the same rules do not apply to two people who came out of total obscurity to be courted and protected by some of the highest people in the land.
What we want to know is - why?