A Good Day To Bury Bad News...

[Pincher]

...but which news were they burying?

The Beeb were doing their best to show that they had not been taken off guard by plod's rear entry into 10 Downing Street for elevenses with Bambi by leading with this 'historic event' both on the BBC1 10.00pm Bulletin and on BBC 2's Newsnight.

The not so 'historic' final report of the first ever police investigation into the death of a royal figure only got third billing on both the BBC News at 10.00pm and on Sky News' evening bulletins. Most conveniently, BBC's Thursday night's Question Time had broken up for the hols along with the chattering classes favourite, This Week, leaving only Newsnight to put Lord Stevens under the microscope.

But Newsnights' editors didn't consider that Operation Paget even merited a feature slot and 'Thirsty Work' droned on and on without a hint of irony about Blair burying his own bad news.

On the very day one might have expected the media apparatus to focus on an overdue enquiry the whole shabang is exoceted amidships twice: first by Blair and then by Goldsmith (who appeared to revel in his task of telling the world what a morally banrkrupt nation we are).

But that's only round one to the establishment. They've also got to bury the entire newly 'open' Sloshed Butler Inquest in the New Year. The military industrial complex must have some really shocking diversion planned.

A few more naked corpses in Suffolk perhaps?

[jomper]

[ian neal]

Other whitewashes

And then there was SFO dropping BAE-Saudi bribery case (quelle surprise). So much for Britain being a leader in the drive against global corruption. Given that BAE stock price jumped by 6% on account of the news surely there is the possibility for insider trading for those in the know. Perhaps we can have another SFO inquiry into this possibility?


http://www.na.baesystems.com/ethics/16guidance.html
http://www.na.baesystems.com/ethics/20guidance.html

And then there's the testimony of Carne Ross given to the Butler inquiry but only entering the public arena yesterday, adding further weight to what we already know. The govt lied over Iraq and knew it was doing so

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076142.ece
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2076119.ece

[andyb]

I am going to protest outside the SFO on Moday from 5:30 about this nonsense. It is a stones throw away from the pub holding the London group's Crimbo bash. Let's get away from the keyboards and make ourselves heard.

[Pincher]

[Mark Gobell]

Cash for Honours Bliar interviewed, a precedent for a British Prime Minister to be quizzed by plod, BAE systems fudge by Goldfinger "in the name of national security", cough, Ipswich murders, national Police Force anyone, Lady Diana Lord Stevens fairy tales, "French CCTV gets switched off at night and they all go home to bed", cough, Geoof Hoon entangled in the skeleton of Sgt Steve Roberts who died facing bullets without body armour, Chess prodigy sexual abuse case verdict, Loco Flights collapse, warmest year on record, Jean Charles de Menezes family lose High Court battle to have his murderers held to account, Government confirms 3rd runway at Heathrow, 2500 Post Offices to close and to cap it all Ronnie O'Sullivan walks off in a huff.

And, the testimony of Carne Ross given to the Butler inquiry on June 9 2004, published yesterday on 14 Dec 2006. Why ?

A veritable avalanche of news all on the same day.

And today our heartstrings are now supposed to be deflected to reflect on Prince William passing out a day after his mum was insulted yet again.

Followed by the announcement that E-lies-r Bullying Manner is quitting the spooks after, wait for it, 33 years service. Beautiful.

And I hear you scream that dates mean nothing . . . .

As Napoleon asked "What if history was a fable, agreed upon ?"

[JimB]

[Mark Gobell]

Thinking about the Ipswich murders from the Hegelian perspective would lead one to speculate that the problem will provoke a "guided discussion" reaction which would then lead to the solution of legalised prostitution.

The "usual suspects" fingerprints are all over this dating back to it's precedent in Yorkshire so therefore that is what I predict, prostitution, (drugs too ?) will be licenced and the Church and the purists further marginalised. How could they possibly object ?

Further, I would also reason that the threat would need to be a persistent one so it's natural to imagine that the perp(s) need not to be caught.

[TonyGosling]

Propaganda of which Goebbels himself would have been proud
anyway - best way to react to propaganda is with some of your own - so here's my response to Charlie's murderous tripe.

see my Diana bumped off discussion here
http://www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/index.php?c=3

[Keith Mothersson]

I have just had a post suddenly vanish so am royally cheesed off; so this will be in note form:

Mail has capitulated: Al-Fayad should shut up or get the normal Muslim treatment now. In fact although Fayed's money and determination has driven this investigation/scandal forward the Establishment will now try to equate the whole 'conspiracy theory' with what Fayed has alleged - Establishment horror at Muslim royals, and ignore other motives and dimensions.

For front page Indie bought one of the big alternative stories the govt news-managers had arranged to break that day and also suggested that this story (about Ross Carle's reports about no threat from Saddam) was the 'Real Conspiracy' - subtly devaluing the Diana conspiracy. Indie also carried an article by Spook-linked Dominc Lawson to the effect that the original Fayed/Cole line hadn't been so gung-ho on the meaning of the ring, and hadn't mentioned the pregnancy angle at all - or even saw it a 'defamatory'(fair point). According to Neil Botham's great little paperback The Murder of Princess Diana, Lawson is hubby of Diana's close confidante (minder??) Rosa Monckton, whose brother is also MI6 according to Tomlinson: Monckton's 'Diana not pregnant' line could well be true, though, as could Diana saying she would put Dodi's ring firmly on her right hand (sounds a bit too neat a tale?) - and Diana could have been unclear about what she was really going to do, so wouldn't have told Monckton or Annabel Goldsmithe et al partly cos it would have been spread all around or else got back to MI6? IMO the marriage issue is unclear and could well be a big distraction.

The good news was that the Indie's editorial took the line that "The awkward questions have not gone away":
It defended the right of people to be sceptical (one third of British public) and talked of Fiat Uno, Andanson's Uno being resprayed; and his suicide [didn't mention his head being between the front seats while his body was upright - but Stevens Report does, while managing to take the 'no evidence of foul play' line of the french 'investigation'.]

The editorial also bemoaned lack of CCTV camera images [but didn't call for the full release of all the CCTV footage around that time so we can see for ourselves where the cameras were pointed and the quality of images they were sending back. It seems we are asked to believe that because the French value their privacy, the cameras outside the french MoD were switched off at 9 pm.]

Mark Lawson did a shameful knockabout dismissal of 'conspiracy freaks' in the Guardian; I can never work out to what extent people like him are naive, ill-informed or deliberately exploiting the fact that most people haven't read the books, websites which would give the lie to the angle they are pushing.

At all events there is plenty of reason for Diana to be bumped off even if from NASA phone transcipts, Monckton reports etc the PTB couold have been sure that Diana wasn't going to marry Dodi. These include

* powerful foe of Royals - not going quietly, in successful media war with The Firm, had lots of incriminating evidence ('Crown Jewels');
* powerful foe of Court circles (gay mafia) and Aristo preoccupation with killing wildlife;
* due to be punished for Hewitt/Harry filiation? standing in way of Charles and Camilla getting married; worst of all she had said Charles 'not fit to be king' - so people were talking about skipping to William;
* landmines issue - cutting across US etc mil-industrial complex can be bad for your health;
* according to King and Beveridge: Princess Diana - the Hidden Evidence, Diana had responded favourably to being sent some Executive Intelligence Review material on the Monarchy-City role in world affairs and especially Africa, which her Angola sortie risked revealing to the world;
* loose cannon - nobody knew what political causes she might espouse next (Gulf War syndrome, Palestine?) ;
* Although Al-Fayed talked of the Establishment's fear of an 'alternative' = al-Fayed monarchy, according to King and Beveridge there is an occult dimension to this which goes much deeper - and however ridiculous we think bloodline stuff is, who is to say that MI6/Establishement types don't take it deadly serious?: namely that the problem was a 'counter-Monarchy problem' = Stewart=Merovingian=Jesus=David bloodline which was much more mystically-genetically 'royal' than that of the usurper Windsor dynasty. - so Harry might have been only Spencer-Stewart, not Windsor at all, shock horror.

Not only does mainstream media deliberately hide (or report in ignorance of) the scale of Diana's offenses , they also hide/don't realise the sclae of the culture of Intimidation at the top: thus Diana's fears reported to Lord Mishcon are still now seen as evidence of irrational fears that she might be killed in an accident (did Burrell fake that note?) . ( Diana was reported to be afraid for both herself and Camilla.)

No mention of the evidence in pp 59 ff of Botham's book that Hewitt was warned off by reference to 'look what happened to Manakee' [protection officer moved for being too close to Diana, then died in a road accident] - nor the material in King and Beveridge, p 83, that Camilla may well have been subject to a bungled MI5 car death on night of 11 June 1997, after which Charles stepped up security around her greatly.

Peter Hounam and Derek McAdam also had interesting things to report about the secret services and car crashes in their 1998 book, Who Killed Diana?, Chapter 8.

Hypnotists can induce in people an inability to see a chair in the centre of a small room, then when asked how many chairs the people can't see the chair in the middle of the room but when asked to close a window they move round the chair they can't see.

I think this is a good metaphor for establishment journos who 'can't see' the culture of intimidation at the top, yet see it well enough to know that they mustn't see it, or report it to others.

[JimB]

[jomper]

I'm afraid I'm much less well versed in the Diana conspiracy than I am in the problems surrounding the official version of 9/11, as I don't find the subject nearly as interesting.

However I did watch some of the BBC TV programme about it. I was impressed by the extent to which the French authorities had apparently gone to prove that the blood samples they'd tested really were from Henri Paul (ie, matching its DNA to his parents).

Can someone explain to me the alternative take on this detail? Is it simply thought to be an out-an-out lie, something that wasn't actually done?

Apparently the blood also had significant amounts of carbon monoxide in it, which was explained by Paul's cigar smoking. How much carbon monoxide was that exactly?

I mentioned the level of carbon monoxide I thought was found in his blood to a medical expert friend, and he was very skeptical that it could've come from cigar smoke - but now I can't find an authoritative source that says exactly what the levels of carbon monoxide were.

Nevertheless, this is the blood that was DNA tested and supposedly shown to be Paul's, right? This strikes me as a problem if the suggestion is that blood was switched or mixed up with someone else's.

Any help clearing this up for me much appreciated!

[Keith Mothersson]

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=1121&highlight=madri d

From some way down the scrollbar there is preserved an article by Sue Reid of the Daily Mail (no longer accessible directly) in which she reports a claim by someone at the operations room of the UK embassy that that night he was ordered out by two posh gents, one of wh9om he subsequently believes to have been the Queens' Private Sec, supposed to be in Norfolk, Sir Robert Fellowes, and Diana's brother in law [whom she thought was one of the main three people out to get her, it now transpires]. The same article also cast suspicion at why Blair's RAF plane crew had been kept on standby all weekend for something special to take him back to London from Sedgefield.

As for the questions about the blood, I can't claim to have investigated this fully but the DNA could have been checked 9 or 8 years ago; the level of monoxide in one of the blood samples was 20.7 - which would have been pretty disabling, yet Paul was able to tie his shoelace, didn't seem to be having a really heavy headache, etc. The hypothesis is that the blood may have come from a suicide victim that same night in Paris (22 bodies in the morgue) who gassed himself with his car exhaust. The cigar smoking theory seems insufficient to account for such a high reading. The French now say the high carbon reading was a mistake, but haven't explained it.

And just looking at the alchohol levels, and assuming no conscious manipulation, and the DNA does match with his parents, even so it does NOT prove that Henri Paul was (contrary to everyone's impression) drunk. Nicholas Davies' book: Diana - The Killing of a Princess says (pp248 ff) that when serious organ smashing crashes occur like pilots and racng drivers, it is normal to find such high levels (around 180 mg of alchohol per 100ml of blood). This is because yeasts break out of the stomach etc and rapidly ferment the blood in the body and then continue in the sample tubes unless specific precautions are taken. This has been well known ever since a group of pilots who crashed but were known not to have taken any alchohol showed high alchohol readings in their blood.

[Keith Mothersson]

What makes this theory especially pertinent in this case is that the second of the two readings had a higher blood alchohol level than the first, not lower as would otherwise be assumed. The reason bodies eventually get smelly is presumably because the blood is being progressively converted by all sorts of yeast building up.

[jomper]

Thanks very much for that.

[Pincher]

Jomper,

Here's the detailed info you require on those phoney DNA tests and blood/carbon monoxide readings:

1.On the morning on which Henri Paul was killed, an autopsy was carried out by Professor Dominique Lecompte.

2. It was carried out in front of Commander Mules.

3. 5 samples of blood were allegedly taken from Paul’s body, and, according to Commander Mules they were all processed and dealt with in precisely the same way.

4. 2 of those samples were sent off to different laboratories for testing, and the remaining 3 were kept at the institute where the autopsy was carried out.

5. The two samples tested both allegedly showed identical and excessive levels of alcohol. One of those same samples was also tested for carbon monoxide and showed a level of 20.7%

Although it was said in the report made at the time that the unused remains of the samples actually tested would be stored and preserved, it was eventually claimed during recent court proceedings initiated in Paris by Mr. Al Fayed that in fact there is nothing left of those two samples.

Accordingly, there have been no DNA tests on the two samples which were used as the basis for the alcohol levels and as the basis for the allegation that Paul was drunk.

6. The authorities and the Lord Stevens team have failed to come up with any credible explanation for the level of 20.7% carbon monoxide level found in the sample of blood which was not only tested for alcohol but also for carbon monoxide.

All the international experts retained by Mr Al Fayed, as well as, so we are told, those retained by the police accept that Henri Paul could not have had that level of carbon monoxide. It is a level consistent more with someone who died in a fire or committed suicide as a result of inhaling exhaust fumes and drinking.

Much has been made of the fact that Henri's heavy cigar smoking habit caused this high reading. But toxicologists are agreed that the maximum blood/carbon monoxide reading of such a heavy smoker would be unlikely to be above 10% (and to get such a high reading it would have to be taken within minutes of inhaling cigar smoke - Ritz Hotel CCTV footage did not show Henri smoking).

And 'Henri's' 20.7% sample was taken hours after death. If this sample was indeed his than at the time of death his blood/carbon monoxide would have been at least 30% rendering him incapable of driving.

7. Three unused and untested samples of blood allegedly taken from Henri Pauls body on the night of 31 August should still remain.

8. However, in the recent Paris Court proceeding, Professor Lecompte has now confirmed on oath and under examination that in fact she only took three samples of blood from Henri Paul’s body on 31 August. Commander Mules supervised the process. Why did the record books made under his supervision show 5 samples if only 3 were taken from Henri Paul, and where did the other two come from? No one has been able to explain this.

Were these additional ones the two that were sent off for testing and which not only showed the high Alcohol level but also the impossibly high carbon monoxide level. If Henri Paul had actually had that combination of alcohol and carbon monoxide level, he could not have stood, let alone drive.

Professor Lecompte is now the subject of an official criminal investigation in France by the Brigade Criminelle on the instruction of the supervising judge.

9. The three unused samples which were never sent for testing probably did come from Henri Paul. These are probably the three which Professor Lecompte now confirms she took. It is one of those samples which has been tested for DNA which is why the tests show that it almost certainly came from Henri Paul.

The ones sent in 1997 for Alcohol testing do not now exist and have never been tested for DNA. The BBC documentary has fallen into the trap deliberately set by those involved in the cover up.

NO BLOOD EVER USED FOR ALCOHOL TESTING HAS EVER BEEN DNA TESTED. WHATEVER WAS LEFT OVER FROM THAT SAMPLE HAS BEEN DESTROYED SO THAT IT CANNOT BE NOW TESTED FOR DNA.

10. A further sample of blood was taken from Henri Paul’s body 4 days later (on 4 September 1997) in front of the French investigating Judge, Herve Stephan. This was sent off to Dr. Pepin,the same toxicologist who had carried out the original alcohol/carbon monoxide test, and who in fact owned the laboratory.

Apart from the 4 day time difference, this blood sample was taken using a different method and taken from a from a completely different part of the body. Top international experts agree that, under those circumstances, no one should have obtained a closely similar or identical alcohol reading to the blood taken on 31 August, 2007.

But amazingly, the person to whom they were sent, the self same Dr. Pepin, allegedly obtained an almost identical figure. Even more incredible is the fact that the unused remains of that blood also allegedly no longer exist and so cannot be tested for Henri Paul’s DNA.

11. Mules is also wrong when he claims that the process of taking the blood and labelling it was all done correctly. The samples allegedly all taken at the same time from Henri Paul are, we now know, in different sorts of bottles, some have typed labels and some have handwritten ones. There is even evidence of someone else’s name having been scratched out on one of them and Henri Paul’s name written over it.

12. Detailed analysis by independent experts show many other reasons for believing that the blood tested is most unlikely to have come from Henri Paul.

Hope this answers your query...

[Keith Mothersson]

Great post Pincher. This is such a clear analysis of the complicated blood samples issue that it deserves to be syndicated in every newspaper tomorrow.

Even if we are blocked in the national newspapers, lots of us could get an article on our local papers based on your clear analysis. At any rate I plan to!

Thanks a lot!

[paul wright]

Yes Keith
This is clear explanation of how they did it
Thanks Pincher in your disentanglement

[Pincher]

I am currently going through Paget with a fine tooth comb and noting discrepancies and omissions which I will list on here (hopefully before Xmas).

Before then some quick questions.

Has anyone come across the name of the 'alternative' to James Andanson as the driver of the Fiat Uno?

Can anyone corroborate the story of the speeding ticket issued around 15 minutes before D & D's accident as a result of photographic evidence supplied by the traffic cameras supposedly swithced off at 9.00pm on Sat 30th August?

[Mark Gobell]

Repeat after me:

PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION, PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION

As I have already said: Solution = National Police Force, Drugs policy and legalised prostitution.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/64aec824-8caf-11db-9684-0000779e2340,_i_rssPag e=34c8a8a6-2f7b-11da-8b51-00000e2511c8.html

Prostitute murders intensify pressure for policy change

By James Blitz

This week Tony Blair told MPs "there may be lessons we have to learn" from the murders of five prostitutes in Suffolk. Understandably, those lessons are far from the centre of political discussion right now but the killings raise questions about three public policy issues that need urgent discussion. These are the structure of the police, policy on prostitution and whether the UK has the right approach to drug addiction.

First, there are the issues surrounding the structure of the police. The service is split into 52 independent constabularies of varying size. As a result, when high-profile crime occurs, a regional constabulary - in this case Suffolk - can suddenly find itself facing an overwhelming burden, managing a manhunt in the full glare of the media.

Does Britain need to merge many of these constabularies so they have better operational capability? Many MPs still argue against this. They note, for example, that Suffolk has been quick to draft in extra support from London and elsewhere to help the investigation. They argue that murder inquiries on this scale are mercifully rare and, therefore, do not warrant a structural overhaul. They also say that smaller constabularies ensure police leaders are in touch with communities.

Others, however, argue that the Ipswich events highlight once again the need to press ahead with mergers, as Charles Clarke, the former home secretary, tried but failed to do this year. They say that while Suffolk might be doing its best, the force will be focusing huge resources on this one manhunt and that will create problemsfor neighbourhood policing elsewhere in the county. In any event, a wholesale reorganisation of the police system could save billions of pounds in administration costs.

A second issue raised by the Ipswich murders is whether the law on prostitution needs to be changed. Here, much of the thinking has been done by Fiona Mactaggart, a former Home Office minister, who believes the law must do more to protect prostitutes from trafficking and violence. She believes the law must be changed to allow twoor three women to work in mini-brothels - something currently punishable by a heavy jail sentence. Had this reform been enacted, it might have saved some of the Ipswich women from attack.

The recommendation from Ms Mactaggart sounds sensible but has been strongly opposed by people who think mini-brothels would become a public nuisance. Others say that the debate about prostitution laws does not respond to the issues raised by the Ipswich case. The murder victims were not women given to a professional life of prostitution. Instead, they were essentially drug addicts - some from comfortable backgrounds - who were looking to get money as quickly as they could.

There is merit to this argument. After Ipswich, the focus of policy-thinking probably needs to be on how to combat the use of class A drugs, such as heroin and crack cocaine. These are prohibited by law and those caught using such drugs are driven into a system of enforced treatment and rehabilitation that some experts say does not work.

A question being put by some groups is whether prohibition should be replaced by a system of regulated and controlled markets of the kind that operates in some European countries. Under this system, users would no longer buy drugs from unregulated dealers. Instead, they would go to pharmacists while coming under a system of close supervision which, over time, would seek to wean them off their habit.

For any government to contemplate such a shift of policy would be risky. But it is a question that nags away at the heart of the murder case. The five women had the terrible misfortune to come across a killer. But long before then, their lives had been blighted by addiction and the inability of support services to help them face down the monster of drugs.

[alkmyst]

It seems that there are a number of us coming to a similar conclusion with regard to the ongoing Ipswich saga. The following is lifted from an Email I sent to someone in East Anglia last week:

[JimB]

[Mark Gobell]

Brilliant setup this. The "lone nut" is interviewed several times, by the police and the media, yet it takes that paragon of investigative journalism, the Sunday Mirror to run a major inside spread before the cops finally lift the patsy this morning, having been screaming "nick me, nick me, nick me please" for days.

Prediction: He'll either be: let off for these crimes and fitted for some other, which may itself eventually be dropped, or, he will "fit the bill" as it were and close the case.

Either way the OIC will take the fall, just like they did for the other psy op at Soham which shafted the ineffectual marionettes, Blunkett and Clarke, eventually, since ACPO messed with the strings. Sharon Beshenivsky anyone ? Ask Jean Charles . . .

Outcome: CCTV is good for you, regional police forces are bad for you, drugs policy needs to be reviewed (non starter) and prostitution needs to be legalised - yesss cries Fiona Mactaggart. Check the birth of Operation Pentameter.

News management has certainly moved on. From false flag bombings to false flag murders that few even care about. Lovely.

I'm staying in the rest of the week.

[alkmyst]

JimB asked:

[JimB]

[Mark Gobell]

Will he be found guilty ? Is he guilty or innocent ? In the court of public opinion he's guilty as hell. He'd have been hanged already if Dodge City had TV. Case closed. Are you immune to this ?

Ipswich cares ?

LOL yeah they care alright, just like we all do.

If you don't get it Jim, you ain't gonna get it from me.

[Keith Mothersson]

Hi, Mark and others,

I think that if we go out on a limb (even on this site) and refer to something as (to most people) way out as Soham, we should as a matter of course give the reference - which unless Mark knows better sources is the work of the late lamented Joe Vialls.
http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/pedophile1.html

It is fine to have suspicions, and even to share them tentatively, but I personally think we should always be careful not to assume as definite what we suspect to be rather likely. If it is really definite we should give the grounds and sources why we have concluded definitively.

What happened on Thursday 14th was the release of a whole set of stories, and many commentators have sought to gain credibility for taking a mildly critical position on one story by swearing their loyalty on others, or complaining about the lack of importance of all the others. Divide and rule, it seems to me, but I suppose it could just have been co-incidence????. I'll give it one percent likelihood.

What really happened at Ipswich we may never know, or there again we may. Having the Soham model available to us can be helpful to us and others, but none of us really knows at this stage. The way that various policy developments are being mooted does look suspicious, but doesn't prove that it is all part of Problem-reaction-solution: in absense of proof, I'll give that as 5 percent likely to have been co-incidence.

But as for the Ipswich murders, who knows?: lone murderer? lone soldier/airman needing to be covered up for leading to frame-up? or group of the same? ditto being opportunistically exploited for political ends? or occult made to order atrocity for news-distraction and policy manipulation purposes? (I sure hope we aren't that far down the road.)

If it wasn't all so awful for the victims and families, we could place our bets, I suppose.

[Mark Gobell]

Keith, wise words indeed.

The reality may be very different from that which can be supported from mainstream thinking or sources, or otherwise.

Whilst I understand, I would add that I didn't read this anywhere, neither was I told and so therefore the clues are available to all.

Napoleon: What if history is a fable? Agreed upon.

[Pincher]

Vialls was completely wrong about Soham, Gobell, and his website on the issue was/is an utter travesty.

Vialls was completely obsessed with the poor conduct of American forces overseas to the extent that he could not accept that much of it was/is the result of sheer indiscipline (anyone familiar with the conduct of GI's in WWII would accept this) rather than psy ops.

His coverage of the Soham case showed not only a lack of understanding of the culture of British policing but of basic criminology also (suspect exhibiting disturbed behaviour is known by the victim). Huntley's safe as houses conviction is only disputed by a deluded, paranoid fringe.

For the record 'The Increment' has a virtual monopoly on psy ops in the UK.

[Mark Gobell]

I appreciate your view there Pincher, although attributing alternative opinions about an historical event as products of a deluded and paranoid fringe could be argued as being a tad harsh.

I'm guessing that you don't have any privileged knowledge of the Soham case and that your view is based on the msm portrayal of events.

Just for the record, I haven't mentioned or referenced Vialls or GI's.