The local MP for Bristol East, Kerry McCarthy, has Tweeted that the Express has just done the 'Hitler was a woman' trick on her.
She was asked if she supported DNA testing of local men, she said yes she did. This becomes the statement 'MP calls for DNA testing'.

She Tweeted




becomes



So answering a direct question means that you are 'leading the call'...

Story here

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

Does anyone else think that the Sun's £50,000 reward is a pretty cynical move? It may even hinder the investigation if peoples keenness to bag the cash leads to them giving false information.

It reminded me of Doug Stanhope's bit about Dawn Dish Soap: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQGqXUNe4XE

All of the tabloids have behaved appallingly in their reporting of this case so far.

I'm not sure where this is going, but the Mail is now saying that McCarthy has 'called for' every male in Bristol to be DNA tested - even though they can't come up with a quote, just a reference to the Express article.

They mean this:



which, of course, is meaningless unless we know the question to which this was an answer - probably 'Do you think all men in Bristol should be DNA tested' as there is no direct quote of her calling for this, simply responses.

Mendacious journalism alert...


Mail story

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

Further Tweets from Kerry McCarthy:

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

How many journalists does it take to copy something from the Express?

I've chosen to avoid press coverage of the case for the last few days.
Last thing I heard was something about a missing sock.

At that time there had been no suggestion of a sexual motive in the crime
(Though it's clear the police are keeping the investigation relatively closed).

Has it been established that the killer is definitely male?
I wonder otherwise why only men are to be sampled.

I've now started to wonder about how I'd respond if asked for a sample.
Fortunately there has been no horrific crime close to my home, but imagine if there was..

The call goes out for all residents to be sampled.
I'm unhappy about the situation, despite knowing my innocence, since the police have a poor record of following their duty to destroy samples from innocents.
Add in potential leakage to other databases (Human error or scope creep) and there's a decent case for not handing out samples.

If I dig my heels in and refuse the sample, I'm "That guy" who's obstructing the investigation and probably has something to hide.
If the sample is given, I end up in some data warehouse and get mined out in all manner of odd searches.

None of this adds much but a little inconvenience assuming the police are all honest and competent.
For ever.

Also possible problems with shitloads of irrelevant though well-intentioned information. "There was something funny about that delivery man" etc. Even if people aren't doing it for the money, the hype might well attract more dubious stuff.

When the police sit down and sift all this info, the papers will tell them they ought to be walking the beat.

And the ghoulish post mortem voyuerism continues.

Complete with Mailites taking a break from Midsomer Murders to share their deductions and espouse their theories. Disturbing and intrusive, yet I fear the Mail is not alone in stirring the pot.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -late.html

_________________
Mailwatch. Love us or leave us.
http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/

Jana can't work her phone, so the police or the bloke who received the text must be lying?

_________________
The upper hand is on the other foot now.

Staggering number of armchair detective out there. Watching repeats of Diagnosis Murder does not make you qualified to comment on these matters.

I’m amazed they are even allowing comments, should they ever put anyone on trial for this it’s going to be a bugger to find an impartial jury.

_________________
"As a horror writer I don't ask for much. I just hope I've changed the way you think about life."

I wonder how many samples of DNA there were on her body, or indeed, how many different ones we all have on us at any time.

People seem to have the idea that:
A. DNA is dropped everywhere that you go (one comment was along the lines of "why would the killer return to the house and leave DNA all over the place? She must have made it home to drop off her belongings herself")

and B. DNA is proof of guilt. You could bump into someone in a bar and there's a chance that a hair with some DNA material could drop onto you, which could then be found after a crime. It doesn't mean the "DNA dropper" had anything to do with it.

_________________
The upper hand is on the other foot now.

Reminds me of this line from Linle Hutz off the Simpsons:
'Don't worry, i watched Matlock in a bar last night, the sound wasn't on, but I think I got the gist of it...'

_________________
'Because we've reached the limits of what rectal probing can teach us'

CSI has a fuck of a lot to answer for. DNA, as I understand it, is more discussed in terms of probabilities than concrete evidence.