Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.

[Eleanor]

No one is forcing you to join in to our boring conversation. Boring isn’t against the rules is it?

I have to read it.

[The General]

I have to read it.

Read it with an impartial stance. Might liven it up a bit.

[Venturi Swirl]

No one is forcing you to join in to our boring conversation. Boring isn’t against the rules is it?

Constant repetition probably is. 

[Venturi Swirl]

Read it with an impartial stance. Might liven it up a bit.

It doesn’t matter how you read it or how many times, the logic is still faulty.

[Lace]

Gerry doesn't say he went there. David said he did though.

Did Gerry mention he looked under cars?    A Nanny said he did.    I doubt whether the waiter got David and Gerry mixed up,   David wears glasses Gerry doesn't.    IMO

[Eleanor]

Constant repetition probably is.

Definitely is.

[Eleanor]

You choose to read it, surely no one forced to read it? I don’t think it’s boring, I happen to believe it’s a very appropriate response to VS’s question.

Wouldn't you love it if Moderators didn't read comments.

[Venturi Swirl]

If you believe you post original material that has not been posted over and over again I have to beg to differ.
The boring old cadaver dog alerts, eh.

I don’t constantly repeat the same old mantra day in day out, that is a fact.

[Lace]

Who else had died wearing Kate’s trousers and matching top? Another one of her dead patients?

Kate's trousers the ones she wore to appeal to the abductor.    Did she wash them after she was in contact with Madeleine's dead body?   I don't think so.    Would you wear a pair of trousers unwashed a few days later that you had worn to hide your childs body?    IMO

[Eleanor]

Its immaterial to me. I’m a good boy whose comments seldom need moderation.

Glad to hear it.  I can never remember.

[Venturi Swirl]

Oh yes you do IMO. The same old the sun shines out of Kate and Gerry’s rear end drivel day after day.

Now that is not only insulting but incorrect, please give me some examples from yesterday, or anytime in the last week, or retract.

[Eleanor]

Glad to hear it.  I can never remember.

This is probably the funniest thing I have ever said,

[The General]

It doesn’t matter how you read it or how many times, the logic is still faulty.

I don't see it that way. I'm not a big fan of remarkable coincidences being levered in to explain things.
The problem we will always have here is that, irrespective of its veracity, the 'DNA' and EVRD dog data will always be dismissed / supported dependent upon your leaning, which is not scientific at all.
Another non-scientific way of viewing this data, as I have, is to take it even as really flimsy, unsubstantiated data. I still think, even in this state, a worse case state, it has to be explained. And a remarkable coincidence doesn't hack it for me.

[Venturi Swirl]

I don't see it that way. I'm not a big fan of remarkable coincidences being levered in to explain things.
The problem we will always have here is that, irrespective of its veracity, the 'DNA' and EVRD dog data will always be dismissed / supported dependent upon your leaning, which is not scientific at all.
Another non-scientific way of viewing this data, as I have, is to take it even as really flimsy, unsubstantiated data. I still think, even in this state, a worse case state, it has to be explained. And a remarkable coincidence doesn't hack it for me.

I’m sorry but the logic IS faulty.  How can discrepancies in Gerry’s statement about which door he used to gain entry to the apartment validate the dog alerts and prove Madeleine died in the apartment, as far as CM is concerned?  Illogical General.

[The General]

I’m sorry but the logic IS faulty.  How can discrepancies in Gerry’s statement about which door he used to gain entry to the apartment validate the dog alerts and prove Madeleine died in the apartment, as far as CM is concerned?  Illogical General.

That's fine. Illogical that statement may or may not be.
But the very fact that we have those two factors present is remarkable in itself, which is my point.
We have to rely on some incredible odds to explain the factors present - the really unreliable EVRD / DNA evidence that no court in the world would uphold - worse case, couple with the main protagonist giving two disparate accounts of the last time he saw his daughter alive - the most profound moment of his life is not etched in to his soul?
And I use the same quantification to couple together other inexplicable elements.

I can do all of this with impunity because Davel is on a sabbatical and can't rip me to shreds. When he's back I'll scuttle off back in to my sangar, MP5 on knee, made ready, safety on.