Cops quiz British gardener in Madeleine McCann disappearance.

[Carana]

See signature.
Obviously just my opinion but I did research it, everything checks out, for example the newspapers are talking 100% rubbish when they say a swab was done in 2007, and the man is telling the truth when he says it wasn't, look at the page the lazy papers say is a swab, it's not.

I have no idea whether this guy is 100% honest or not. What I've been able to verify is that he did not have a DNA swab taken in 2007, so he's quite right about that.

[misty]

See signature.
Obviously just my opinion but I did research it, everything checks out, for example the newspapers are talking 100% rubbish when they say a swab was done in 2007, and the man is telling the truth when he says it wasn't, look at the page the lazy papers say is a swab, it's not.

When the official files lead you to believe a DNA swab has been taken from a suspect whose house & vehicle the PJ felt they had a reason to inspect, it is rather strange to subsequently discover that no swab was ever requested. I wonder what specific reason the PJ had for suspecting this man to such a degree that a house/vehicle search was deemed necessary?
!00% innocent my ****. He's had 6 years to go to the local press about that note.

[pegasus]

When the official files lead you to believe a DNA swab has been taken ...

No, there is absolutely nothing in the official files which say a dna swab was taken.
Which page number in the files are you claiming mentions a dna swab?

[misty]

No, there is absolutely nothing in the official files which say a dna swab was taken.
Which page number in the files are you claiming mentions a dna swab?

The misleading main index & header of p 978.
Rather like the Ukranian witnesses - recorded in such a way as to mislead.

[pegasus]

The misleading main index & header of p 978.
Rather like the Ukranian witnesses - recorded in such a way as to mislead.

No, page 978 is not misleading, it is clear and easy to understand, with no mention of any dna swab.
Are you sure you are not referring to a website owner's accidental mistake on an index page of his/her useful but unofficial website?

[slartibartfast]

See signature.
Obviously just my opinion but I did research it, everything checks out, for example the newspapers are talking 100% rubbish when they say a swab was done in 2007, and the man is telling the truth when he says it wasn't, look at the page the lazy papers say is a swab, it's not.

No problem. It just implies some evidence behind the assertion.

[misty]

No, page 978 is not misleading, it is clear and easy to understand, with no mention of any dna swab.
Are you sure you are not referring to a website owner's accidental mistake on an index page of his/her useful but unofficial website?

The page itself is not misleading, merely the index & the header. None of us had checked the translation - why would we deem it necessary to check the wording of a consent form - the question is why somebody would want us to believe the guy had been DNA tested & therefore effectively ruled out of the PJ investigation?
If we have to question the accuracy & validity of everything in those files then all arguments for & against are worthless.

[pegasus]

No problem. It just implies some evidence behind the assertion.

Yes indeed evidence has already been posted showing the witness is telling the truth about the rain, about no swab having been done, and about the location of the bar.
If you prefer to believe the UK newspapers who mistakenly give a find date that was dry, who wrongly state the bar was in PDL, and who mistakenly state a swab was done, that is your privilege.

[pegasus]

The page itself is not misleading, merely the index & the header. None of us had checked the translation - why would we deem it necessary to check the wording of a consent form - the question is why somebody would want us to believe the guy had been DNA tested & therefore effectively ruled out of the PJ investigation?
If we have to question the accuracy & validity of everything in those files then all arguments for & against are worthless.

The index and header you refer to are not part of the files, they are an index written by an independent website.

[slartibartfast]

Yes indeed evidence has already been posted showing the witness is telling the truth about the rain, about no swab having been done, and about the location of the bar.
If you prefer to believe the UK newspapers who mistakenly give a find date that was dry, who wrongly state the bar was in PDL, and who mistakenly state a swab was done, that is your privilege.

I didn't say I did...

[pegasus]

I didn't say I did...

Checked 3 discrepancies between what the witness said and what journos added, found evidence that the witness is honest and accurate on all 3 points, so my conclusion is 100% honest.

[Carana]

The documents are correctly labelled elsewhere on that site. For some reason, there was a mix-up on the pages close to his statement.

And, no, there was no DNA swab.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_4_1.htm

[pegasus]

Thanks Carana. Confirms that the witness who says "no swab done" is honest. And that the UK media who say "swab done" are wrong.

[misty]

The documents are correctly labelled elsewhere on that site. For some reason, there was a mix-up on the pages close to his statement.

And, no, there was no DNA swab.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_4_1.htm

Yes, it is clear there was no request for a DNA swab.
So, why has Ines the translator apparently omitted the details of where the gardener was working on the afternoon on the 3rd, and for whom?
Again, what is there in the statement to suggest that this man, rather than many other OC employees, warranted having his house & car searched by the PJ?

[Brietta]

Checked 3 discrepancies between what the witness said and what journos added, found evidence that the witness is honest and accurate on all 3 points, so my conclusion is 100% honest.

Please consider ... what the witness said matched the statement he gave to the police.

Its honesty and accuracy, in line with the majority of witness statements, seems to have been accepted as such at the time since no further investigation appears to have been carried out. 

Some of that lack of investigation seems to have been remiss given that Operation Grange discovered so many persons of interest they thought it necessary to interview again.