Dave - Alright, I'm guilty! I was never a dba (database administrator, for those not in the know), but I was an analyst/programmer for a FTSE 100's company's Order To Cash system, which is practically the same thing ("what's going on in there; can you make it tell us this..."). I'll come quietly... ;-)

Don - I have no bloody idea what you're on about...

Steve - crap. Again. You say that circumstantial evidence can add to a case. Of course, but it can't stand alone. Yes, Steve, that's EXACTLY what I said - Circumstantial evidence doesn't make a case; it can only add to it. And you the occasional rabid grammar & speeling (sic!) hornet that thou art. ;-) C'mon, mate. I said that. Are you being guilty of reading of what you want to read, instead of what was written?

2/4d yerself. As you said, you're not arguing with me. Not precisely, but... Did you ever have a Scalextric track? Remember the crossover chicane? We're both headed in the same direction, but we never seem to be on the same track. Everything you just said can be thrown back in your face, which is my basic point. I don't know; happily, I'm not in a position where I have to judge.

However, the evidence available currently suggests no other actor than... No other possible actor than... Your own "Iran" proves my point more than yourn, because my point is not that state singular can keep its secret. It can't; it doesn't. But it takes the concerted effort of A.N.Other state to... And A.N.Other state hangs on to it like grim death too.

Ultimately, I make no more assumptions than you, Mr Shaw. But your assumptions do appear to be "There's no evidence so it could have been anyone". My assumptions are "The evidence available suggests..." I ain't making any judgements beyond "Rubbish arguments, Shaw. Must do better. D-" ;-)