Wednesday, 31 August 2011

Blacksmith backpedals!



By Honestbroker.

I disagreed with Vee's excellent rebuttal in one respect.

While it's certainly fair to ask why Blacksmith should have pointed his reader to the source (in Kate's book) that rebutted Blacksmith's claim that Kate had reneged on prior words about the nature of the deal offered to Kate and Gerry by the PJ following their arguido interviews, I think Vee had the reason wrong.

While Blacksmith could, perhaps, rely on his supporters complacently to accept what he said at face value, Blacksmith has been around us pros long enough to be certain we would check. I think it more likely Blacksmith anticipated a rebuttal such as Vee's and had his response already prepared. Here it is:

“Mrs McCann's lawyer told her that police would offer her a two-year sentence if she pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her daughter.”

And in the Guardian and Sky news:

‘Philomena McCann, Mr McCann's sister, said the police claims were "ludicrous". "They are suggesting that Kate was somehow responsible for accidentally killing Madeleine and kept the body and then got rid of it. I have never heard anything so absolutely ludicrous in my life," she told Sky News.’

And in the Telegraph, under the heading, Madeleine McCann's family accuse police:

‘“The McCanns were both named as "arguidos", or formal suspects, on Friday after two days of police interviews during which Mrs McCann was offered a "deal" of a suspended prison sentence if she admitted to "accidentally" killing her daughter and told police where the body was.”’

It should be clear, I think, that the claim was specific. The deal revolved around Kate McCann admitting that she had killed the child accidentally. And the implication was also clear: that if she didn’t so confess to killing the child under these circumstances then the possibility of a more serious charge – killing the child intentionally, i.e murder – might result.

To rescind: verb. To make void; repeal or annul.

Finally we turn to Kate’s book, page 243. Where is the above claim? It is not there.
“Carlos announced what the police had proposed. If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment , and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body , the sentence I’d receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I’d be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide."

Blacksmith has relied on the words of a third party (Kate's sister-in-law and Gerry's sister Philomena McCann) as his evidence for a "contradiction". There are two problems with this. The first is that Kate cannot be held responsible for words of any third party aside, possibly, from Gerry. The second is that we know, not from Philomena or any UK media source, but from the first coordinator of the Madeleine enquiry, Dr Goncalo Amaral, that the PJ, indeed, suspected the McCanns of direct responsibility for Madeleine's death. In his El Mundo interview, Dr Amaral says this:

Q - So, what are we talking about?

A - About an accident. The child could have fallen from a sofa, could have had an accident with Calpol (a sleeping solution). We never had access to the girl’s medical history, so we don’t know whether she was healthy or not. We can only speculate. There are many very strange details.

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=33480435751&topic=5488

I think that's pretty plain. Amaral is suggesting Madeleine might have been overdosed with calpol. If that were true, there are only two people who would have given it to her, Kate or Gerry.

If the point (that there was a belief among the PJ that Kate or Gerry were directly implicated in Madeleine's alleged demise) needed emphasising, it is surely emphasised by what Kate tells us in her book -- that if they refused the deal, the couple would both face murder charges.

Back to the drawing board for Blacksmith, I think.


Addendum by Vee8.

Just to further make things clear, for all of Blacksmith’s obfuscations about what he originally said in his first post, (See below) the fact remains that, in simple terms, he claims Kate made no mention of the deal in her book. Now, unless the words ‘Proposed’ and ‘Offered’ have taken on new meanings since I left school, then Kate does mention the deal. No amount of backpedalling by Blacksmith, in an attempt to change what he originally said will alter the written truth.

Monday, 22 August 2011

The bigger fool?



By Vee8

Here’s a question. Who is the bigger fool, the fool who leads or the fools who follows him? By now it is well known all over our particular corner of the internet that one Tony Bennett, erstwhile secretary of the so called ‘Madeleine Foundation’ is in a whole world of hurt. Currently about to be sued by Mr Edward Smethurst, one of the McCanns financial backers, for a sum not exceeding £100,000 in relation to a continual campaign of libel and defamation, he is also now the subject of a contempt of court case brought about by the McCanns. Things most certainly look extremely bleak for the disgraced ex-solicitor. No wonder then, that those of us who really do support Madeleine are rubbing our hands in glee at the thought of Bennett’s suffering.

Given Bennett’s constant spreading of the most disgusting lies and smears, his continual dissemination of disinformation, his perpetual non-stop campaign against not just Kate and Gerry themselves, but any honest and caring person who takes it upon themselves to do whatever they can to help in the search for Madeleine, I think it is fair to say Bennett deserves everything that is coming to him, and much more besides. And who could blame us?

Well, it seems Blacksmith can. Blacksmith is a name we have mentioned before, in a post entitled, ‘Blacksmith, Polemic and debate.

http://amaralfiction.blogspot.com/2011/02/blacksmith-polemic-and-debate.html

Now Blacksmith and Bennett have never seen eye to eye. He has made that abundantly clear on numerous occasions. He had Bennett weighed up very early, almost as soon as most Pro’s did. However, as evidenced by the recent post on his bureau, below, it seems he does have a small degree of sympathy for Bennett’s current situation, and seems surprised at the reactions of the TSM’s (True Supporters of Madeleine) to Bennett’s self inflicted wounds.

FRIDAY, 19 AUGUST 2011

Dancing on graves

The Bureau is no friend of Mr Tony Bennett, for reasons that go a great deal deeper than personality clashes: in fact we strongly disagree with just about every action he has ever taken in the Madeleine McCann affair.
But a quick tour yesterday through the low-lying blog and forum marshland which the few dozen professional McCann believers so noisily inhabit was a saddening experience. The news that Mr Bennett is now being pursued for libel by Ed the Expunger and for contempt of court by the McCanns has been welcomed not with satisfaction so much as intense pleasure. The excited interchanges, indeed, about the time this old man might spend in prison – years, we hope! – or the prospect of him and his wife living rough for the rest of their days- wonderful! remind one of the collective drooling of an S&M webporn ring.

Don’t any of them have even a moment of doubt at what they are writing? It seems not.


Leaving aside for a moment Blacksmith’s obvious expertise with S&M porn sites, to which I bow to his superior knowledge, should we, in fact, be surprised at his expression of compassion towards Bennett? After all, they do have more in common than perhaps even they realise.

Both, for instance, have their followers, fan clubs if you will, people who hang on their every word, and who, especially in Bennett’s case vociferously sound their support from the wings. Bennett in particular is heavily reliant on these supporters being, how can I put this without sounding like I am being insulting for the sake of it? Stupid? No, perhaps gullible or easily led is better. In short, he is dependent on his followers blindly accepting that whatever he says is true, without making any attempt to verify his writings for themselves. And there’s the next similarity between the two; Both are accomplished and proven liars.
With Bennett it is easy to spot his lies. His writing style has all the literary elegance and grace of a hippopotamus on roller skates. Long, turgid and tedious in the extreme, full of legalistic jargon. But to accomplished studiers of the case his lies readily jump out at you. One has only to read, for instance, the excellent rebuttal to his ’50 facts the media are not telling you’ leaflet, composed by the redoubtable blogger Jayelles and her team,

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main-Page

to see for yourself just how obvious his lies are. Pity then, that posting links to this rebuttal in conspicuous places so that Bennett and his foolish followers can find it is like casting pearls before swine. The fools will not read it, and make themselves look even more foolish every time they repeat one of these ‘Facts.’ And to the TSM’s Bennett just looks an even bigger fool, because we are all laughing about him, and his abject refusal to accept that he is wrong, even if it costs him his house, his savings, even his liberty.

Blacksmith, to his credit however, has a more palatable writing style. He, at least, enables us to read to the end of one of his posts without suffering a brain haemorrhage, or the desire to pluck our own eyeballs out of their sockets in order to stop the pain. But he too relies on the obedience and unquestioning loyalty of his readers. The only difference is that because his postings are shorter, more digestible, his lies stand out even more clearly than Bennett’s, like an Alligator in a Mink farm.

But just recently Blacksmith exceeded even himself for the sheer unadulterated blatancy of his lies. So much so that I just had to present one such article to a wider audience. The following extract is from a piece of his entitled ‘Exoneration 2-Richard Feynman’ It’s a rather rambling piece, the point of which I am not sure, but I think it’s something to do with opinions, and how everyone has one. Within that post is the following extract.

The question of “the deal”. The pair claimed in a media campaign that they were offered a deal involving a reduced sentence if Kate McCann admitted accidentally killing the child. If she did not confess to this untrue accusation a “homicide” or murder charge would result. We know that in Spring 2011 Kate McCann in the book “Madeleine” completely withdrew this claim, replacing it with a new form of words which made no mention of the above deal. According to her all she was told, via her lawyer, was the factual statement that if the child had died accidentally and she had hidden the body she would receive a lesser sentence than if she had killed the child. (Read it and see, page 243)

Now I have to confess I have no idea who Blacksmith is trying to kid here. Kate’s book is still in the top half of almost every best seller list in most of the countries it is retailing in, and has sold hundreds of thousands of copies. The chances of any of those members of the public who have read the book also being aware of Blacksmiths bureau are about the same as my chances of walking to New York across the Atlantic on the backs of bottlenose dolphins. So I must assume he is addressing his supporters. But even among those supporters there MUST be some who have also read Kate’s book, even if it is an illicit downloaded copy of the Kindle version. So then, why does Blacksmith proceed to make a complete and utter public fool of himself by giving the precise page number, and INVITE others to actually READ it for themselves? A double-bluff ? Or again, an over-reliance on the compliance of his flowers, making the assumption that they will take the attitude of “That’s all right mate, we don’t need to check, we believe you, oh enlightened one!” Because if they ever DID check, this is what they will find.

Then came the best bit. Carlos announced what the police had proposed. If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I’d receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I’d be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide.

Pardon? I really wasn’t sure if I could possibly have heard him correctly.
My incredulity turned to rage. How dare they suggest I lie? How dare they expect me to live with such a charge against my name? And even more importantly, did they really expect me to confess to a crime that they had made up, to falsely claim to the world that my daughter was dead, when the result would be that the whole world stopped looking for her? This police tactic might have worked successfully in the past but it certainly wasn’t going to work with me. Over my dead body. “You need to think about it,” Carlos insisted. “It would only be one of you. Gerry could go back to work.”

I was speechless.

The incentive to accept this ‘offer’ seemed to be that if we didn’t agree to it, the authorities could or would go after us for murder, and if we were found guilty, we might both receive life sentences.


Now it seems pretty clear to me, and it must seem equally clear to anyone else who has read the book that Kate most certainly DID mention the deal on page 243. Twice, in fact. So, what was the point of this lie? And what was the point of giving clear directions for anyone who has elementary reading skills to follow, to allow said people to discover for themselves the truth of the lie? Because all that has happened is that Blacksmith, in an attempt to further mislead his foolish followers, has just made himself look an even bigger fool.

Another trait he shares with Bennett.