BLACKSMITH EXPOSED

by **Tony Bennett** 20.12.15 13:08

Three more useless articles by ‘Blacksmith’ - December 2015

“There is an urgent question surrounding the holiday group [the Tapas 9] which still requires an answer. And that is whether one believes in the possibility of an abduction - as I do - or not”.
– ‘Blacksmith’, in his article ‘The Cracked Mirror’, 2009, and updated in 2011.

This latest article by ‘Blacksmith’, in the Opening Post on this thread, like nearly all of his work, tells us nothing at all about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. It is important to note from the outset that ‘Blacksmith’ believes that Madeleine was abducted by ‘a person as yet unknown’, as he explained in his ‘Cracked Mirror ‘article’, which I shall deal with below.

He explains that Jane Tanner’s ‘sighting’ of Tannerman was problematical – which we all know. He then refers to ‘Crecheman’. We all realise, except ‘Blacksmith’ it seems, that the alleged discovery of ‘Crecheman’ completely letd Jane Tanner of the hook. Indeed, the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special made a very big point of emphasising how the (alleged) holidaymaker and the child he was allegedly carrying tallied perfectly – ‘uncannily similar’ to use DCI Redwood’s words - with Jane Tanner’s description of Tannerman.

‘Blacksmith’ claims that “Tanner has been hidden away…her claims all excluded from any discussion….She has now agreed to remain in seclusion, her status unknown, her reputation in limbo, without uttering a word about this repudiation of everything she had been claiming for years”.

This is the most utter nonsense. Crecheman has entirely vindicated Jane Tanner in the public mind; she has been proved right.

‘Blacksmith then adds: “Something has to give. Neither Jane Tanner nor the holidaymaker [Crecheman], his child and his photograph, can be kept in the background for ever”.

I have to ask: does ‘Blacksmith’ seriously think that the Head of the Met is one day going to say: “Look, sorry about our BBC Crimewatch McCann programme. We comprehensively lied to all you 7 million viewers. ‘Crecheman’ never existed. We fabricated him. Just like that Richard Hall said in his ‘Phantoms’ film”?

Operation Grange has surely been an expensive charade from the very first. More and more people recognise that now. They had widened the scope for the abduction to take place form 5 to 50 minutes. They have made the unlikely’Smithman’ sighting the centre of their focus. What on earth does Jane Tanner now have to worry about, still less all ‘Blacksmith’s nonsense of her being ‘hidden away and remaining in seclusion.

‘Blacksmith’ winds up with a typical riddle. He wrote:

“Readers, not forum or blue-pencil fantasists, but those who want to know the truth, are invited to ask themselves very carefully indeed what reasons there could be for the Yard, having announced with great fanfare that they’ve exploded a bomb, refusing to say who the casualties are”.

As always, it is hard to know what he means because he is so obtuse. I think he means that Jane Tanner will be some kind of ‘casualty’.

I can only repeat that Redwood and the Crimewatch McCann Show did not make Tanner any kind of casualty; rather, she was vindicated, and her reputation was rescued and restored, because her ‘sighting’, in the eyes of the public, had been proved correct.

This article contained four features common to most ‘Blacksmith’ posts:

1 Swearing – at least one unnecessary ‘F___ing’,

2 Lavatorial or scatological references, with his unnecessary extra comments about Gerry McCann,

3 A prediction about future events (which have mostly proved disastrously wrong in the past), and

4 At least one dig at myself. This time it was his comparison of myself -– ‘blue pencil fantasist’ - with himself, one of those ‘who want to know the truth’.

But since ‘Blacksmith’ resumed his blog, he has made two other posts

One was titled, somewhat pretentiously, ‘The Dialectics of Hatred’.

This article amounted to a sustained attack on this very forum. Although he characteristically did not name CMOMM, it was clear we were his target. During the six long years of CMOMM’s existence, he has bad-mouthed CMOMM in every other blog article, more than once describing CMOMM as a ‘cesspit’. He has never had a good word to say about us. In fact, when you come to think about it, he never has a good word to say about anybody - except himself and his lofty opinion of himself. He has even been critical of Goncalo Amaral’s tactics on a number of occasions.

Here are some of his references to CMOMM in that article:

“middle-class fantasists on the internet pursue the McCannn…”

“the current pack of UFO believers and opportunist cranks…”

“unjustified accusations of having ‘supporting evidence’ for their theories…”

“well-known sources that routinely accuse their parents of murdering their sister or implying such an act, with claims of hidden preparations, and the death of the child before May 3”.

This last quote was, of course, a direct reference to Lizzy HideHo’s recent work on CMOMM.

And then there was this odious comparison:

“Anyone with even superficial knowledge of history and group psychology knows that these popular websites and forums are clearly sourced from the same psychological wellsprings as the ancient “blood libel”, in which Jews were routinely accused of child murder. Real evidence is strikingly and completely absent…their accusations cannot possess rational origins but arise from other, much deeper, sources than the intellect”.

He continued: “The McCanns had tapped into a gigantic wave of irrationality…and primitive atavism lying just under the conscious mind...now on the anti-McCann websites the ‘sacrificed child archetype’ is now the victim of sinister family members – an acute and murderous version of the Cinderella myth as well as the blood-libel laid on the Jews…they invent mythical narratives disguised as ‘investigation’ and ‘debate’…”

And there’s more:

“…They give the McCanns are given exactly the same attributes that the uneducated mind once attributed to the Jews – hidden influence over governments, insatiable greed, the ability to pull strings behind the scenes on an unbelievable scale, immense power over the media, just exactly as Hitler claimed the Viennese Jews possessed, and so on and on. They have surrendered rationality and replaced it by mythical thinking…”

‘Blacksmith’ then introduces the debate that took place about the evidence from ‘Waybaclk Machine’ about the setting-up of the CEOP web-pages about Madeleine. He quite flagrantly lies when he asserts that “There was no debate whatever about the reality of this, even by McCann standards, completely insane, absolutely f__ing certifiably nuts,  scenario. In a display of genuine mass hysteria its reality was cheerfully accepted by almost everyone who contributed…”

Members here simply know that that is a barefaced lie by ‘Blacksmith’. Those who rejected the claims of Steve Marsden and Isabelle McFadden that the CEOP web-page on Madeleine were first set up on 30 April tended IMO to have better of the arguments. Members will also know this to be another lie:

“Mr Bennett was one of those who had no doubt about [the reality of to CEOP page being written on 30 April]”.

‘Blacksmith’ even claimed that it was the ‘Wayback’; debate which made him “decide that the internet pages of the McCann affair might no longer be the place for the little Bureau. We were out of our depth in this sea of magical and mythical thinking…we disassociated ourselves…from them”.

(Pompously, ‘Blacksmith’ likes to use the royal ‘we’ when referring to himself).

He continues: “Claim by the blood-libel anti-teams that they are trying to widen public knowledge - when they are really sating their own appetites and unacknowledged drives – are absurd and convince nobody”.

Not in the least surprisingly, this latest diatribe from ‘Blacksmith’ contained some of the usual scatological and sexual references, for instance referring to McCann supporters as, quote: “dripping with a kind of sexual pleasure at the prospect of antis being locked up”.

I have often wondered at what really goes on in the mind of ‘Blacksmith’. But it seems pretty clear to me. He projects his own sexual thoughts on to others.

‘Blacksmith’ also wrote a third piece

It began with another classic piece of ‘Blacksmith’ pretension: “We finished writing about the McCanns some months ago because our aims have been achieved and any further running commentary risks prejudicing the legal process”.

The article promised “…to remind people of our final views and conclusions about the affair”.

It boasts that he “referred to sources demonstrating the truth of our conclusions”, and then attacks everybody who ‘disagrees with our conclusions’ as set out in our article ‘The Cracked Mirror’, who has “simply avoided the evidence, thus wasting our, and everybody else’s, time”.

A classic example of ‘Blacksmith’s overweening arrogance.

He says that the McCanns and their friends ‘invented an abductor…fleshing out of the “abductor” with details that the eye-witness could not have seen and which were only put together by the group effort, not by her original description.

Unfortunately for the collusion attempt…the carefully created timeline with its fake and absurdly accurate stopwatch timings leave no room for a replacement abductor to be fitted in between 9 and 9.30pm. Nobody from the group just happened to be in the street to see a Smithman figure with a child in his arms, the person identified by an independent witness as Gerry McCann.

He goes on: “Neither the Portuguese Police, Leicestershire Police, Scotland Yard nor the prosecutors of two countries, Portugal and the UK CPS, claim that there is evidence of the couple having been complicit in the disappearance of the child. The case files support them. Scotland Yard says they are not suspects in their investigation”.

Then he adds: “If there is general agreement that no evidence exists of the commission of a crime by any of the group and none to be found in the case files - and nobody with the slightest legal knowledge disputes this - then there is, of course, no need of any cover-up assistance for the group, whether by politicians, media people or, literally, anyone else”.

To set his conclusions in stone, he adds: “An accident involving the child and a lucky disposal of her remains by persons unknown, but drawn from the pool of people close to her that night, is consistent with all the known facts and does not demand mysterious additions”.

So here we have, from ‘Blacksmith’s pen:

A - A lucky disposal’ of Madeleine’s remains

B - By person unknown

C - But ‘drawn from the pool of people close to her that night (whoever they are, and he doesn’t say).

Having set this unlikely conclusion before us, ‘Blacksmith’ resumes his attacks on Madeleine McCann researchers:

“An ever widening circle of possibilities and ‘suspects’ initiated by the parents' critics….”

“Their journey away from the facts…their realm of the imagination”.

“They invent ‘paedophile rings’ at the heart of British government succouring her father….”

“McCann critics are unintentionally working in the interests of the parents, for confusion is good….”

So let me conclude this article by examining what ‘Blacksmith’ wants us to do, namely examine his alleged ‘fact-based’ conclusions in ‘The Cracked Mirror’ article.

The essence of his theory, which he proclaims as ‘the only truth’, is that, quote, “the McCanns and their friends made an utter hash of their childcare arrangements”. Because of that, he opines, the group did not check their children as often as they should have done, leading an unknown person to abduct Madeleine on the night of Thursday 3 May 2015.

For from being an article examining the facts, the 35 pages of the ‘Cracked Mirror’ article has very few facts. Most striking of all, on not one of those pages is there even a mention of the evidence of Martin Grime and his two cadaver dogs, Eddie & Keela.

Instead, there is endless speculation as to why the McCanns and their group of friends decided not to use baby-sitters, and on why the group then invented stories about their checking arrangements on the night in order to escape blame for the fact that Madeleine really had been abducted that night.

That has been Blacksmith’s theory all along. And that is why he detests with a visceral hatred all that we have been doing on CMOMM for the past 6 years.

That is why he repeatedly calls us ‘a cess-pit’. He hates the research and discussions on this forum. I have no doubt that he has broken yet another promises to stop posting about the case because he is disturbed by Lizzy HideHo’s recent articles.

In ‘The Cracked Mirror’, ‘Blacksmith’ emphasised: “The archiving summary ends, after all, with the unassailable statement that there is no evidence of the commission of any crime by the McCanns and, as we know, abductions do happen…”, and for good measure, he added this:

“There were no major discrepancies in the versions of events which the seven provided to the UK police…the Rogatory interviews, coming as they did after almost a year's silence, tended in many cases to strengthen the seven's credibility…who can blame the seven for tacitly adopting a line to cover up Madeleine’s abduction and sticking to it? Wouldn’t you?” (emphasis by ‘Blacksmith’).

Not for ‘Blacksmith’ the patient analysis of a mass of contradictory witness statements.

Not for ‘Blacksmith’ approaching world experts on digital camera photoshopping.

Not for ‘Blacksmith’ the detailed research on the weather conditions that week, to verify (or otherwise) when that ‘Last Photo’ was taken.

Not for ‘Blacksmith’ an examination of the dogs’ alerts and the McCanns’ reaction to them.

Not for Blacksmith any acknowledgement that Nuno Lorenco made up a story about his daughter nearly being kidnapped by Wojchiech Krokowski, nor any analysis of who might have put him up to that.

No, for him, he backs up, as he always has done, the McCanns’ abduction claims, and supports Operation Grange’s theories as set out in the 2013 BBC Crimewatch McCann Show.

Make no mistake. ‘Blacksmith’ is an impostor, a fraud; someone who with the use of flowery language has bamboozled not a few people into thinking he is some kind of expert on the case. Clearly he is not, and his claims to have contacts with the British security services should be taken seriously.

At least ‘aquila’, ‘Verdi’ and ‘Lioned’ on the forum have got him well and truly sussed, as have a few other members.

I thought we had seen the last of Blacksmith’s unadulterated and misleading rubbish on CMOMM. Unfortunately not.

Tony Bennett, 20 December 2015

by Joss 21.12.15 9:33

It makes me wonder why people like Blacksmith etc., who have their own blog site and their own views on the McCann case have so much to say about other blog sites and opposing views to theirs? Isn't that the reason they have their own sites, and they can share their views with people who are like minded about the case. When people start getting to a point where their nastiness toward other blog sites and its members that want to discuss the case with reasons for holding the views they have, IMO they have lost all credibility as to what their agenda is really all about. We are all adults that should be able to put our opinions whatever they are pertaining to the case in a respectful manner otherwise why bother.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.12.15 11:23

Joss wrote:It makes me wonder why people like Blacksmith etc., who have their own blog site and their own views on the McCann case have so much to say about other blog sites and opposing views to theirs? Isn't that the reason they have their own sites, and they can share their views with people who are like minded about the case. When people start getting to a point where their nastiness toward other blog sites and its members that want to discuss the case with reasons for holding the views they have, IMO they have lost all credibility as to what their agenda is really all about. We are all adults that should be able to put our opinions whatever they are pertaining to the case in a respectful manner otherwise why bother.

Thank you for those observations, with which I agree.

In a highly controversial case such as this, and where so much has been hidden, kept secret or buried, there is naturally going to be some disagreement about what really happened.

Sometimes people can agree to disagree politely, both being aware they are basically on the same side.

The disagreement between 'pennylane' and myself on the validity of the Smithman sighting is one such example.

My disagreement with the views of Goncalo Amaral, Pat Brown, Textusa and Johanna Renstein, who all say that Madeleine died between 6pm and 10pm on Thursday 3 May, is another.

But when we come to 'Blacksmith', we encounter something entirely different. He maintains that the ONLY truth is that Madeleine was abducted by an unknown person the night of 3 May, and bitterly attacks those who say differently in the most vicious and egregious terms.

He aligns himself EXACTLY with the views of the McCann Team and of Operation Grange.

I just want members and guests here to be in no doubt whatsoever as to where Blacksmith stands, and has always stood, on this fundamental issue

by Richard IV 21.12.15 12:28

Could it be that he has jumped to the other side of the fence because his article `Hatred Becomes Them` was damning, yet it has now vanished. He has deleted a lot of stuff.

by willowthewisp 21.12.15 13:45

Richard IV wrote:Could it be that he has jumped to the other side of the fence because his article `Hatred Becomes Them` was damning, yet it has now vanished. He has deleted a lot of stuff.

Mr. Blacksmith is a supposed well educated person according to his posts and, has as been said on this forum, he is entitled to his opinion as to his "thesis" on what happened to Madeleine McCann whilst on holiday 28 April-3 May 2007.
He may be a person who is "Working" for certain persons of persuasion of a long line of a list of influential persona who have become embroiled in a situation, that they cannot be seen to have taken sides with in trying to ascertain the truth from within a tangled woven web of deceit?
It does seem as though he is sitting on a wobbly fence, if he is persuaded of an "Abduction, with not a trace of evidence of an abductor"?

by Guest 21.12.15 18:17

Richard IV wrote:Could it be that he has jumped to the other side of the fence because his article `Hatred Becomes Them` was damning, yet it has now vanished. He has deleted a lot of stuff.

I think he had a visit from the legals.

by Verdi 21.12.15 20:33

Richard IV wrote:Could it be that he has jumped to the other side of the fence because his article `Hatred Becomes Them` was damning, yet it has now vanished. He has deleted a lot of stuff.

As has the declaration that the little bureau will no longer comment on the case of Madeleine McCann - yet here it is again commenting on the case of Madeleine McCann. A heffalump never forgets.

by Verdi 21.12.15 23:01

willowthewisp wrote:
Richard IV wrote:Could it be that he has jumped to the other side of the fence because his article `Hatred Becomes Them` was damning, yet it has now vanished. He has deleted a lot of stuff.
Mr. Blacksmith is a supposed well educated person according to his posts and, has as been said on this forum, he is entitled to his opinion as to his "thesis" on what happened to Madeleine McCann whilst on holiday 28 April-3 May 2007.
He may be a person who is "Working" for certain persons of persuasion of a long line of a list of influential persona who have become embroiled in a situation, that they cannot be seen to have taken sides with in trying to ascertain the truth from within a tangled woven web of deceit?
It does seem as though he is sitting on a wobbly fence, if he is persuaded of an "Abduction, with not a trace of evidence of an abductor"?

"Abduction, with not a trace of evidence of an abductor"?

Nor was there an opportunity for an abductor to abduct. I don't believe for a moment that those children were left alone every night, there is no evidence to support the claim - only the groups word which doesn't amount to much. In my opinion, either one of the adults stayed with the children (by all accounts one of the adults and/or children was ill on any given day during the week) or they unofficially hired one of the Mark Warner nannies to oversee their children.

David Payne's rogatory interview - 11th April 2008 (snipped)

1485 ”Yeah, and did the group, were the group aware that that was the listening service’s, well that’s what was available within the listening service? Was…”

Reply ”I, I would be pretty sure that most people before they went away knew, its the kind of thing that I’d be a bit anal about, that oh crikey or they don’t offer this and oh you know they said that they ‘d got this and its not available and I would, you know I’d have seen it as my responsibility again, I haven’t actually checked through the emails, you know obviously some of it may have been on phone calls, to actually validate that but I’d be pretty sure that everyone was aware that we would be going knowing exactly what the circumstances were, and I think, I suppose for my mindset, the main thing for me was that we were all, everyone was together as a group you know the locality of the, sort of the vicinity of the rooms was, was close enough to make everything as easy as possible, you know from, from all perspectives, whether it be during the day or, or during the evening.”

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id53.html
----------

David and Fiona Payne packed a state of the art baby monitor, they clearly knew beforehand that the Ocean Club resort didn't offer a night listening service but it didn't occur to them to recommend their friends also pack a baby monitor, if it was their intention to leave their children alone in their respective apartments whilst dining out? The Ocean Club DID however offer evening creche facilites at no extra cost and also a babysitting service at an additional cost. The entire group elected to decline the facilities provided, instead to operate their own listening service? That's nine adults, including a grandmother, all prepared to leave their vulnerable little children alone every night? I don't buy it.

Appears to me that the neglect issue was merely to give the phantom abductor an opportunity - no more than that.

[ NOTICE: Please continue this discussion on the other thread: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12256-blacksmith-the-most-important-document-in-the-case. Thank you all. Thread locked - Mod ]

by **Tony Bennett** 22.12.15 9:27

ADDED FOR REFERENCE:

An analysis of Blacksmith’s article: ‘The Cracked Mirror’ - with 18 Quotes from his article

‘The Cracked Mirror’, says Blacksmith, is his defining, definite analysis of what really happened to Madeleine. I am probably one of few people who has read the whole 35-page article all the way through. If anyone stil thinks that Blacksmith is ‘on the same page’ as most people on CMOMM, then please wade through his meandering article and see for yourselves. Meanwhile, here is a brief analysis, using actual quotes from the article.

About 80% of the article is a speculative analysis of why each member of the Tapas 7 decided to lie about their child care arrangements that week in response to what he calls, mysteriously, Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’. He makes a series of excuses for them all.

He asserts that Madeleine suddenly ‘disappeared’ on the night of Thursday 3 May, was more-than-likely abducted - though he says he doesn’t know how she disappeared - and then the Tapas 7 made up a mystery abductor, ‘Tannerman’, and proceeded to lie about their child care arrangements.

Ever since the ‘Cracked Mirror’ article, he has insisted that all the research and analysis on forums like CMOMM, e.g. by PeterMac, Lizzy HideHo and others, is a complete waste of time.

Here, with a few comments, are some excerpts from Blacksmith’s ‘Cracked Mirror’ article:

1. Blacksmith asserts that the only evidence of the abduction comes from the Tpaas 7, who have told lies about what really happened. He says in the passage below that no definite evidence of an abduction has yet emerged. Yet later on, contrary to that assertion, he says that he does believe in the possibility of abduction:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “There have been claims that the focus on the parents and their friends led to the neglect of other lines of inquiry and the PJ itself has been willing to accept such a possibility. Is there any evidence demonstrating the reality of such a supposition? In other words has evidence emerged to show that the group were the victims of misunderstanding and that their veracity has now been demonstrated? And has the passage of years turned up evidence showing that an abduction probably occurred? The answer is ‘No’.”

2. He asserts that the Tapas 9 lies about their child care arrangements:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “The record since the investigation was shelved shows conclusive evidence of deception and untruth”.

3. He says that if you leave children alone while you go out wining and dining there is a very low probability that your children will be abducted. But then he introduce the idea that an abduction really did happen, and that if it did, ‘innocent’ people (by which he mans the Tapas 9) can easily fall under suspicion:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “When something with a very low probability does occur then suspicion can easily attach itself to innocent people…”

4. Blacksmith’s grand declaration. His so-called ‘findings’ turn out to be 20 rambling pages excusing the Tapas 9 for lying about Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “I submit our findings for your consideration, for you to determine and decide accordingly.

5. Blacksmith says the Tapas 9 were just ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time’:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “The inability to make sense of what has happened, and the resentment at the fate that has befallen them for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time…”

6. Blacksmith says the Tapas 9 were taken aback by what happened:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “Their feelings are reflected to a greater or lesser extent by the entire group: how, they ask, could ‘anyone in a million years’ – a frequent phrase - have predicted what would happen on May 3?”

7. For the second time, Blacksmith refers to the Tapas 9 as ‘innocent’:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “They are, genuinely, innocents abroad”.

8. Blacksmith makes more excuses for the Tapas 9; they ‘weren’t thinking clearly’ about their child care arrangements:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “It should be clear by now that none of the group, save possibly Kate McCann with her premonitory worries, were thinking clearly about the holiday…”

9. More of the same, referring to the decision not to hire a baby-sitter:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “There is no evidence of any hidden motives: it was just a lousy, lousy, decision, of the sort that we can all make at different times…”

10. It was mainly Dr David Payne’s fault:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “The Paynes took a highly effective baby-monitor along, neglecting, perhaps, to suggest that the others do the same”.

11. More of the same:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “Still, there is no escape from it: Dr Payne had comprehensively dropped them all in the shit”.

12. Still more of the same:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “…because of Payne’s prior formal acceptance of the facilities, including the non-existence of baby listening and the lack of MW security overview of the apartments – ”

13. Blacksmith suggested that the group wasn’t prepared to spend money on a ‘patrolling baby-sitter…’

QUOTE Blacksmith: “The choices, after all, were simple enough: with the daytime activities sorted out on the Sunday the sole question was what to do about the evening meals. Given that none of them, understandably, fancied the idea of carting the children to an evening crèche some distance away, the obvious solution was to find someone, either a local person, or one of the off-duty English staff, to act as a patrolling baby sitter with access to their apartments. At between ten and fifteen euros an hour, say, three hours a night would cost the three couples – one does not get the impression that the Paynes were going to hurl money into the kitty – around eighty euros each to cover the remainder of the holiday”.

14. Blacksmith’s convoluted attempt to explain why the Tapas 7 may have lied about the child care arrangements:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “But the whole question of supervision and “checking” has become so loaded since May 3 that most of the statements made about it by all those involved, not just Dianne Webster, are of debatable value, not because the 7 (I exclude the McCanns) were liars but because the issue was tied up, in both their statements and their own minds, with problems of guilt, shame, self-preservation, loyalty to the unfortunate McCanns and bewilderment”.

15. Blacksmith dwells again on what he says was the Tapas 7’s reluctance to admit responsibility for their ‘bad’ child care decisions:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “Just how much the subject, and its implications, were actually discussed is smothered under a certain amount of flannel. It is quite clear that none of the 7 were willing to admit that any one person suggested the idea, or that is was a consciously agreed decision in the knowledge that there were risks. ‘In relation to the child care issues it was a collective decision made as a group,’ said Russell O’Brien to the UK police, ‘There’s obviously this image,’ concluded Jane Tanner, ‘that we were like ah, fuck the kids, we’ll go off to the Tapas bar they’ll be fine, and it wasn’t like that at all.’ And she was telling the truth: it wasn’t. But using, significantly, a Kate McCann phrase, she added, ‘We just thought...you don’t imagine in a million years.’ Imagine what? Fire? Bizarre and unlikely accident? An intruder? Is it really that inconceivable?

16. Blacksmith, who admits to having contacts with the security services, ridicules any idea of a government cover-up:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “To many, of course, such self-confidence was a sure sign that they were all under protection of some kind, perhaps because this little group of provincial nonentities had powerful connections, or maybe because they were uncomfortably close to organised VIP paedophile rings whose exposure would bring the government, or the monarchy, crashing down. After all, hadn’t the "UK Secret Services," whoever they might be, arrived within forty-eight hours of Madeleine McCann vanishing from her bed? However possible or impossible such theories may be, one can only say that they are not obviously derived from the available evidence, although that evidence can, naturally, be used to support them.

17. Blacksmith opines that Jane Tanner is ‘sincere’ and that the Tapas 7’s belief in their own ‘innocence’ is justified:

QUOTE Blacksmith: Jane Tanner’s outburst sounds sincere and conforms to the author’s personal view that the group's manifest belief in its own innocence is justified as far as the actual disappearance is concerned”.

18. Blacksmith rounds up with a reference to the Tapas 7 being ‘justifiably and unshakably convinced of their innocence:

QUOTE Blacksmith: “The problem here, the one that lies right at the heart of the police enquiry, was that while the seven had an unshakable conviction of both their own and the McCanns’ innocence regarding the actual disappearance, perfectly justifiable, it seems, their attitude and behaviour as far as the rest of their holiday is concerned is a quite different matter…a witch’s brew of guilt, shame, inability to confront their own actions and - with the growing realisation of how their behaviour was being seen by outsiders - barely controlled fear of legal action, made their responses to the Portuguese police very far from frank and open”.

BLACKSMITH EXPOSED - A pretentious and pompous fraud and liar who believes 100% that Madeleine McCann may have been abducted

BLACKSMITH EXPOSED - A pretentious and pompous fraud and liar who believes 100% that Madeleine McCann may have been abducted

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: BLACKSMITH EXPOSED - A pretentious and pompous fraud and liar who believes 100% that Madeleine McCann may have been abducted

Blacksmith says that an unknown person abducted Madeleine on the evening of 3 May 2007, as does the McCann Team, as does Operation Grange

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: BLACKSMITH EXPOSED - A pretentious and pompous fraud and liar who believes 100% that Madeleine McCann may have been abducted

Re: BLACKSMITH EXPOSED - A pretentious and pompous fraud and liar who believes 100% that Madeleine McCann may have been abducted

Re: BLACKSMITH EXPOSED - A pretentious and pompous fraud and liar who believes 100% that Madeleine McCann may have been abducted

Re: BLACKSMITH EXPOSED - A pretentious and pompous fraud and liar who believes 100% that Madeleine McCann may have been abducted

Re: BLACKSMITH EXPOSED - A pretentious and pompous fraud and liar who believes 100% that Madeleine McCann may have been abducted

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Log in for more topics