Then let's get back to yesterday's subject, the question of credibility.
10PM on May 3 2007 credibility and reliability has been at the heart of
the case; in fact, in the absence of tangible evidence, forensic or
otherwise, it is the case. At 10PM the babble of voices began,
appropriately, with a loud, public scream, followed by apparent panic
and hysteria not just from Kate and Gerry McCann but from their
middle-aged doctor friends, all experienced in handling emergencies, who
say they "ran around in circles shouting and bumping into each other"
rather than trying to assess what might have happened to a missing
child. Since then the raised voices have never stopped.
problem, for those who are simply interested in the truth of what
happened that night, remains exactly as it did on May 3 and the
succeeding weeks. Who is telling the truth and who's trying to con us?
Fact, fact, fact
can say at once that the parents are practised, self-admitted and
incorrigible liars as the evidence quoted section by section in the Blacksmith Bureau
proves beyond any doubt. That, and not a belief that the McCanns are
guilty of anything involving their daughter, is the reason for the Bureau's
involvement in the case. That's why we have as many enemies among the
anti-McCann groups, especially those on the losers' forums, as we do
among the activist supporters. The former, firm in their beliefs that
the McCanns dunnit but rather weaker when it comes to evidence
justifying their view (they haven't got any) squeal loudly about the
little Bureau's inability to demonstrate "what side it's on".
vocal supporters hate us for a different reason, apart, that is, from
their general propensity for hatred. They can't stand our habit of
pointing things out with supporting evidence – proof – from primary
sources, not newspaper junk, that they are unable to challenge let alone
refute, and it pisses them off no end. We'll add a bolt-on to the Bureau
soon so that the posts become searchable and readers can ignore our
opinion pieces, which aren't worth much anyway, and retrieve those
sections where the proofs are laid out.
many examples we've listed the lies in the 2007 "blogs", Gerry's
attempt to fool the British public about the progress of the
investigation. There has been no rebuttal. We highlighted Kate McCann's
own description of how she had lied to and deceived the media in August
2007 together with her equally dishonest "justification" for doing so,
and Gerry McCann's public lie that he was "ill" on August 2 rather than
being turned over by the police and left with only the clothes he was
wearing. Any rebuttal? Not a word Any acknowledgement, then, from the
same quarters that any of this had even happened? Nope.
published the evidence showing that six of the seven friends gave
public commitment after commitment of their willingness, their keen
desire, to return to Portugal to assist the investigators if requested
– and then, when they were requested, they refused to do so,
the nasty little liars, this time hoping that nobody would find out. Any
rebuttal? You know the answer. We've published the transcript where
prosecutor Menezes states under oath that
the nine "did not tell the truth" in their statements about their
movements on May 3, something he somehow forgot to mention in his
archiving summary. Refutation? Discussion of the implications?
list goes on and on, demonstrating that whatever happens, whatever
one's views, it is impossible to accept the unsupported word of the
McCanns about anything. And "anything" obviously includes not
only Kate McCanns' claim that the PJ "offered her a deal" (they didn't)
but more importantly her description of the empty apartment on May 3,
shutters, window, storm-force wind and all. That's why we've taken the
view that only a re-examination of eight of the nine by the Portuguese
police can demonstrate whether, on this occasion, the parents did, most unusually,tell the truth and that's what we go on campaigning for.
No hate. No theories. No disciples. Just recognition of the proof of
verbal dishonesty which makes the couple, backed up by their friends,
completely unreliable, literally incredible, witnesses. So we can't
accept their unsupported claims of an abductor. That's our position.
either the parents or a single one of their supporters had the guts to
confront these facts and stand up and say, honestly, "look, we accept
there is a problem, it looks bad but…" we might feel differently.
Instead we see an unarguable pattern of lies from the parents since 2007, and an absolute silence about the porkies they have been been caught out in – and we find exactly the same pattern in their active supporters.
Whether it's the cudgel bearers on Twitter, the laughably lightweight
countering-the-myths forum and website "think" pieces, the "analyses" of
that Pooter of the Willesden streets debunker or the demented violence
of the McCanns' various butch enforcers whose posts bulge like their
biceps – you know them, I'm sure – the one thing you never get is an
acknowledgement of the questions the parents' extraordinary behaviour
poses. None of them will touch the subject.
Portuguese libel case is one of the very few opportunities that the
judiciary has had to examine, weigh and assess the credibility of Kate
and Gerry McCann and their claims. At the first such opportunity, the
Portuguese human rights hearings in 2010, their defeat was total. What
about this time? The verdict or settlement will have a decisive impact
on the reputation of both parties. The McCanns' credibility, given the
above facts, can never be repaired by any court but their position with
the public will certainly be improved if they win their case. If
Amaral is vindicated, on the other hand, his credibility and
"interpretations" naturally gain added weight and, since those
interpretations include his observation that things have gone "badly
for the McCanns" in Oporto, the implications could be very far reaching
indeed. It is a key event in this five year long drama.
already said that if Goncalo Amaral withdraws his claims we'll accept
all the implications because it's the truth we're interested in, not
buttressing any position of our own: we'll be off double quick, which
naturally means we won't be around to attempt to spin the settlement or
verdict. Do you think a single one of the supporters is capable of
making any similar commitment respecting the truth? Just watch.
Next, the evolution of lying: what is a Kate McCann "rumour"?
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
~John F. Kennedy
- Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11
- Posts : 76
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-31
- Posts : 149
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-11
I would also love to know he seems very sure of himself?@Lostfridge wrote:What is Blacksmiths theory anyway?. he says the Mccanns are proven liars, but what does he think happened?
- Posts : 4
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-01
@Lostfridge wrote:What is Blacksmiths theory anyway?. he says the Mccanns are proven liars, but what does he think happened?
Sorry lost fridge I don't know. I think you would need to visit his blog and ask him.
- Posts : 5447
Reputation : 1162
Join date : 2013-02-01