The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Blacksmith, Wed. 6th March 2013. FOOTNOTE

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Blacksmith, Wed. 6th March 2013. FOOTNOTE

Post by russiandoll on 07.03.13 11:40

John Blacksmith (Antony Sharples) writes:
The
kind person who sent me the emails which I reproduced on yesterday's
blog contacted me again today to let me know that the other party had
asked her to get me to remove them.
In fact I'm no believer in posting other's emails without their OK so I at once took them down and put them in a safe place.
This
was all connected, of course, with our little exercise in the last few
posts of getting as many viewpoints as possible about the claim that
the McCanns have "asked for terms" from Goncalo Amaral – so that they
can be coldly examined and reproduced, in the light of the truth when it
emerges. Quite a public interest initiative really, isn't it? A kind of
retrospective truth meter so that people will then be sure who they can
trust in the future and who were lying through their fucking teeth.

Naturally, since most of the Blacksmith Bureau
has been concerned with the McCann's repeated, incorrigible and
self-admitted lying, we were very interested to hear what the couple had
to say about this "rumour", so that their comment too could be fed into
the truth machine. Alas, they will not tell us.

But
it seems that in response to mounting pressure for an answer from the
readers of the Find Madeleine Campaign page, the webmaster there finally
said that she would talk to Kate about the matter. Later on
she emailed some members, including the one who contacted me, and said
that the claims that the McCanns were asking for terms were just
unfounded rumours and weren't based on fact. That's fine, that's her
entry into the truth machine draw.

But this webmaster, who unlike Kate and Gerry McCann, it seems, does read the Bureau,
freaked out when she saw the emails here, contacted the person and in a
rather coarse message – she lacks good manners—told her that she was
to get the messages taken down by the Bureau immediately. Otherwise she would contact her "legal representation" – she lacks good English – and would, oh my God, contact Google! Much luck with that one, dearie.

She
also claimed not that the relevant email was private, which it was, but
that it was – she lacks knowledge of the law – confidential, which it
wasn't. I was slightly perplexed by that since I read this on Tuesday
night on Twitter:


“Gi' O'er ‏@Mrsxxxx
Blacksmith's private e-mails as mentioned in today's blog were actually
posts on the publicly viewable OFM FB page - ROFL! #McCann”


But
don't let me intrude on private grief. The person who sent me the mails
would rather I didn't remove them, on the grounds, she tells me, that:

"The
undeniable duplicity of the McCanns and their cohorts is contained
within those emails, we know it and so do they. Remove them and we are
facilitating their deception. Publish and be damned say I but of course
it is your blog so your call."

Anyway I've taken them down, as I said, since otherwise the privacy of one of the parties would be breached.
But
it's not just a matter of privacy, of course: our ill-mannered
webmaster, who can't even spell my name right, was extremely anxious to
stress to her correspondent that it is she, not, no definitely
not, Kate McCann, who is saying that the story that the McCanns cracked
and asked for a settlement is unfounded. No, not Kate.

Well,
that one goes into the truth machine as well, for recall at the
appropriate date – Gosh, we do have a lot of entries! – but it does
leave a couple of questions unanswered, doesn't it? Such as how did an
insignificant website nonentity like this one know that the
"rumour" was unfounded and not based on fact? And, while she was in
contact, as promised, with Kate McCann, talking presumably about nothing
special, why she didn't ask Kate whether the rumour was, as she herself
was suddenly certain, (after having been unable to answer the question
before speaking to Kate!) not based on fact?

Best
thing she could do is contact her "legal representation" and sue me.
Then she'd be able to tell us all about the conversation in court.

It didn't take long for the truth machine to start working, did it? There'll be more.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Blacksmith, Wed. 6th March 2013. FOOTNOTE

Post by guest. on 08.03.13 10:41

What a web we weave when we practise to deceive

Always reminds me of the McCanns, they are literally tripping over their own lies now

guest.

Posts : 322
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Blacksmith, Wed. 6th March 2013. FOOTNOTE

Post by plebgate on 08.03.13 13:28

Sally66 yes you are right there I think but why is nothing being done about it? That's the big question for me.

plebgate

Posts : 5445
Reputation : 1160
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Blacksmith, Wed. 6th March 2013. FOOTNOTE

Post by guest. on 08.03.13 14:54

I feel reasonably optimistic that something is being done.

If the review doesn't result in arrests then they are home and dry but we will have to wait and see what the review does or doesn't produce.

I think whatever their protection was its diminished.


guest.

Posts : 322
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Blacksmith, Wed. 6th March 2013. FOOTNOTE

Post by plebgate on 08.03.13 22:00

Fingers and everything else crossed Sallyp.

plebgate

Posts : 5445
Reputation : 1160
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Blacksmith, Wed. 6th March 2013. FOOTNOTE

Post by Lostfridge on 20.05.13 9:40

I thought BS might comment this week, wait and see I guess...

Lostfridge

Posts : 149
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum