The stick of dynamite...John Blacksmith

by Guest 26.10.10 20:16

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

The stick of dynamite

The stick of dynamite...John Blacksmith Dynamite_thumb%5B1%5D

We stated that the appeal court judgement planted a stick of dynamite under libel claims against Goncalo Amaral by the McCanns both in Portugal and the UK. That was because, we maintained, the team have based their entire claim on the notorious prosecutor’s archiving report. Not only does that report have fatal weaknesses and contradictions in it but it has also been deliberately misrepresented by the McCanns and their lawyers. Under legal scrutiny both the misrepresentations and the contradictions have been partially exposed, and the process will continue as the various documents come under further judicial study.
So is there any evidence for those claims of ours and our conclusions?
The contradictions & the “exoneration”
The details are in a number of our previous posts. Broadly, however, the conclusions of the report cannot be reconciled with the police evidence on which it is based and the claim that it exonerated them cannot be sustained.
The prosecutor states not that they are “exonerated” or “cleared” – only a judicial body such as a court can do that – but that there is “no evidence” of their wrong doing. The report itself makes clear, however, that the McCanns helped ensure that the evidence was incomplete by refusing, along with the Tapas 7, to co-operate in clarifying the events of May 3.
Under those circumstances it is impossible to clear them as the report itself acknowledges by saying that in failing to attend the clarification and reconstruction exercise they lost the chance of exoneration. Come on folks, even supporters of the McCanns – if he says they lost the chance of exoneration (“proving their innocence” in the English translation) then they can’t have been exonerated (or “proved their innocence”), can they?
In court in Lisbon earlier this year the prosecutor – who cut a dreadfully unconvincing and unreliable figure - further weakened the exoneration claim by stating that the parents had not checked on all the occasions that they claimed, in other words they had not told the investigators the truth. The more the the archiving report comes before the courts, whether via further appeals or in future libel hearings, the more credibility it will lose, exactly as contradictions in witness testimony are eventually exposed in court.
The claim, by the way, made by supporters of the McCanns that the parents never actually refused to attend, is based on either ignorance or dishonesty. The parents made it clear in a BBC radio documentary broadcast on April 26 2008 – and made while the requests for co-operation were still being processed – that they would not return to Portugal in the foreseeable future.
“Interpretations” and misrepresentation
The McCanns have form when it comes to dishonest misrepresentation, rather than misinterpretation, of the Portuguese legal system for their own purposes. On the day the report was published the McCanns and their advisors helped their chosen feed, the London Evening Standard, write a scandalously dishonest article about it.
As well as making the first known claim that the report “cleared” the parents it claimed equally dishonestly that the same report also “mocked” and “lambasted” the Portuguese police force for its inadequate investigation and criticised it for failing to establish proof of what had happened.
According to the story a “source close to the McCanns’ legal team” added that the report established that the police had “blatantly misrepresented” the evidence and that legal action against them was on the agenda. Mr Frightwig himself confirmed his own story by saying that legal action against the police was indeed an option.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23526385-maddy-police-were-no-poirots-mock-their-own-prosecutors.do
So the written evidence is there – for use, we hope by Amaral’s lawyers in any future libel trial – that the selective distortion of this important document by the McCanns, their spokesman and “sources close to their legal team” began on Day One and has continued ever since.
But Team McCann had, it seems, descended into a dream world, apparently seduced into the belief by then that spin could accomplish anything: rather than just kidding the British public with their dishonest and lying version of the report, they actually came to believe that the same tactics would work in court – by founding their libel claims on it.
Have a look and see how total their dependence is.
The empty cupboard
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Carter-Ruck.htm
This is the letter which Carter Ruck sent out to the website GerryMcCannsBlogs and which the site owner – thank you Pamalam – posted up. It contains virtually their entire case.In the second paragraph they state the parents have denied all the libellous allegations made in the media and that – here it comes, folks - the Portuguese prosecutor confirmed that there was “no evidence whatsoever” to implicate the McCanns.
Despite this, they say, Goncalo Amaral has made “wholly unsubstantiated” allegations in The Truth of the Lie. “Mr Amaral’s views about our clients have been discredited by the court which found no evidence to support his thesis whatsoever.”
The site is given seven days to respond.
Well even the bluffers at Carter Ruck could see that a claim using the Prosecutor’s support alone was a bit thin. So what else did they come out with to support the claim of libel against Amaral? They couldn’t find a fucking thing. Not a thing. So they invented – yes, Carter Ruck invented – the claim that the original Portuguese gagging injunction against Amaral was a “Court Order” that Pamalam was breaching!
That was a year ago, October 30 2009. Pamalam called their bluff about the court order but now it doesn’t even apply to Amaral; the claim that the court has “discredited” Amaral’s allegations cannot now be made; and the prosecutor’s report which “confirmed there was no evidence” against the pair has been established as “an interpretation” by three judges.
The McCanns are said to be in consultation with their lawyers. You bet. The dynamite has done its job.

Posted by john blacksmith at 18:25

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/

by Angelique 27.10.10 10:30

candyfloss

I love this and thank you for posting it up. And my thanks to Blacksmith too!

Things seem to get better and better - it seems that the McCanns have at last been exposed to daylight. They ended up believing their own spin.

Angelique

by Simon Gray 27.10.10 12:20

For being one of those "aha" moments, well its lacking really, it is a very brave piece nontheless by Mr Sharples. I do recall that he jacked all the blog business and vanished for some a period of time:

http://www.chaosraptors.com/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=538%3Athe-blacksmith-bureau-has-closed-its-doors-for-the-last-time&catid=37%3Apress-articles&Itemid=1

Aside from his blog, what I would like to know because I think it has great significance for the blog itself is why did Sharples feel the need to close down his blog and stop doing it ?

That I think is a right question

Edited to add, don't even know whats on my own site sometimes, quite a frightening thing really. Anyway, Antony closed down his blog after he was caught lying about a statement:

http://www.chaosraptors.com/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=201%3Ablacksmith-qbureauq-closed-after-sharples-caught-altering-police-statements&catid=37%3Apress-articles&Itemid=1

by Guest 27.10.10 12:46

Isn't that a bit like your own site then, up and down like a whore's drawers The stick of dynamite...John Blacksmith 110921

by Simon Gray 27.10.10 13:01

Not really candyfloss. All of our sites that are privately owned take hits from time to time, even the Madeleine Foundation has been subject to an attack. When you make enemies simply by publishing the truth such attacks take place. The website has not been down for about seven weeks, when it did go down it was a result of an attack and the site remained closed for some considerable time.

Blacksmith closed his down not because of an attack but by an exclusive exposure that he had altered historic evidence in the hope that no one reading his blog would notice. It was noticed and it was published far and wide that Sharples had lied and done so with incredible lack of compassion for one reason only; to stir up condemnation of the McCanns on a lie.

I'm obviously not going to go on record in a public forum to state my opinion on Sharples, only to say that considering his brief hiatus from blogging, to come back with such a published article is most brave.

by Guest 27.10.10 13:11

What historic evidence did he alter? But then not reading the "other sites" I would probably be unaware. Perhaps it was a genuine mistake, or did he admit to it?

by Simon Gray 27.10.10 13:29

I always suggest it is best for the individual to see the evidence and form their own conclusions. Given what I have seen I am of the opinion that the change was made on purpose to facilitate a new feeling of anger towards the parents. Also take into your consideration of this evidence that Sharples is also the person responsible for circulating the rumour about a libel case brought by Murat against Ms Tanner.

Sharples has never fully disclosed how he came by this information and there is absolutely no evidence to date that can substantiate this claim on any level. What he has said is that he has access to inside information but never reveals this source. He has however said to me that he shares the same legal representation as Murat. Sharples in revealing this to me suggests that he got this pending libel trial information from his own legal team.

I am not happy about introducing the law in any way to internet posting because of my belief in free speech. I can, however, be a litigious person and I have the experience and financial resources to deal with disputes at civil law. My solicitors are the firm that represented Robert Murat.

http://www.chaosraptors.com/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=538%3Athe-blacksmith-bureau-has-closed-its-doors-for-the-last-time&catid=37%3Apress-articles&Itemid=1

Which is why I am most interested in the time out that Sharples had, was it because of him being exposed as a liar or was this issue compounded with him leaking information about a pending law suit, information he was in no position to make public?

by Simon Gray 27.10.10 15:09

I wonder if this post that was quickly removed from his blog gives us insight in Sharples and what he is after :

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/
Sunday, 24 October 2010
Dear, dear
At the Bureau we no longer bother with the media much these days. Why? Because as far as the Madeleine McCann case is concerned it is quite clear that they will always follow, never lead. The fond hope of the internet forums that the media will somehow “break” the case, either by digging up new facts or by bringing news of significant events to the public that will somehow turn the population against the Dirty Pair is, in our view, just another illusion.
There is no secret injunction, no shadowy political protection, no ban by the Murdoch group. We don’t believe there ever was interference from the UK, come to that, no, not even from Ambassador Buck, that charming and, above all honest, civil servant, but that’s another story. The media are quiet because, despite the myths, they have all along responded to events, not initiated them, and at the moment nobody is trying to use them. Not even the McCanns.
The media did not make the Madeleine story: Gerry McCann did that, using them in such a professional way that media people are still locked in admiration for his achievements. When the PJ, its suspicions growing, began itself to use the media, by selective leaking, the press dutifully defamed the pair, covering themselves, as they thought, by allowing sob-sister “we’ve all done it” pieces to sit alongside the libels. That came to an end in October 2007 when Brian Kennedy’s money – you got it wrong Brian - allowed the assembled support team to be next in line to use them, with writs, threats of writs and a propaganda offensive.Kennedy’s tame lawyer, Smethurst, was, as we know, frank about this episode, saying on Panorama – which of course he and his colleagues were using - that their aim was to “expunge” the idea of parental guilt from the public’s minds.
That period ended in July 2008. With the publication of the Prosecutors’ archiving report the Portuguese, with one heroic exception, washed their hands of the case.Nobody save the McCanns wanted to use the media any more
.
That is how the modern media works: it responds to whoever is trying to use it most effectively. Yet the myth of the investigative, digging journalist, the Woodward and Bernstein crap, persists, along with the bizarre habit of quoting “news” stories as evidence, that “they know more than “we” do.
This was brought home over the last few days when a junksheet called the Algarve Resident was quoted by the dwindling number of boobies who believe in the McCanns as “evidence” about the Amaral book verdict. The AR, like its sister papers in Portugal, is for UK expatriates who are too thick or lazy to learn Portuguese; it is a pure scissors and paste job copying news stories from the UK press (because they can’t speak Portuguese either). In this case they copied and pasted the Guardian – who had taken the story, since they haven’t yet seen the judgement - from the Portuguese press!
The Guardian hasn’t seen the judgement because it hasn’t been officially released. Even by printing the little they did they were taking a chance since their lawyers, lacking a copy of the judgement, have been unable to guarantee that the paper’s report is a fair and accurate assessment. The rest of the media are in the same boat: without a full copy they would be wide open – and rightly, under UK law - to action from Carter Ruck.
For the verdict makes no immediate difference to libel in the UK. If the Truth of the Lie was published in the UK tomorrow the fact that it has been cleared for sale by a Portuguese court would not help in the slightest against a libel writ.
Ah, but there’s the rub: “immediate”. Because, boy, will it do so in the future
.
We dealt with the appeal court judgement in two posts. One, titled “He made it”, dealt with the dependence of the McCanns and their lawyers on the Prosecutors’ archiving report to succeed in any libel case against Amaral, whether here or in Portugal.
The excerpts we gave related specifically to that preceding post. They were the evidence and justification for our claim that:
1) The McCanns’ libel claim is based almost entirely on the Prosecutors’ report.
2) The verdict destroys any chance of using it as a statement of truth or a legal finding of innocence. It is not a statement of truth, the judges state, it is an interpretation, something quite different.
We have no intention of getting the volunteers who make up the Bureau into trouble by quoting the entire verdict verbatim, much though our enemies would wish it, just as we never betrayed the trust of the various people who provided us with the case papers, the rogatory interviews, the Scotland Yard decisions on officer de Freitas and, oh yes, the Tanner Murat court case. All them before the media got anywhere near them.
The full verdict will be available soon enough and then, as always, people can make up their own minds.
We have no hesitation in repeating, without any hopes or illusions, that the verdict destroys the chances of the McCanns winning a libel case against Amaral. But, friend or foe of the Bureau, don’t take our word for it: ask yourself the question -when did Team McCann ever fail to have a comment ready at critical stages of the affair? When was that disgusting, bewigged, liar Mitchell unable to respond? Until last week it hadn’t happened since May 3 2007. That tells you all you need to know about how serious, or rather lethal, is the setback they have suffered.
Posted by john blacksmith at 21:54

I draw members attention, and that of the Madeleine Foundation to this curious statement from Sharples:

We have no intention of getting the volunteers who make up the Bureau into trouble by quoting the entire verdict verbatim

This is most significant believe it or not, we could all use the same disclosure from JJP on the 3 Arguidos. Will we get it, I doubt it, he is the most staunch defender of Brenda which makes me most curious as to why, as his alter ego he would come on here and throw her to the wolves. Now why would that be JJP ?

Did Fishie get in contact with you and reveal the depth of treachery that Ryan and Sluming will plumb ?

You had better come clean my portly friend as you are not going to bomb this forum in her name, no one wants your war.

by littlepixie 27.10.10 15:52

All this talk of "Sharples" (whoever he is) is just diverting our attention away from the fact that the McCanns lost their Court Case against Mr Amaral.

As far as I am aware the case of Murat V Tanner has been confirmed on Twitter by a reporter and also by Clarence Mitchell himself in his "caught in the rain hairdo" interview.

BTW. What have Bren or JJP got to do with the price of fish - why should we be bothered who "throws who to the wolves"

I'd rather discuss the McCanns getting smashed in a Court in Portugal? The stick of dynamite...John Blacksmith 110921

by Simon Gray 27.10.10 16:19

Sharples is Blacksmith from the same blog:

My name is Antony John Steven Sharples.

http://www.chaosraptors.com/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=538%3Athe-blacksmith-bureau-has-closed-its-doors-for-the-last-time&catid=37%3Apress-articles&Itemid=1

having said that, Raptors have doubts about this full confession of identity.

The point is littlepixie, be careful of who you place in trust in and what is the truth.

Whether the McCanns will get "smashed" in court is for now up for debate, but do you think they will ?

by littlepixie 27.10.10 19:00

The only people who are important are the Judges involved in this case.

I do not feel I have to take advice on who to trust from an apostate.

by Simon Gray 27.10.10 19:45

Fair enough, just pointing out that just because someone is selling the "we hate the McCanns" ideal doesn't mean it is true and without agenda.

by Guest 27.10.10 19:46

[quote Simon Gray]

You had better come clean my portly friend as you are not going to bomb this forum in her name, no one wants your war.

No one here wants a war, so why are you so intent on coming here to start one. Everyone gets on just fine here and we are happy to keep it that way. A s littlepixie says doesn't matter who's who as long as they are civil, we are all here for one reason and that is debate this mystery and get justice for Madeleine. As for trust, I'm sure everyone has their opinions and can decide for themselves.

by Simon Gray 27.10.10 22:51

Candyfloss, I'm trying to defuse one, have a look at what your Blacksmith blogger is really like:

http://www.chaosraptors.com/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=648:blacksmith-not-happy-with-simon-gray&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50

This is the blogger that everyone thinks has the best in mind for Madeleine McCann. When exposed for being the liar he is he comes back with that. Left unchecked he would no doubt go on to post more lies to whip up more hatred on his lies.

by littlepixie 27.10.10 23:07

You know what "Simon" you deserved that. Now lets have your "real name" as you are so fond of posting other peoples.

by Guest 27.10.10 23:26

Simon Gray wrote:Candyfloss, I'm trying to defuse one, have a look at what your Blacksmith blogger is really like:

http://www.chaosraptors.com/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=648:blacksmith-not-happy-with-simon-gray&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50

This is the blogger that everyone thinks has the best in mind for Madeleine McCann. When exposed for being the liar he is he comes back with that. Left unchecked he would no doubt go on to post more lies to whip up more hatred on his lies.

Nothing to defuse as far as I can see. There is simply no point in coming here trying to blacken other peoples names. We are not interested. I hope I speak for the majority of the members of this forum. We are here to discuss the mystery of Madeleine McCann full stop.

by Judge Mental 27.10.10 23:50

One very much agrees with littlepixie. We are all adults here and do not need to be told whom we should read or not read.

One has found some excellent information in Blacksmith's writings, but this does not mean one believes all of it. He has the right to write what he likes and whether we like it or not, we should defend his right to say it. Some of the filth written by the likes of muratfan is quite despicable and depraved and therefore indefensible. One is unfamiliar with the Chaosraptors site, unless any of it has been copied over to here.

It is apparent from this evening's posts here, that Chaosraptors is scarcely likely to be taking an empirical view of the situation that Gerald McCann has suggested Madeleine found herself in, therefore one has no need to discuss this website any further.

by Avery 28.10.10 6:15

I would like to agree with the above. How silly of Simon to come to a web site and try and tell us what to read.

by **Jill Havern** 28.10.10 7:27

Simon Gray wrote:Candyfloss, I'm trying to defuse one, have a look at what your Blacksmith blogger is really like:

http://www.chaosraptors.com/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=648:blacksmith-not-happy-with-simon-gray&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50

This is the blogger that everyone thinks has the best in mind for Madeleine McCann. When exposed for being the liar he is he comes back with that. Left unchecked he would no doubt go on to post more lies to whip up more hatred on his lies.

Majic, I have given you many opportunities to join this forum and join in with the debates about Maddie - which you have never done. You seem to have run out of usernames, despite your assurances that you come here not to play games because the 'truth still matters'. You emailed me to tell me that Simon Gray was you after you registered here. Is that not game playing and untruthful? Not a good start.

You then come here to 'warn' us about Blacksmith. What gives you the right to warn us about Blacksmith when your site links quite happily to 'muratfan' whose blog is full of lies, filth and hatred?

You have been a member here on many occasions using various usernames and each time you have been banned.

If you want Chaos Raptors to be taken seriously 'because the truth still matters' then I suggest you register here as Andy Griffiths and use the username wisely to promote your website.

You really don't do yourself any favours by constantly registering and causing unrest and I have run out of patience with you once again.

Goodbye. The stick of dynamite...John Blacksmith 260239

The stick of dynamite...John Blacksmith 260239

by aiyoyo 28.10.10 9:05

Gracious, what gives majic the right to think he's internet police?

Whoever he approves or disapproves is his own business.
He could do all the derogatory remarks about others on his own blog.
Why come here to smear Brenda and Blacksmith? What's his point or aim really?
If he's any guts he should post his nonsense about people he disapproved of in his own backyard.
Also if he's want to go on about poster's identity, then he should stop being double face and stick to his own name. Changing name each time he comes on here only show he clearly has got agenda.

More likely he's upset now that the mccanns are suffering hugh setback.
If he's objective is about supporting the mccanns though he is doing is subtly (again cowardice and hypocrite) - he's more like a wolf trying to dress as sheep roaming among sheep really.

Why cant he just stick to his own yard - chaosraptors is it?

Looks like he considers everyone his enemies: On top of smearing Brenda and Blacksmith, it is also fishie this that and slumy this that......who the hell wants to know his dispute with other people? If he has issues with them it's his own business. We dont need to know surely.
His distrust of them is his business. Does it mean those who distrust majic should go everywhere or elsewhere and post derogatory remarks about him?

Why did he come here and try and influence people?
People are free to read what they want and interpret it how they want -
absolutely nothing do with Majic!

If people want to read Blacksmith and interpret it however way they want it is their perogative.
Majic never discuss posts but posters ....he should tell his boss people dont buy his or their shite.
I for one dont buy his nonsense...so his strapline 'truth matters' hides what ?

We are here for truth for Madeleine. At the rate he goes, Majic's idea of truth is very ambiquous to say the least.

by Shibboleth 28.10.10 12:22

If we wanted to read Chaosraptors dubious output, then we would go there. I come here because I don't want to read rubbish or play silly internet games.

BTW there are more than a few people on Missing Madeleine that also believe that "Priest" is in fact Majic, as well.

by aiyoyo 28.10.10 13:18

Shibboleth wrote:If we wanted to read Chaosraptors dubious output, then we would go there. I come here because I don't want to read rubbish or play silly internet games.

BTW there are more than a few people on Missing Madeleine that also believe that "Priest" is in fact Majic, as well.

Its so tiresome when people play game.

by Judge Mental 28.10.10 20:10

Shibboleth wrote:If we wanted to read Chaosraptors dubious output, then we would go there. I come here because I don't want to read rubbish or play silly internet games.

BTW there are more than a few people on Missing Madeleine that also believe that "Priest" is in fact Majic, as well.

The stick of dynamite...John Blacksmith 977352

Welcome Shibboleth and thank you for joining us.

These despicable internet games have the most dangerous minds behind them and such postings are most certainly not welcome here.