Pssst - The Blacksmith Bureau

Blacksmith and reasons to stay cheerful..............

Pssst

Keir Simmons. He knows, you know

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/

was it not this knobjockeyherbert who confirmed that Murat was taking Tanner to court ? hows it progressing Keir

A rather naive piece by Blacksmith, but then many cling to the comfort of their belief. Attach the words 'national security' to any enquiry and it will always come up with the requisite conclusions.

We shall see. What may have been deemed a matter of "National Security" then, may not be quite so now. The world has changed and I sense a general feeling of optimisim.

Yes, to say where there is no clear evidence to the contrary, we shall remain confident of justice being carried out is a touch naive. We know people almost always try to pull strings, exchange favours in order to protect the number one and his family and friends. It's in our nature when we know how things are often done in the real world. Perhaps Blacksmith is an idealist.

In any case, with enough doubts voiced and enough circumstantial evidence catalogued in a public domain such as this forum could trigger an official (re)investigation so hard evidece could be gathered that could stand up in court.

Dosen't matter where each member is coming from but I'd like to believe collectively we can make a difference. Now am I being an idealist too?

Ross wrote:A rather naive piece by Blacksmith, but then many cling to the comfort of their belief. Attach the words 'national security' to any enquiry and it will always come up with the requisite conclusions.

A load of rubbish I am afraid. GA certainly needs to anticipate a Jersey style white-wash; a very high risk strategy to assume the Met review is going to help get justice for Maddie! We are talking about a Police force tasked by a Homeoffice who have poor track record in respect of the McCann case e.g CEOP role (Home Office), delay Rog letters (Home Office) etc

Sorry, but I don't share your scepticism Cheshire Cat. Yes, we all know how the story went in Jersey. But what happens in Jersey, stays in Jersey. They are a law unto themselves and sadly this is why the Jersey officials are determined to keep their own dirty little secrets, buried along with those torture chambers.

This could never happen in a Portuguese investigation featuring British nationals. Scotland Yard cannot ignore the findings of Lee Rainbow and their own officer Jose De Freitas. Now that this has all come out in a Portuguese court case, they are pinned up against a wall with nowhere to hide. Nothing will ever change these events now. Every country who has a bone to pick with the UK, can and will use this case as a means of obtaining whatever they want as blackmail. This is now a VERY big problem for the UK. They have to deal with it, have to, to stop it becoming ammunition in the future. Don't think 'just a homicide case', think a 'serious threat to the British Government'.

Well, the BBC knew and shelved this:
the comments are very interesting too!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099141/BBC-shelved-Savile-sex-abuse-investigation-protect-reputation.html

Interesting article on Jimmy Saville and injunctions and BBC....

_______________________________________________

tigger wrote:Well, the BBC knew and shelved this:
the comments are very interesting too!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099141/BBC-shelved-Savile-sex-abuse-investigation-protect-reputation.html

Interesting article on Jimmy Saville and injunctions and BBC..

This did not involve another country. Nothing about it has ever come out in court in another country. It's like chalk and cheese to compare the two. Sorry tigger, but this has nothing to do with the McCann case or any reflection on how things are going to go work out.

Stella wrote:Sorry, but I don't share your scepticism Cheshire Cat. Yes, we all know how the story went in Jersey. But what happens in Jersey, stays in Jersey. They are a law unto themselves and sadly this is why the Jersey officials are determined to keep their own dirty little secrets, buried along with those torture chambers.

This could never happen in a Portuguese investigation featuring British nationals. Scotland Yard cannot ignore the findings of Lee Rainbow and their own officer Jose De Freitas. Now that this has all come out in a Portuguese court case, they are pinned up against a wall with nowhere to hide. Nothing will ever change these events now. Every country who has a bone to pick with the UK, can and will use this case as a means of obtaining whatever they want as blackmail. This is now a VERY big problem for the UK. They have to deal with it, have to, to stop it becoming ammunition in the future. Don't think 'just a homicide case', think a 'serious threat to the British Government'.

I would be amazed if the conclusions (that are made public) are anything more than an attack on the "Command and Control" procedures followed by the PJ and scathing criticism of the procedures for dealing with an abducted child. I hope I am wrong but the fact we are fed snippets through McCann fan Keir Simmons only increases my scepticism. Anyway, we will find out in a few months or a few years! I just think GA needs to be prepared for a SY report that helps the McCann's more than it helps him. From recent tweets I would say Pat Brown is also pretty sceptical about the SY review.

Goncalo Amaral himself has also said that there was no need for a review, they already have everything. Which must be true. I can understand why both of them think the review is a waste of money.

But it doesn't change the fact, that in order to move forward after 5 years of something being shelved collecting dust. Everything has to be looked at once again. All the t's have to be crossed and the i's dotted, plus everything that has come to light since. Look at it this way. Let's say we all wake up tomorrow and the T9 have all been arrested and are due to appear at the old Bailey on charges of fraud. If the Crown Prosecution Service needs to call on an officer who was involved in something significant from 4 years ago, who has since retired or even died in service, where do you think that leaves the Prosecution team? As annoying as it is, for a complex case such as this, they have to have everything very current and set in cement, it's just a formality that has to be done, or they run the risk of the case collapsing over out of date information.

Keep the faith.

Stella,

The thing is we don't know what truly lies at the root of this affair. There are any number of different theories (some of which I believe were deliberately 'seeded' to sow confusion) but as to actually what happened and the background to it all we can only surmise. The one thing that we do know is that the British ambassador i.e. the British State intervened immediately, therefore some state interest was at stake. If that was true on May 3rd 2007 it is true today so the idea that one organ of the state will compromise another is not only naive it indicates a lack of understanding of the reality of power. The term 'British Justice' might bring a warm glow to many in Britain, but to many in the empire past and present it means something else entirely.

Blacksmith is saying he can't envisage how an entire state apparatus could conceal reality but in doing so he reveals his lack of understanding of just how such things work. Kincorra? Dunblane? Hollie Grieg? If the McCanns go down it will be because a higher power calculates that their interest will be better served by doing so, and considering how many connected parties would be splattered by the fall-out that higher interest would have to be a very compelling one.

The rich, powerful and perverted must be protected at all costs...the fact that they're raping our children doesn't seem to matter...

Ross wrote:If the McCanns go down it will be because a higher power calculates that their interest will be better served by doing so, and considering how many connected parties would be splattered by the fall-out that higher interest would have to be a very compelling one.

This is precisely what I have been trying to point out. Too many people know too much. They have to do something or run the risk of something far worse happening in the future, IMO.

Stella wrote:Goncalo Amaral himself has also said that there was no need for a review, they already have everything. Which must be true. I can understand why both of them think the review is a waste of money.

But it doesn't change the fact, that in order to move forward after 5 years of something being shelved collecting dust. Everything has to be looked at once again. All the t's have to be crossed and the i's dotted, plus everything that has come to light since. Look at it this way. Let's say we all wake up tomorrow and the T9 have all been arrested and are due to appear at the old Bailey on charges of fraud. If the Crown Prosecution Service needs to call on an officer who was involved in something significant from 4 years ago, who has since retired or even died in service, where do you think that leaves the Prosecution team? As annoying as it is, for a complex case such as this, they have to have everything very current and set in cement, it's just a formality that has to be done, or they run the risk of the case collapsing over out of date information.

Keep the faith.

The Met are assuming an abduction. It says so in the remit. Nothing ambiguous, nothing to read into it, it is there "as if the abduction occured in the UK. It is nothing but a PR excercise being carried out by the Met Police on the orders of Cameron. I have faith in Amaral, Pat Brown, Morais and Tony but ZERO faith in the Met or this Government when it comes to Maddie.

Cheshire Cat wrote:The remit says "as if the abduction occured in the UK".

Now that is a very odd thing to say, I have to agree with you, but everything is always open to interpretation.

Abduction can amount to one parent snatching a child away from the other, by running off to another country.

Abduction could mean a relative of the family removing a child and hiding them. As was the case with Shannon Matthews.

Abduction could mean a friend of the family removing a child and sexually assaulting them, before killing and disposing of them.

Abduction could mean in the 14% of cases where the parents or family are not involved, that it was a stranger.

All this means is, they are looking for a missing child. Nothing more than that at this stage of the game.

The British police do not publish reports at the end of investigations and Scotland Yard is no exception. The British police report only to the Crown Prosecution Service and their reports are confidential and Scotland Yard is no exception. The British police consider an investigation concluded when they have reported to the CPS and charges have been brought against the perpetrators and a conviction has been secured; again Scotland Yard is no exception. The British police do not report to Keir Simmons or any other so-called journalists who claim or infer that they are privy to inside information.

The use of the phrase "as if the abduction occurred in the UK" underlines the position of Scotland Yard under English law, since where murder and manslaughter are concerned, the English court has jurisdiction over offences committed abroad against a British citizen, if committed by a British citizen (Section 9 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and section 3 of the British Nationality Act 1948). Therefore the disappearance or alleged abduction of the British citizen Madeleine McCann would most definitely be a matter for the English court and therefore for the appropriate English investigating authority, in this case Scotland Yard, if there are sufficient grounds to suspect that a crime has been committed against her by British citizens. The use of the word 'abduction' is not particularly significant. How else should Scotland Yard have referred to it without laying themselves open to accusations of bias by certain persons who have access to some of the top legal brains in the country and have not yet been eliminated as suspects?

The investigative review must first establish whether there are sufficient grounds to suspect that a crime has been perpetrated against Madeleine McCann by British citizens. It will then be treated 'as though it occurred in the UK' irrespective of where that crime took place. This position is very clear. To suspect that the investigative review presently being carried out by Scotland Yard is a whitewash or cover up, one must believe that the Prime Minister, his predecessors, the Home Secretary and her predecessors, the foreign Secretary and his predecessors the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Corps, the Home Office, CPS, Scotland Yard, Leicestershire Constabulary and myriad public employees in all these authorities, are in collusion with their Portuguese counterparts in a massive conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

T4two

T4two wrote:To suspect that the investigative review presently being carried out by Scotland Yard is a whitewash or cover up, one must believe that the Prime Minister, his predecessors, the Home Secretary and her predecessors, the foreign Secretary and his predecessors the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Corps, the Home Office, CPS, Scotland Yard, Leicestershire Constabulary and myriad public employees in all these authorities, are in collusion with their Portuguese counterparts in a massive conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

That pretty much sums it up for me!

The Hollie Grieg cover-up has involved many "stakeholders" including English Police forces and Local authorities as well as the Scottish Government, Grampian Police etc. Rico Sorda referred to Jersey and Maddie as being mirror images of each other and I agree, it would be foolish to assume SY are laying the groundwork for arrests: now is not the time to sit back and assume justice is but a few months away. And THANK GOODNESS Tony, Pat, Joana and Amaral are all sceptical of the Met investigation!

T4two wrote:The British police do not publish reports at the end of investigations and Scotland Yard is no exception. The British police report only to the Crown Prosecution Service and their reports are confidential and Scotland Yard is no exception. The British police consider an investigation concluded when they have reported to the CPS and charges have been brought against the perpetrators and a conviction has been secured; again Scotland Yard is no exception. The British police do not report to Keir Simmons or any other so-called journalists who claim or infer that they are privy to inside information.

The use of the phrase "as if the abduction occurred in the UK" underlines the position of Scotland Yard under English law, since where murder and manslaughter are concerned, the English court has jurisdiction over offences committed abroad against a British citizen, if committed by a British citizen (Section 9 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and section 3 of the British Nationality Act 1948). Therefore the disappearance or alleged abduction of the British citizen Madeleine McCann would most definitely be a matter for the English court and therefore for the appropriate English investigating authority, in this case Scotland Yard, if there are sufficient grounds to suspect that a crime has been committed against her by British citizens. The use of the word 'abduction' is not particularly significant. How else should Scotland Yard have referred to it without laying themselves open to accusations of bias by certain persons who have access to some of the top legal brains in the country and have not yet been eliminated as suspects?

The investigative review must first establish whether there are sufficient grounds to suspect that a crime has been perpetrated against Madeleine McCann by British citizens. It will then be treated 'as though it occurred in the UK' irrespective of where that crime took place. This position is very clear. To suspect that the investigative review presently being carried out by Scotland Yard is a whitewash or cover up, one must believe that the Prime Minister, his predecessors, the Home Secretary and her predecessors, the foreign Secretary and his predecessors the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Corps, the Home Office, CPS, Scotland Yard, Leicestershire Constabulary and myriad public employees in all these authorities, are in collusion with their Portuguese counterparts in a massive conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Very interesting, thank you for these information!

But what about a partially white-wash, for instance if the NSY review conclusion is «inconclusive». That way, they protect their integrity (in the public opinion) and follow what higher autorities (allegedly) told them.. No need for a massive conspiracy, just a couple of «Big Players» involved.

An «inconclusive» conclusion (not enough evidence to point one way or the other) is not a bad thing for the Mccanns. Of course, it's not the BEST conclusion for them but it's better than «all evidence points to the parents», so IMO an inconclusive conclusion will be an advantage for the McCanns.

Sorry if my point is not clear, I did my best!!

But in my heart, I keep faith

T4two, thank you for that informative post, but in terms of posters
suspecting a 'whitewash' or 'conspiracy', the cover up of Jersey,
Kincorra, Islington, Holly Grieg, and so on, including the recent
exposure through the phone hacking enquiry, of how many police have
been bought, including some topmost at the MET, leaves a big taint of
doubt.
Certainly, recently exposed cover ups have been very highly
orchestrated, and the best way to ensure a widespread conspiracy or
cover up is to use or involve calling in, the favours of those who have
something to hide and are in place, or even 'put' into place, in a
calculated and long-term strategic manner, to silence whistleblowers or
those who get too close to discovering and exposing that which has been
perpetrated and concealed.

The more is exposed, the more cynical we tend to become because the
volume, the sordidness, the corruption, has reached such high levels
where of course, 'national security' can be blythely imposed to prevent
any form of public investigation.

This certainly has been the case.

In terms of Madeleine McCann (and her parents acclaimed belief that she
has been taken by a paedophile gang) hopefully the tide is turning, by
force of public persistence, as much as anything, putting pressure on
politicians.

I do believe things are beginning to change for the better, through
sites like this, with bloggers, members of the public pressing
relentlessly to have evils exposed.

One very positive sign is the discussion in the Stormont Parliament in Northern Ireland, on Human Trafficking, Feb 7th 2012.
For the first time, in a long time, the name McCann comes up as a
positive, where Jennifer McCann, of Sinn Fein, Belfast West, spoke of
the chillingly pernicious state of modern day human trafficking
/slavery where girls are forced into prostitution, and that the act of
using an unwilling female, should be considered the equivalent of
'rape' and that we should call a 'spade a spade' and people who
knowingly use such prostitutes should be punished as if rapists.

She closed her speech with a most convincing call to send a very clear
message about the heinous crime of human trafficking where the
perpetrators must be brought to justice.

There is a fundamental rule of good detective work which says that one should never ever choose a suspect and try to make the evidence fit. A good example of this method of working backwards is the recent case of the Landlord of the young lady who was murdered in Bristol a year ago last Christmas. His was a classic case of guilty until proven innocent after he had been 'fingered' by the actual perpetrator of the crime and the media had taken up the hue and cry, and yet his only 'crime' was to look and act eccentrically. Unfortunately in that case the police made the mistake of staging a huge show of his arrest - something which they should never have done under any circumstances. Perhaps they were so convinced that they had 'got their man' that they succumbed to the media pressure to present a result. Luckily for that man, they could find no evidence to fit. A similar thing happened to Robert Murat I recall. In his case not only was he 'fingered' by the parents' friends and later the parents themselves, but we even had the parents' spokesman drawing an analogy to the Soham murderer. He was also subjected to a media hue and cry. Remember the headlines about the one-eyed weirdo?

I would not like to live in a country in which the police choose their suspect and set out to make the evidence fit and thank God in most civilized countries where there is democratic accountability and where there are safeguards in place to protect the rights of the individual i.e. the rule of law, it does not often happen. As a rule they do not work in that manner in Portugal and they do not work in that manner in Britain. It is therefore no surprise to learn that Scotland Yard do not work like that either, but work on the principle of finding the evidence and solving the crime rather than finding a perpetrator and looking for the evidence. I have therefore never expected Scotland Yard to simply trawl through this and other fora, gather all the circumstantial evidence together and arrest the parents. Scotland Yard must not only look dispassionately at the facts and what evidence there may be, but it is important that they are also seen to be doing so. Therefore they are approaching this on the basis of reviewing all the evidence gathered thus far and reaching some sort of plan of action to take the investigation further. This is why their review is going to cost at least 3 million pounds and probably more. Every lead must be eliminated and those that have not been satisfactorily eliminated must be investigated. This is painstaking and dogged police work , but no matter how convinced any of us may be about who the perpetrators are, we must recognize that there are no shortcuts; the case has to be solved. If by solving the case the parents are brought to book, so be it, but believing that the parents are the perpetrators of a crime against their daughter and trying to make the evidence fit is not the same as solving the crime i.e. actually finding out what that crime is.

I look forward to reading more posts from you T4two.

I like the stuff that Blacksmith Bureau puts out there, but I think on this occasion he's got it very wrong.

New Scotland Yard has a rich history of white-washing important investigations. You need look no further than John Yates for proof of this. Remember, it was he who carried out the investigation into Tony Blair re: the "cash for honours" scandal, and found, much to my profound amazement and disbelief, that Mr Blair and others were as clean and pure as the driven snow, and everybody involved could run on home, safe in the knowledge that they had been completely exonerated of any crime, and were free to live their days happily ever after.

Once "Yates of the Yard" was proven to be an effective establishment shill, it was felt that he could be relied upon to bury another inconvenient investigation, that of the now infamous "phone hacking" shenanigans. It was in 2009 that Yates took the staggeringly short 8 hour review of the case material to conclude that the matter required "no further action", and things remained that way for a further two years. It was in 2011, and only because of the dogged work of some brilliant investigative journalists, that the matter once again exploded into the public consciousness, and the rest, as they say, is history.

No, Blacksmith is wrong. The NSY is teeming with bent coppers, from top to bottom. I hope the Madeleine inquiry will be conducted with honesty and rigour, but for that we'll have to wait and see.....

I'm always encouraged when those guilty of corruption are exposed and forced to resign as was Yates quite recently. Exposing and rooting out corruption in public organizations is vital in a democratic society and the recent spate of arrests and resignations are a good indication that the system is capable of cleansing itself. The more bent coppers who resign or are kicked out the less bent coppers there are on the force. Simple arithmetic...

But will the "Cash for honours" enquiry now be re-opened ?

PeterMac wrote:But will the "Cash for honours" enquiry now be re-opened ?

I believe Blair still posseses too much power (and money) for that to happen

I truly believe that the woman in charge of all this is determined to sweep out the dirt.
I have great hope that yesterday's arrests are the tip of a very big iceberg.
This is huge..and not just for the dastardly duo.
People much higher up the food chain.

T4two wrote:I'm always encouraged when those guilty of corruption are exposed and forced to resign as was Yates quite recently. Exposing and rooting out corruption in public organizations is vital in a democratic society and the recent spate of arrests and resignations are a good indication that the system is capable of cleansing itself. The more bent coppers who resign or are kicked out the less bent coppers there are on the force. Simple arithmetic...

Trust me, if the people who are serious about getting justice for Maddie had any faith in the Met review they would relax, log-off and find something more enjoyable to think about. Pat Brown would not be in Praia as we speak and the bloggers would shut up shop.

Some will support the Met in good faith, others (you know who you are) will consider it worthwhile to attempt to persuade the sceptics that the Met are closing in on the perpetrators in order to encourage the true justice seekers to "take their eye off the ball".