BLACKSMITH February 15th 2013 : SUCKERS ! Such Fun !

There is a certain delicious
pleasure to be gained from the recent attempts of well-known heart
specialist and leading childcare expert Dr Gerald McCann to neuter the
British press.
Years
ago, when McCann and that press were as one, we likened the good doctor
to a golem, the original Frankenstein’s monster, magically created by
over-ambitious humans from mud for their own purposes and controlled
by, believe it or not, paper, which, when stuck to the forehead of the golem animated it and when removed rendered it immobile and harmless.


But this comical creature had
ideas of its own and the paper had to be snatched from its brow with
increasing frequency until one day it swelled into a giant and ran amok
like a yiddisher Disney monster, destroying everything. When a terrified
creator climbed up to its giant forehead and snatched the paper away it
immediately crumbled back into chunks of rubble and mud, crushing him
to death.
"It is an ancient myth," adds the Bureau’s white-haired and cackling culture correspondent, Dr Heffer, 89, before we take his paper away and carry him back to the cellar, "i.e.", he adds as his voice fades,
"an encoded guide to how persons like this haf behave in any era, und
how the pursuit of power vitout moral strength eventually leads to
overreach und disaster… help."
Volunteers called for
Whether
a shivering Tony Parsons will eventually be pushed forward to sacrifice
himself on behalf of the press and snatch the paper away, or Lori
Campbell will steel herself to plop a Judas kiss on the McCann brow
before tumbling under the rubble, we cannot say. Meanwhile we breathe in
deeply with broad smiles on our faces while their creation runs
beautifully amok.
It seems a far cry now from the days when a News of the World
editor could “berate” McCann for not co-operating with his plans,
doesn’t it? And even further from the 2007 days when a couple of Rothley
nonentities were moulded and inflated into pure media creations to keep
a soap opera – by definition a fictional creation – going for as long
as possible.
Welcome to the gold mine
Without
the media inventions the McCanns could never have struck it rich with
the fund, of which they are the direct beneficiaries, as the articles of
association and mortgage payments prove. The public donated in millions
because of the fluffy-bunny way the media portrayed this essentially
unknowable pair of loners time after time after time. Can anyone believe
that the public money would have been showered on them if the press hadn’t turned the affair into a cuddly fiction?
How
much gold was showered on the Needham family after their son Ben went
missing in the 1990s? Almost none. The difference in media coverage was
the only reason for that, despite the subsequent attempts of journalists
to claim that the internet was the cause of the McCanns’ bounty.
The internet? The only place where the press fantasy was exposed from
day one but nobody was listening?
Crime does pay
And
of course, internet or no internet, the only possible way the supposed
details filling out the bunny portraits and backing the McCanns’ version
of events was by the UK press deliberately breaking Portuguese law and
acting in criminal collusion with the couple. The McCanns never dared to
breach the law alone; they always used accomplices to feed their
near-constant drip-drip of feeds in their favour to the British public
and the most willing criminal accomplices, completely corrupt and with
no possible public interest defence, were the journalists, and not just
tabloid journalists like Leaky Lori either.



Look once again at the performance of the Times journalist David James Smith, as demonstrated on the indispensable McCann Files Here.
Almost a half of the supposedly secret police evidence concerning the
disappearance was given illegally to Smith, despite the constant
outright lies of Kate and Gerry that judicial secrecy prevented them
speaking. Which half? The half that favoured the McCanns, of course.
Hold your nose and vomit bag and read this piece of stinking dishonesty
from Smith and his McCann informants about their law-breaking in an article built from their snide leaks.

“From
the beginning the McCanns had been warned by the PJ that they could not
speak about the details of the investigation or the circumstances of
Madeleine’s disappearance. The "secrecy of justice" laws prevented
anybody involved, including all police officers and witnesses, from
talking about it to the press or anyone else. Both Gerry and Kate were meticulous in observing this rule.”

The stench still wafts off the page. And what did the press achieve in the long run? Nothing.
The British press, that hardened bunch of cynics, have been left
helpless and wounded by their creation as he leads the pack against
them.
Victims
People
who underestimated Kate and Gerry McCann are littered all over Portugal
and the UK. From the Portuguese police who treated them with kid gloves
and were repaid with hatred and insults, to the prosecutors who
released them with fine words which were then twisted against them, to
the Leicester police who so wickedly refuse to clear them of suspicion,
the couple have demonstrated that they have few friends, only useful
allies who they turn against once their usefulness is at an end.
So
now the press which breathed life into them has been completely turned
over in their moment of greatest weakness, successfully written out of
their history, collusion and gratitude alike forgotten and replaced
with the lie that journalists were always at arms’ length until they
suddenly and mysteriously began libelling the poor couple in August
2007.


Serves the bastards right: they all deserve each other. Dr Heffer, who let you out of the cellar?

Antonella has gone very quiet!

Beanie wrote:Antonella has gone very quiet!

She and i crossed swords back in 2010



----- Original Message -----
From: Lazzeri, Antonella
To: xxx
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:59 AM
Subject: RE: killer may hold key to maddie hunt


Kate and Gerry have asked several times for the case to be reopened, most recently about two months ago. They did agree to go back for the reconstruction but only if it was allowed to be filmed as they believed that would help in the hunt for Madeleine. In fact Gerry did go back for a reconstruction for a TV documentary.

As for not searching, Kate was absolutely in a hysterical, terrible state, I don't think she was capable of searching. I wish you people would just find it in your hearts to have some sympathy for these parents instead of being so absolutely vile to them.

They made a massive mistake by leaving the children alone, they know that. It doesn't mean they deserved to have their child taken. There were many other people leaving their children alone at that resort. This story about Charles O'Neill had nothing to do with Clarence Mitchell, in fact he didn't want anything to do with it.

I have read and re-read the police files and they don't indicate anything to me other than that Madeleine was taken. Sadly I think that if her body was found, God forbid, and there was enough DNA to find her abductor you people wouldn't even believe that, you would probably still say Kate and Gerry were involved and that evidence was planted.


My reply


Hi Antonella

Actually Kate and Gerry have never asked for the case to be reopened, what they have requested is a review which is something completely different.
Having the case reopened would mean them having to answer all the questions again and becoming arguidos (It means that as witnesses they cannot lie and have to tell the whole truth or face jail, as arguidos they can lie and refuse to answer questions. becoming an arguido is either at the request of the person being questioned or at the behest of the police to give the person being questioned legal protection)
Kate admitted she did not search because it was dark, she was not hysterical, far from it, the only time either of them showed any emotion was once in front of the cops when Gerry threw himself on the ground as if praying to Mecca and when both of them simulated crying in the apartment bedroom as witnessed by two policeman.
Kate and Gerry can have the case reopened like a shot simply by Kate answering those 48 questions she refused to answer despite her knowing it would hinder the search by her refusing or by agreeing along with their friends to take part in a police reconstruction ( and in crime and other reconstructions they can and will use actual people who were involved and in the UK they will use a family member who looks similar to the victim or a look alike to reconstruct their last known actions)

The mockumentary which was supposed to show the events of the night of the abduction ended up with the actress playing Kates role ending up on the cutting room floor because in Gerry's own words " Her story was unbelievable" in the end it just showed them playing happy families and very little of what happened that night. with Gerry falling out with Jane over which side he was standing on when she went past him and Dave Edgar , their so called private detective saying it didn't matter!! this was a very important sighting and it was vitally important to know where they were all standing when she allegedly saw the abductor ( which by the way was shown to have been impossible given where she was standing at the time)
The police reconstruction they refused to take part in. they were obliged to by law but their friends claimed it would serve no purpose and would be traumatic therefore they wouldn't do it
How many families around the world do reconstructions each day despite the emotional pain and anguish it causes, just so that the police can have an idea of where the victim was last seen, what they were doing and knowing it may trigger someone's memory and find the person or bring the perpetrator to justice...
It was vital that all the tapas 7 took part in the reconstruction as well as Kate and Gerry just so the police could see who was where and when and the fact it may also have triggered their memories which you have to admit are all very vague and contradictory.
Now if you were with a party of people and one of their children went missing you would do everything you possibly could to remember what you saw and did that day before, during and after the event.
If your child went missing you would be out searching day in and day out, you would answer every police question no matter how intrusive or embarrassing simply because your answers might help find your child.
Why then, instead of co-operating or even searching did Kate and Gerry and chums sit around the pool drinking free wine, go jogging and dump their kids back in the creche, given that it might possibly have been a creche worker that 'abducted' their daughter? Even you must wonder why they did what they did and didn't do what anyone else would have done in the same situation.
Gerry claims that his daughter was taken by a predatory paedophile, and at the same time claims there is no evidence of Madeleine coming to any serious harm! He knows what paedophiles do to kids so why does he keep saying that? Is it because if he admits to harm he will face neglect charges resulting in harm?
You bet .
He compares the case of Madeleine to Elizabeth Smart and Jaycee Duggard, saying they were found after months and years so she could still be alive.
Yes,it is an incredibly remote possibility but they were both adolescents/ teens,Not 3 yrs old.
He also carefully omits to mention that both girls were repeatedly raped and in one case forced to bear the children of her abuser.

The only people in that resort who left their kids alone that night were Kate and Gerry and the tapas 7 so that isn't many other people.
Other responsible families dropped their children off at the evening creche and collected them come bedtime.

There is absolutely no forensic evidence nor physical evidence to show that an abductor was in that apartment.
There is however forensic evidence to show that a body was in that apartment and that body fluids were also found in the apartment and car.


The initial claims that the shutters had been smashed and the door hanging open were quickly changed when it was proven the shutters were undamaged and they had to change it to the door being left unlocked.
Would you leave your kids in an unlocked apartment whilst you were halfway up the street with no clear view of the back door and none of the front or their bedroom window?
Actually would you leave a 3 yr old home alone babysitting younger siblings?
I don't think so .
And when on holiday I bet you make sure the doors and windows are locked so that your valuables are kept safe.


You say I should have sympathy for these people, why should I?
I have sympathy for Madeleine because due to the neglect of her parents who should have known better being educated, she lost her life sometime during the week of that vacation.
Statistics show that she is in all likelihood dead and had she been abducted, would have been within hours.
I feel sympathy for Sean and Amelie who are living in a household where the mom is mentally unstable, saying she wished she could press a button and they would all be together (That tells us by the way she knows Madeleine is dead simply because if she thought Madeleine was alive then by killing herself and her family they wouldn't all be together, Madeleine would be an orphan and no normal mom would wish that on their child)
I feel sympathy for Sean and Amelie forever tainted by being the children of Kate and Gerry, prime suspects in the disappearance of their eldest daughter, who used them for photo opportunities and dumped them on family whilst they travelled round the world glad-handing celebs and the Pope.
Kate and Gerry knew exactly what they were doing every night that week when they left those 3 children home alone.
Had it been a parent on a sink estate doing that they would have reported them to the police.
Remember Kate said after Madeleine allegedly asked where she was when she and Sean cried the night before, and Kate and Gerry decided to keep a closer eye on them.
That keeping a closer eye on them meant 30 min checks allegedly rather than dropping them off in the creche or making use of the free babysitter they were offered.
If that was keeping a closer eye on them, what were they doing before? oh yes they were at Chaplin's 500m away and had to be called back I believe.
If Kate and Gerry had been responsible parents , not left their kids home alone every night instead using the creche or babysitter Madeleine would be alive today.
because Kate and Gerry put their own pleasures before that of their kids, Madeleine McCann is dead.

I would like to know what you have found in the police files to indicate evidence of abduction because all the evidence we have found indicates otherwise.

I do thank you for taking the time to reply, it is more than many do
We want justice for an innocent little child who vanished sometime during the week of may 3rd 2007.

Have a great day and I do suggest you look though ALL the police files ( the translated versions can be found online , if you need an URL feel free to ask and i can provide one.

Kind regards

Hobnob ( real name concealed)



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

her reply and as a subject line she said she didn't want a reply


I have looked through all the police files. I don't want to carry on arguing with you. They have asked for the case to be reopened - I don't know why you and the rest of you online seem to think you are such experts. Kate ws totally catatonic (sorry for the spelling ) on the night Madeleine went missing.
As for Tapas 7, the would have taken part in reconstruction if it was being done for the right reasons to find Madeleine not to try and prove Kate and Gerry's guilt - as it was obvious that was what the police wanted it for, Why take part in a charade.
You say things like 'simulated' crying, were you there no! have you ever been there when I have met the McCanns and seen the terrible grief they have - no.
I don't know where you get the unbelievable line from, I don't remember that. I remember that Kate did not feel emotionally up to doing the documentary - hardly suprising.
You can see someone crossing across that road, I have been there - I expect you haven't. I don't remember Jane ever changing her story - and wouldn't it have been more suspect if Gerry had said he had seen her.
There was no free babysitter, that service wasn't offered at this resort. I don't blame the McCanns for refusing to answer police questions given that it was obvious that the police thought they were guilty and the questioning wasn't aimed at helping to find Madeleine.
There is no forensics to show there was body in the apartment, the forensics were inconclusive, the only thing that indicated that there had been a body were the dogs - one of which signalled to God knows how many bodies at the Jersey care home ---oh and none was found. Now how do I know that, well I was there. Eddie excelled himself on that case.
Forgive me if I am wrong but I don't think Kate says the shutters were smashed she says the window and shutter were open, the shutter had been faulty and repaired.
As for using Sean and Amelie- there is a PCC order that there are not to be photographed, so again your 'facts' are wrong.
As for Gerry not talking about paedophiles doing what they do, he has on many occasions, I don't think it is something any parent wants to dwell on. I could go on.
Like I said if Madeleine's body is found and there is enough DNA to find the person who did it, you lot still won't believe it and will no doubt say it was all planted by Kate and Gerry. For God's sake leave them alone. You are the perpetrators of a vile witch hunt.
You all think you are armchair detectives, when a lot of the 'facts' you sieze on are actually mistakes written by journalists, or by other people. Why can't you find it in your hearts to leave the McCanns alone.
Why don't you use you powers of detective work to actually find who did this.



-------------------------------------------------------

If she wasn't such a halfwit it would have been comical

An excellent e-mail to Antonella Hobs, in which you covered the many discrepancies that abound in this case. If, as Antonella states, she has read the files I fail to understand how she is so blinkered in her views. Well done for trying.

Hobs, I have also 'crossed swords' with Ms Lazzeri, and I too got the 'I'm not going to argue with you' line (funny, as I, like yourself, wasn't arguing!). I had tried to e-mail Lorraine Kelly after a particularly vomit-inducing article, but her e-mail address would not work.
I can't remember exactly what was written now, but its in the 'Getting Proactive' thread where I suggested that more of us need to contact journo's with our doubts.

I just find it utterly amazing that somebody could read the Files and see 'Abduction'. Far from it.
Poor Maddie

That was a great email Hobs.
As for the journo's reply which makes me think that maybe she isn't fully up to speed with things I have copied and pasted this:

" I don't blame the McCanns for refusing to answer police
questions given that it was obvious that the police thought they were
guilty and the questioning wasn't aimed at helping to find Madeleine."

Looks as though she doesn't know about question 49 then.

Mr. did answer police questions which she doesn't seem to realise.

This is the topic started by Rainbow-Fairy.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4888-getting-proactive?highlight=getting+proactive

It got Bonnybraes and her coven in a right spin!

PeterMac wrote:As with her reply to me all those years ago, she still can't tell the difference between the shutters in the parents' room which were mended, and the shutters in the children's room, which were not.

She probably knows and is deliberately muddying the waters just like the people she's defending.

ShuBob wrote:

PeterMac wrote:As with her reply to me all those years ago, she still can't tell the difference between the shutters in the parents' room which were mended, and the shutters in the children's room, which were not.

She probably knows and is deliberately muddying the waters just like the people she's defending.

Maybe she has a connection to a tapas 7 relative.

ShuBob wrote:

PeterMac wrote:As with her reply to me all those years ago, she still can't tell the difference between the shutters in the parents' room which were mended, and the shutters in the children's room, which were not.

She probably knows and is deliberately muddying the waters just like the people she's defending.

Nah.She was asked about lying about broken shutters and she replied with something like why was it a lie, you can see in the files that they were repaired the day before Madeleine went missing. The whole point seemed to have gone over her head that the Mccanns claimed the shutters were broken Thursday night, well, as well as getting wrong which shutters were alledgedly broken.

tasprin wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

PeterMac wrote:As with her reply to me all those years ago, she still can't tell the difference between the shutters in the parents' room which were mended, and the shutters in the children's room, which were not.

She probably knows and is deliberately muddying the waters just like the people she's defending.

Maybe she has a connection to a tapas 7 relative.

I won't rule that out. Whatever her motivation is, I found her twisting of facts pathetic. It's her prerogative if she wants to believe the couple but she shouldn't be twisting the facts.

Inspectorfrost wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

PeterMac wrote:As with her reply to me all those years ago, she still can't tell the difference between the shutters in the parents' room which were mended, and the shutters in the children's room, which were not.

She probably knows and is deliberately muddying the waters just like the people she's defending.

Nah.She was asked about lying about broken shutters and she replied with something like why was it a lie, you can see in the files that they were repaired the day before Madeleine went missing. The whole point seemed to have gone over her head that the Mccanns claimed the shutters were broken Thursday night, well, as well as getting wrong which shutters were alledgedly broken.

If she wasn't sure, she should have kept her trap shut but as she claims she's read the files, I believe she deliberately twisted the facts.

Maybe Shubob, pretty poor attempt though in answer to someone who also had read the files and probably read MORE on the case than her. Twisting or low IQ or both.

ShuBob wrote:

tasprin wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

PeterMac wrote:As with her reply to me all those years ago, she still can't tell the difference between the shutters in the parents' room which were mended, and the shutters in the children's room, which were not.

She probably knows and is deliberately muddying the waters just like the people she's defending.

Maybe she has a connection to a tapas 7 relative.

I won't rule that out. Whatever her motivation is, I found her twisting of facts pathetic. It's her prerogative if she wants to believe the couple but she shouldn't be twisting the facts.

She has never reported this case from a neutral standpoint. Whatever happened to three year old Madeleine is not, and never has been, Lazzeri's priorty even though she has a child of similar age herself. There has to be a personal reason why she has taken such a stance and why she goes out of her way to twist facts to the McCanns advantage.

On orders from higher up probably. Shameful in any case.

The latest Russian fiasco storythat was actually six months old eveng and not in the news ever, originated in Portugal, (Lift?) then wove its way to Russia and UK

Horrible people