Blacksmith 5th march 2013 - and conclude

Angelique wrote:

Casey5 wrote:I enjoy Blacksmith's posts very much, even the ones I can't understand.
In this latest article he states that the press do not have drawers full of McCann related stories ready to unleash when needed. But then he says he was approached by a couple of journalists from different newspapers wanting information on the proposed settlement.
My question is why? If the papers aren't keeping info on the McCanns and don't ever print anything of a derogatory nature then why would they exert themselves in an effort to find out if the McCanns' had folded?
If they find that the McCanns' have fell on their sword then they won't print and apparently don't store it so why bother?

I agree - but Blacksmith qualified this statement about dossiers with the following sentence:

"Whatever finally appeared in the media would only do so when the facts had been established elsewhere."

Maybe they await the facts from officials sources first.

The Blacksmith Bureau

WEDNESDAY, 6 MARCH 2013

Footnote
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.

at 19:12

Casey5 wrote:I enjoy Blacksmith's posts very much, even the ones I can't understand.


I agree - but Blacksmith qualified this statement about dossiers with the following sentence:

"Whatever finally appeared in the media would only do so when the facts had been established elsewhere."

Maybe they await the facts from officials sources first.

plebgate wrote:Snipped from aiyoyos post: "If the webmaster supplied that answer without checking with Kate then rightfully Kate should sue her webmaster.
Oh what a tangled web they spin ! "webmaster" indeed - I 'm liking the new title for the Mrs."

Yes I agree - any menton of contacting lawyers and suing would not surprise me iff this is her new title.

aiyoyo wrote:
If the webmaster is the Mrs herself then the accounts showing over 30K paid to webmaster can only mean one thing.

Oh no I see
A spider web it's tangled up with me
And I lost my head
The thought of all the stupid things I said
Oh no what's this
A spider web and I'm caught in the middle
So I turned to run
The thought of all the stupid things I've done

And oh I never meant to cause you trouble
And oh and I never meant to do you wrong
And oh well if I ever caused you trouble
Oh no I never meant to do you harm

Oh no I see
A spider web and it's me in the middle
So I twist and turn
Here am I in my little bubble

Oh I never meant to cause you trouble
Oh I never meant to do you wrong
Oh well if I ever caused you trouble
Oh no I never meant to do you harm
They spun a web for me

Casey5 wrote:I enjoy Blacksmith's posts very much, even the ones I can't understand.

I agree - but Blacksmith qualified this statement about dossiers with the following sentence:

tigger wrote:This is to add to the comments on page 3:
(from MM last year by The Slave)
I found this little gem hidden away in Private Eye January 2010......

''Scientists urge reform of 'lethal'libel laws''.thundered the headline over a Times report on how the libel law was endangering public health by stopping peer-reviewed research appearing in medical journals.
It quoted Dr.Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal, describing how one of BMJ's satellite magazines, Archives of Disease in Childhood, had turned down a paper describing clinical signs associated with child abuse.''These cases were all from the U.K., and the information should have been readily available to doctors inthe U.K.'' she said. ''Science and medical discussion must be open and critical''.
But what was the paper that Dr.Godlee feared might bring her colleaguesthe unwelcome attention of Carter Fuck and Mr.Justice Eady? Perhaps fearing a writ of it's own, the 'Thunderer coyly refused to say. The Eye can reveal that in 2007 Professor Neil McIntosh from the Department of Child Life and Health at the University of Edinburgh, and his associates submitted an exhaustive review of 58,059 infants admitted to Scottish A&E departments.
They were looking for examples of nosebleeds and coughing up blood,and suggested they were so rare among children under two that they could be signs of child abuse. They recommended that in future a paediatrician should check out children with nosebleeds, but were careful to add: ''No children described in this report suffered injury from definite abuse that was sufficiently worrying to trigger child protection proceedings at the time of the injury''.
Though no individual was named or accused, the lawyers went into a tizzy fearing that parents could sue the journal claiming the doctors were indirectly suggesting they may be abusers. That was enough of a chilling effect for the Archives of Disease in Childhood lawyers to stop publication.
Although it turned the paper down, 'Pediatrics' decided that Professor McIntosh and his team had produced important work and published it. 'Pediatrics ' is an American journal. Thus American doctors can read the results of a study of British children in British hospitals that British publishers dare not run.'''
'Ratbiter'.

Beanie wrote:Quote:
Blacksmith I assume is saying the press have not got stacks of boxes of dirt on the McCanns, but also that the McCanns are not being protected by powerful people!

Portia wrote:

tigger wrote:This is to add to the comments on page 3:
(from MM last year by The Slave)
I found this little gem hidden away in Private Eye January 2010......

''Scientists urge reform of 'lethal'libel laws''.thundered the headline over a Times report on how the libel law was endangering public health by stopping peer-reviewed research appearing in medical journals.
It quoted Dr.Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal, describing how one of BMJ's satellite magazines, Archives of Disease in Childhood, had turned down a paper describing clinical signs associated with child abuse.''These cases were all from the U.K., and the information should have been readily available to doctors inthe U.K.'' she said. ''Science and medical discussion must be open and critical''.
But what was the paper that Dr.Godlee feared might bring her colleaguesthe unwelcome attention of Carter Fuck and Mr.Justice Eady? Perhaps fearing a writ of it's own, the 'Thunderer coyly refused to say. The Eye can reveal that in 2007 Professor Neil McIntosh from the Department of Child Life and Health at the University of Edinburgh, and his associates submitted an exhaustive review of 58,059 infants admitted to Scottish A&E departments.
They were looking for examples of nosebleeds and coughing up blood,and suggested they were so rare among children under two that they could be signs of child abuse. They recommended that in future a paediatrician should check out children with nosebleeds, but were careful to add: ''No children described in this report suffered injury from definite abuse that was sufficiently worrying to trigger child protection proceedings at the time of the injury''.
Though no individual was named or accused, the lawyers went into a tizzy fearing that parents could sue the journal claiming the doctors were indirectly suggesting they may be abusers. That was enough of a chilling effect for the Archives of Disease in Childhood lawyers to stop publication.
Although it turned the paper down, 'Pediatrics' decided that Professor McIntosh and his team had produced important work and published it. 'Pediatrics ' is an American journal. Thus American doctors can read the results of a study of British children in British hospitals that British publishers dare not run.'''
'Ratbiter'.

Nosebleeds?

iluvpelageya wrote:

Beanie wrote:Quote:
Blacksmith I assume is saying the press have not got stacks of boxes of dirt on the McCanns, but also that the McCanns are not being protected by powerful people!

I have in-laws who work in the media. There are journalists who are just waiting for the McCs to fall. There are also several authors with books already more or less written. As to powerful people. I have not been told anything, but it seems obvious that they have contact with people of influence. Who goes to see the Pope and is greeted by the British Ambassador? How many of us were invited to appear at the Leveson Inquiry? Someone must be pulling strings somewhere.

When the McCs fall, there is going to be a deluge of articles, videos and books. I do not know when this is going to happen, but I would think the turning point will be when they lose this case in Portugal. And they will lose it.

Writing that book was a terrible mistake. People all over the world have been picking it apart. It will be used against them.

iluvpelageya wrote:

Beanie wrote:Quote:
Blacksmith I assume is saying the press have not got stacks of boxes of dirt on the McCanns, but also that the McCanns are not being protected by powerful people!

I have in-laws who work in the media. There are journalists who are just waiting for the McCs to fall. There are also several authors with books already more or less written. As to powerful people. I have not been told anything, but it seems obvious that they have contact with people of influence. Who goes to see the Pope and is greeted by the British Ambassador? How many of us were invited to appear at the Leveson Inquiry? Someone must be pulling strings somewhere.

When the McCs fall, there is going to be a deluge of articles, videos and books. I do not know when this is going to happen, but I would think the turning point will be when they lose this case in Portugal. And they will lose it.

Writing that book was a terrible mistake. People all over the world have been picking it apart. It will be used against them.

tiny wrote:

iluvpelageya wrote:

Beanie wrote:Quote:
Blacksmith I assume is saying the press have not got stacks of boxes of dirt on the McCanns, but also that the McCanns are not being protected by powerful people!

I have in-laws who work in the media. There are journalists who are just waiting for the McCs to fall. There are also several authors with books already more or less written. As to powerful people. I have not been told anything, but it seems obvious that they have contact with people of influence. Who goes to see the Pope and is greeted by the British Ambassador? How many of us were invited to appear at the Leveson Inquiry? Someone must be pulling strings somewhere.

When the McCs fall, there is going to be a deluge of articles, videos and books. I do not know when this is going to happen, but I would think the turning point will be when they lose this case in Portugal. And they will lose it.

Writing that book was a terrible mistake. People all over the world have been picking it apart. It will be used against them.

does this include the tapas friends,after all they could have stopped all this from day 1 when the mccanns lied about the jemmied shutters

iluvpelageya wrote:

Beanie wrote:Quote:
Blacksmith I assume is saying the press have not got stacks of boxes of dirt on the McCanns, but also that the McCanns are not being protected by powerful people!

I have in-laws who work in the media. There are journalists who are just waiting for the McCs to fall. There are also several authors with books already more or less written. As to powerful people. I have not been told anything, but it seems obvious that they have contact with people of influence. Who goes to see the Pope and is greeted by the British Ambassador? How many of us were invited to appear at the Leveson Inquiry? Someone must be pulling strings somewhere.

When the McCs fall, there is going to be a deluge of articles, videos and books. I do not know when this is going to happen, but I would think the turning point will be when they lose this case in Portugal. And they will lose it.

Writing that book was a terrible mistake. People all over the world have been picking it apart. It will be used against them.

Jean wrote:I'll add the children of the rest of the Tapas mob, Beanie, including the one born later to the Oldfields. They are the only truly blameless people in this unsavoury saga.

sami wrote:

Portia wrote:

tigger wrote:This is to add to the comments on page 3:
(from MM last year by The Slave)
I found this little gem hidden away in Private Eye January 2010......

''Scientists urge reform of 'lethal'libel laws''.thundered the headline over a Times report on how the libel law was endangering public health by stopping peer-reviewed research appearing in medical journals.
It quoted Dr.Fiona Godlee, editor of the British Medical Journal, describing how one of BMJ's satellite magazines, Archives of Disease in Childhood, had turned down a paper describing clinical signs associated with child abuse.''These cases were all from the U.K., and the information should have been readily available to doctors inthe U.K.'' she said. ''Science and medical discussion must be open and critical''.
But what was the paper that Dr.Godlee feared might bring her colleaguesthe unwelcome attention of Carter Fuck and Mr.Justice Eady? Perhaps fearing a writ of it's own, the 'Thunderer coyly refused to say. The Eye can reveal that in 2007 Professor Neil McIntosh from the Department of Child Life and Health at the University of Edinburgh, and his associates submitted an exhaustive review of 58,059 infants admitted to Scottish A&E departments.
They were looking for examples of nosebleeds and coughing up blood,and suggested they were so rare among children under two that they could be signs of child abuse. They recommended that in future a paediatrician should check out children with nosebleeds, but were careful to add: ''No children described in this report suffered injury from definite abuse that was sufficiently worrying to trigger child protection proceedings at the time of the injury''.
Though no individual was named or accused, the lawyers went into a tizzy fearing that parents could sue the journal claiming the doctors were indirectly suggesting they may be abusers. That was enough of a chilling effect for the Archives of Disease in Childhood lawyers to stop publication.
Although it turned the paper down, 'Pediatrics' decided that Professor McIntosh and his team had produced important work and published it. 'Pediatrics ' is an American journal. Thus American doctors can read the results of a study of British children in British hospitals that British publishers dare not run.'''
'Ratbiter'.

Nosebleeds?

Ok nose bleeds, they can and do happen. Since when do they omit cadaver odour though ?.? Or was it a sea bass with a nose bleed.

tigger wrote:It was from a question on this:
Gerry being heard as an arguido on september 7th 2007:

Blood was mentioned. The defence lawyer reacting to this, i.e. Gerry's lawyer, tried to explain it away. To no avail:

The defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for
Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn’t know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he
does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

Bleeding occurred: before May 3rd.
Press comments: after May 3rd.

How could Gerry's observing his daughters bleeding BEFORE may 3rd have been compromised by the media attention AFTER May 3rd??

Unquote (from forensic linguistics)

Somebody posted the PE article with it - I posted it here because another post mentioned the scientific community also protest against the libel law. This is a good example imo.

Sorry I'm completely OT!

margaret wrote:

tigger wrote:It was from a question on this:
Gerry being heard as an arguido on september 7th 2007:

Blood was mentioned. The defence lawyer reacting to this, i.e. Gerry's lawyer, tried to explain it away. To no avail:

The defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for
Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn’t know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he
does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

Bleeding occurred: before May 3rd.
Press comments: after May 3rd.


How could Gerry's observing his daughters bleeding BEFORE may 3rd have been compromised by the media attention AFTER May 3rd??

Unquote (from forensic linguistics)

Somebody posted the PE article with it - I posted it here because another post mentioned the scientific community also protest against the libel law. This is a good example imo.

Sorry I'm completely OT!

Easy. He wasn't going to admit a nosebleed until he was absolutely sure whether there WAS blood recovered. He hoped the papers and PJ were lying and was bluffing and blustering his way out of it.

plebgate wrote:Snipped from Iluvepelageya's post:

"One could be forgiven for thinking that the McCs have been coached, possibly by the same people who coached Gordon Brown."

Yes I remember we discussed this on 3A's at the time. It was when Mr. had gone back to Portugal and had stayed in a 5 star hotel and I think it transpired that he had attended a meeting with solicitors and maybe somebody to do with football. Can't quite remember.

Anyway we noted when he was giving an interview then that his hand gestures were more or less the same as G. Browns and a few other things also. The only thing we thought gave away his nervousness was that his adams apple was bobbing up and down like crazy - can't control all of your actions all of the time.

Re. the nosebleeds which Maddie would have "frequently". Yet another reason Maddie should not have been left on her own when they wining and dining on the Thursday or any other night. hmmm. Excessive tiredness plus known to have nose bleeds. Any responsible parent would not leave a child unattended for half an hour or so and perhaps longer knowing this.

Why on earth they have not been interviewed again about these admissions is beyond me. I know it's been said before but if you or I had amitted such things I truly believe that we would be locked up by now. I believe this must be parent neglect and openly admitting it with nothing being done about it is shocking imo.