Re: Blacksmith

by Angelique 16.06.13 6:40

candyfloss wrote:
Angelique wrote:candyfloss

Can you help - I seem to have lost any "little boxes" at the top and no smilies either. Maybe its because I am using Apple perhaps?

Might be, lots of people having problems too on other forums. They are trying to sort it out.

http://help.forumotion.com/t124671p360-only-topic-new-editor#831718

Thank you for your reply :)

by russiandoll 16.06.13 17:48

How it all began: "Mummy, mummy, it's dark and I'm scared…Mummy…Mummy?"

On the surface the latest story appears to be a complete invention since nowhere is the headline "UK police to take over" backed up by any recorded statement, official or otherwise: the supposed confirmatory quotations are fake, that is they do not relate to the "take over" story but are stock quotations from the past to turn an organized leak into a news item.
Nevertheless we believe that the story is basically true and will be confirmed. It was clearly released to multiple media outlets simultaneously, together with an embargo on giving the exact source but a verbal assurance that it represented the true situation. Who by – Yard or Home Office? They're not saying. If the story is untrue, or a power play, then one of the two will issue a formal rebuttal. Neither of them have done so yet, which implies the decision is indeed joint and agreed. Whether a potential leak prematurely prompted the release of information – as Amaral's comments did in April 2012 – or whether it is the outcome of the discussions about the review's future that we forecast in January, is immaterial, as is the possibility that it is a "flyer" in Whitehall terms: release the principle unofficially and see if the treasury or MPs object and then put the nuts and bolts together in peace.
The Bureau's apparently lone belief that it is a masterstroke, intentional or accidental, which means that British persons of interest cannot evade questioning by refusing to return to Portugal is, if anything, stronger after reflection than it was before. Readers should note that if the change is confirmed and the UK police question UK citizens, then for the first time since May 3 2007, the case becomes subject to UK contempt of court laws: that means potential limits on what twitter and UK forums and, much more importantly, on spokesmen, or "crooked, lying, contemptible shits" as they are sometimes known, can say. Note how Max Clifford, the biggest mouth around, has had to behave since ~~his member~~ he was put on police bail: any spin and he is in contempt of court.
Blacksmith - Page 3 Eggman

One of the 20 suspects identified by UK police

Indeed anything which offers the prospect of staunching the discharges from Mitchell's orifice, together with a ban on his multi-gendered and psychologically disturbing identity role-playing – "pal", "friend", "source" "family friend" "crooked lying contemptible shit" – eerily reminiscent of the latest mad Wallender suspect who strips to his undies and indulges in face-painted masturbatory droolings ahead of his next crime, should be welcomed for that service alone.
Equally, when the various British paedophiles and toddler snatchers identified by the Yard – the Ink Blots as we believe they are known—are called in for questioning they will be uneasily aware that lawyers for a couple of previous arguidos, or "persons of complete innocence" as Gerry McCann's Portuguese phrase book translates the term, went for a "use the public via the media to avoid extradition" defence. That won't be much of a help here, will it? Oh, and Panorama programs made to expunge a belief in the essential innocence and goodness of stealing toddlers to order will be banned as well.
Lastly it's good to know that the far-sighted Leicester police refused to allow access to their Madeleine files in 2008 and 2009, despite prolonged attempts to get at them by persons of complete innocence. Just imagine if they had somehow fallen into the hands of all those Hewitts and other paedophile filth pin-pointed by the Yard! Why, knowing all the evidence and the operational weaknesses in the case against them might well have enabled monsters to escape, mightn't it? As Kate McCann said in her book, if memory serves us, "Well done chief constable!"

by **PeterMac** 16.06.13 21:48

And the picture he used to illustrate the piece. . .
Blacksmith - Page 3 Franciscogoya-Saturn-Eating-Cronus

Sleep well, twins.

In case some people don't get the allusions this is from WIKI. . .

Saturn Devouring His Son is the name given to a painting by Spanish artist Francisco Goya. According to the traditional interpretation, it depicts the Greek myth of the Titan Cronus (in the title Romanised to Saturn), who, fearing that he would be overthrown by his children, ate each one upon their birth. The work is one of the 14 Black Paintings that Goya painted directly onto the walls of his house sometime between 1819 and 1823. It was transferred to canvas after Goya's death and has since been held in the Museo del Prado in Madrid.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.06.13 22:04

'blacksmith' - unnecessarily graphic picture, and then this:

"...crooked lying contemptible shit" – eerily reminiscent of the latest mad Wallender suspect who strips to his undies and indulges in face-painted masturbatory droolings ahead of his next crime..."

No change there, then

by **Nina** 16.06.13 22:29

PeterMac wrote:And the picture he used to illustrate the piece. . .

Sleep well, twins.

In case some people don't get the allusions this is from WIKI. . .

Saturn Devouring His Son is the name given to a painting by Spanish artist Francisco Goya. According to the traditional interpretation, it depicts the Greek myth of the Titan Cronus (in the title Romanised to Saturn), who, fearing that he would be overthrown by his children, ate each one upon their birth. The work is one of the 14 Black Paintings that Goya painted directly onto the walls of his house sometime between 1819 and 1823. It was transferred to canvas after Goya's death and has since been held in the Museo del Prado in Madrid.

Ye gods I saw that picture last week whilst on holiday in Madrid, very gruesome.

by lj 17.06.13 0:11

recently there have been 2 cases where a mother, and a separate case the father, ate the baby.

Now of course CR I am not saying Kate and Gerry ate Madeleine, but in a allegoric kind of way I can see a story.

by **tigger** 17.06.13 7:18

From BSabove:
'Lastly it's good to know that the far-sighted Leicester police refused to allow access to their Madeleine files in 2008 and 2009, despite prolonged attempts to get at them by persons of complete innocence.'

Iirc it was the court which refused them access to the documents as they would have needed a court order to see the police files? The police may (I imagine) not allow anyone access to the documents in any case?

Iirc too, the McCanns were on holiday in Canada (Auntie Norah again?) when the case was heard.

by aiyoyo 17.06.13 8:25

Tony Bennett wrote:'blacksmith' - unnecessarily graphic picture, and then this:

"...crooked lying contemptible shit" – eerily reminiscent of the latest mad Wallender suspect who strips to his undies and indulges in face-painted masturbatory droolings ahead of his next crime..."

No change there, then

SHOCKING!

He defended the Lord Mc******** to the hilt.
Rubbish the entire forum over theory of Gaspars' statement, yet he thought nothing about repeating allegation fabricated by the vile murat*** going even further by doing it in a depraved graphic manner.

Is this hypocrisy, double standard, or a certain flaw in his make-up in the same manner as depraved pervert with a hidden agenda. Not saying, just saying.

If he disagrees with the alleged accusation of innocent people ie the two doctors and one Lord because it is against his principle, that's fine.
By that logic, why does he not apply the same principle to the person be labelled as witch hunter.

Would it be because he's an attention seeker who does not like to be overshadowed by an ex-lawyer's work because he's jealous. You have to wonder don't you?

Either he's against the principle of accusing innocent people or he's not - can't be selective about it, else it's not a principle but personal discrimination/biased especially when circumstantial evidence exists in those cases his defended vs no evidence against one innocent man he persecuted in a graphic manner.

He's lost people's respect.

by Guest 17.06.13 9:33

Some more unappetising meal time reading!

In my view Blacksmith is now on the same level as muratfan and there's not much lower anyone can go than that!

by tiny 17.06.13 11:03

aiyoyo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:'blacksmith' - unnecessarily graphic picture, and then this:

"...crooked lying contemptible shit" – eerily reminiscent of the latest mad Wallender suspect who strips to his undies and indulges in face-painted masturbatory droolings ahead of his next crime..."

No change there, then

SHOCKING!

He defended the Lord Mc******** to the hilt.
Rubbish the entire forum over theory of Gaspars' statement, yet he thought nothing about repeating allegation fabricated by the vile murat*** going even further by doing it in a depraved graphic manner.

Is this hypocrisy, double standard, or a certain flaw in his make-up in the same manner as depraved pervert with a hidden agenda. Not saying, just saying.

If he disagrees with the alleged accusation of innocent people ie the two doctors and one Lord because it is against his principle, that's fine.
By that logic, why does he not apply the same principle to the person be labelled as witch hunter.

Would it be because he's an attention seeker who does not like to be overshadowed by an ex-lawyer's work because he's jealous. You have to wonder don't you?

Either he's against the principle of accusing innocent people or he's not - can't be selective about it, else it's not a principle but personal discrimination/biased especially when circumstantial evidence exists in those cases his defended vs no evidence against one innocent man he persecuted in a graphic manner.

He's lost people's respect.

good post,

by Casey5 17.06.13 21:05

tigger wrote:From BSabove:
'Lastly it's good to know that the far-sighted Leicester police refused to allow access to their Madeleine files in 2008 and 2009, despite prolonged attempts to get at them by persons of complete innocence.'

Iirc it was the court which refused them access to the documents as they would have needed a court order to see the police files? The police may (I imagine) not allow anyone access to the documents in any case?

Iirc too, the McCanns were on holiday in Canada (Auntie Norah again?) when the case was heard.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole of the transcript of the case can be viewed at the mccann files link below.

The McCanns' lawyers take Leicestershire Police (LP) to the High Court to force the release of police information. However, the legal bid is withdrawn after LP agree to release 81 pieces of information (note: not files) out of a total of over 11,000 pieces of information held. The released information relates to phone calls made to the McCanns' solicitors and passed on to the Leicester control room at the start of the inquiry.

During the Hearing it is revealed that Madeleine became a Ward of Court, on 02 April 2008, as the result of proceedings which started on 17 May 2007.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html

by **tigger** 17.06.13 21:32

Casey5 wrote:
tigger wrote:From BSabove:
'Lastly it's good to know that the far-sighted Leicester police refused to allow access to their Madeleine files in 2008 and 2009, despite prolonged attempts to get at them by persons of complete innocence.'

Iirc it was the court which refused them access to the documents as they would have needed a court order to see the police files? The police may (I imagine) not allow anyone access to the documents in any case?

Iirc too, the McCanns were on holiday in Canada (Auntie Norah again?) when the case was heard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole of the transcript of the case can be viewed at the mccann files link below.

The McCanns' lawyers take Leicestershire Police (LP) to the High Court to force the release of police information. However, the legal bid is withdrawn after LP agree to release 81 pieces of information (note: not files) out of a total of over 11,000 pieces of information held. The released information relates to phone calls made to the McCanns' solicitors and passed on to the Leicester control room at the start of the inquiry.

During the Hearing it is revealed that Madeleine became a Ward of Court, on 02 April 2008, as the result of proceedings which started on 17 May 2007.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html

[b]

Thanks for looking that up. I knew they were given some information but it's interesting to see how much they didn't get. My point was that they'd have to go to court to do so as the police is not allowed to give out information in such cases. Imo it's rather like the McCanns to assume they would be able to access the police files.

So these were the IFL people and it was as early as July 08 when they tried that. Yet they must still have been arguidos at that time.
I wonder if they knew at the time that the PJ files would be published.

by aiyoyo 18.06.13 6:35

tigger wrote:
Casey5 wrote:
tigger wrote:From BSabove:
'Lastly it's good to know that the far-sighted Leicester police refused to allow access to their Madeleine files in 2008 and 2009, despite prolonged attempts to get at them by persons of complete innocence.'

Iirc it was the court which refused them access to the documents as they would have needed a court order to see the police files? The police may (I imagine) not allow anyone access to the documents in any case?

Iirc too, the McCanns were on holiday in Canada (Auntie Norah again?) when the case was heard.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole of the transcript of the case can be viewed at the mccann files link below.

The McCanns' lawyers take Leicestershire Police (LP) to the High Court to force the release of police information. However, the legal bid is withdrawn after LP agree to release 81 pieces of information (note: not files) out of a total of over 11,000 pieces of information held. The released information relates to phone calls made to the McCanns' solicitors and passed on to the Leicester control room at the start of the inquiry.

During the Hearing it is revealed that Madeleine became a Ward of Court, on 02 April 2008, as the result of proceedings which started on 17 May 2007.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id130.html
[b]

Thanks for looking that up. I knew they were given some information but it's interesting to see how much they didn't get. My point was that they'd have to go to court to do so as the police is not allowed to give out information in such cases. Imo it's rather like the McCanns to assume they would be able to access the police files.

So these were the IFL people and it was as early as July 08 when they tried that. Yet they must still have been arguidos at that time.
I wonder if they knew at the time that the PJ files would be published.

I dare say they most definitely know nothing that shelving obliges files to be released else they would not have asked for the shelving (yes it was them who pushed for the shelving according to Dr Amaral) without first taking the legal route to block the release

At the end of the day I suspect it is not a question of choice - they desperately wanted the case shelved because they were desperate for their aguidos status to be shelved along it. Anyhow I cant see Portugal Court entertaining the odious pair, or making any exception for them against their existing system, even if they'd wanted to apply to ban the release.

It was a case of shelved with files release, or leave the case in situ - as in cold awaiting new development - but in the latter their arguidos status will remain also in situ. I don't know how long is the time statute a person can be held as suspect (arguido) but would imagine quite a few years under the Portuguese system for as long as the investigation was alive. And the mccanns most certainly did not want the investigative to remain alive when the investigation focus was on them.

Personally, I believe once they got over the initial shock, they are not too bothered now because they made sure the release files are not in the mainstream.

by **tigger** 18.06.13 7:13

They were desperate to be released from their arguido status as they were negotiating amongst others a 2+ million film deal, there was a bidding war for Oprah Winfrey said to be over 1 million and there was a documentary they wanted to bring out - none of that could happen whilst they were still arguidos.
All this as early as December 07 and January 08!

So once the files were released and all in Portuguese of course, they had time to ring-fence them. TM made good use from the list of sightings and 'missed chances' - very good spin so once again imo not Clarrie.

by **PeterMac** 21.06.13 22:46

today's offering.

Friday, 21 June 2013
It must be "operational"

The Bureau no longer does old ground
Redbrick Rothley Manor appears to be in information lock-down, for the first time since September 2007. Then, though, the outlook for the pair,due to a number of grievous misunderstandings, was temporarily rather grim, whereas now it seems that the Yard and CPS are closing in on the monsters who carried the child out of apartment 5A.
Obviously the parents must have been fully briefed by Scotland Yard and the Crown Prosecution Service on the new developments and may have very good reasons for their discretion. But it's still frustrating not to hear from them. Perhaps their supporters on Facebook or twitter, who always seem to be very knowledgeable about the case, will tell us what's going on. Otherwise we amateur bloggers will just have to wait for real journalists like K. Simmons and David James Smith to spell it all out.

by plebgate 21.06.13 22:52

failing that PeterM, maybe wee Kelly could hold a special sofa chat at the weekend for them to tell us all what is going on.

by Guest 21.06.13 22:54

plebgate wrote:failing that PeterM, maybe wee Kelly could hold a special sofa chat at the weekend for them to tell us all what is going on.

***
I'd be watching, just for once ...

by sweetex 21.06.13 23:53

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2013-06-21T21:58:00%2B01:00&max-results=1

Another one from today earlier...

Where are they now?

The London Crown Prosecution Service
The London CPS covers the Metropolitan police (Scotland Yard) area. Quote: "As the principal prosecuting authority in England and Wales the CPS is responsible for criminal cases beyond the police investigatory stage. The CPS will advise the police on cases for possible prosecution, review cases submitted by the police, determine any charges in all but minor cases, prepare cases for court and present cases at court. Primarily, the CPS will review the evidence gathered by the police and provide guidance. [Bureau italics] During pre-charge procedures and throughout the investigative and prosecuting process the CPS may assist the police by explaining what additional work or evidence could raise the case to a viable charging standard thereby rectifying any evidential deficiencies. Once the evidence is gathered the CPS will then decide, on the basis of this evidence, whether a case should be pursued or dropped."
Evening Standard
"London’s chief crown prosecutor Alison Saunders and her deputy Jenny Hopkins flew to Portugal in April to meet counterparts to discuss leads identified in the Met’s review." Evening Standard, June 21 2013.
The Evening Standard is even more broke than its stable mate the Independent, is owned by one of the Russian oligarchs – the plunderers who Putin perhaps should have executed – and has almost no full-time journalists. So it's about as original and reliable as the Portugal News.
But it does have an agreement with the Mail owners to use their stories (this one is understood to be left over from the Mail's "UK takeover" piece last week) and the two prosecutors are named and have not denied the news item. Jenny Hopkins is not just a deputy: she is Head of the Complex Casework Unit.

Blacksmith - Page 3 Alison_Saunders

Alison Saunders

No sauces needed
So consider two points. First, it is another opportunity for a Home Office or Yard refutation of last week's stories and yet, once again, no rebuttal, or even guiding hint suggesting caution, has appeared. Inference: the "takeover" story is again strengthened and, as things stand, very likely to be true in broad outline.
Secondly, what can the CPS Metropolitan police area heads have been doing there?
Well, they are prosecutors, so even in this crooked old world it's fair to infer that they went to discuss possible prosecution in accordance with their role quoted above.
Blacksmith - Page 3 2Q==

Jenny Hopkins

Of whom?
The answer can only be either people who were neither arguidos nor persons of interest in the original Portuguese investigation or those who were. The former, in theory, could be, literally, anybody: ink-blots from the troubled but vivid imagination of Gerry McCann such as paid toddler-thieves and international paedophile rings; others who have hitherto escaped any study at all and may be living anywhere from New Zealand to Brazil; still others who might have been highlighted by the Yard team in their "opportunity" investigations and, lastly and most fatuously, the unfortunates like Hewitt whose names were bandied about by the paid liar Clarence Mitchell, the sheep-strangler Edgar (seen above demonstrating the tools of his trade) and their paymasters.
The one thing we know for absolutely certain about this disparate group is that the same Portuguese Attorney-General's department which highlighted the absence of any evidence of wrong-doing by the McCanns and archived the case has repeatedly stated that "no new evidence" of significance has been provided to it during the period of the Scotland Yard review.
Your Question Answered
Unless the Attorney-General's department is publicly lying on the record, which we consider absolutely out of the question, then no material has been provided to that department to justify even investigation of any new names, let alone possible prosecution.
So the answer to the question who could have been the subject of Anglo-Portuguese discussions regarding prosecution is self-evident and incontrovertible: persons against whom the evidence for prosecution has already been gathered (remember "no new evidence") in the original Amaral/Rebelo investigation.
Our crime and lunacy correspondent adds: the whitewash is nearly complete. The two women, one of whom is known to live in a part of London where a Freemasons' temple stood only two hundred years ago, have probably been selected by the prime minister himself. In any case their mission is to put the final details into place in Operation Patsydeath.

by whmon 22.06.13 1:26

Just ask the dogs Sweetex?

by ProfessorPPlum 22.06.13 12:24

Whatever you say about Blacksmith, I think he's spot on there. Right down to the criticism of the 'GM being protected by reptilian paedo establishment overlords' in the last spoofy paragraph. Lets hope we hear an announcement soon that should have come 6 years ago: that the McCanns will be charged with concealment and that when proved, dozens of their paid and most loyal supporters will subsequently also be charged with perverting the course of justice.

I remain hopeful and logic and reason are behind that.

by sallypelt 22.06.13 12:28

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Whatever you say about Blacksmith, I think he's spot on there. Right down to the criticism of the 'GM being protected by reptilian paedo establishment overlords' in the last spoofy paragraph. Lets hope we hear an announcement soon that should have come 6 years ago: that the McCanns will be charged with concealment and that when proved, dozens of their paid and most loyal supporters will subsequently also be charged with perverting the course of justice.

I remain hopeful and logic and reason are behind that.

I still believe (and it's only MY belief) that the answer to this sorry state of affairs, lies somewhere within the interests of the members of the Madeleine Fund and their other directorships

by **PeterMac** 23.06.13 7:56

He has done the dirty work on our behalf, trawling the pro-sites.

Saturday, 22 June 2013

Private Grief

The Bureau doesn't do old ground

One doesn't want to intrude on it, does one? We'd hardly looked at the social sites since we declared game-over a few months ago, with the McCanns finally suing for peace in their struggle with Amaral. Time, we thought, for a rest. But today we went on a lightning tour of the McCann supporting sites.
The old hatred is still there, strong as ever, and the poor little Bureau is still copping it the same way it always has done, but there is a void at the centre. The well-intentioned but ultimately embarrassing welcome they used to give to the various invented suspects provided by the Team, each more phoney than the last, made us curious to know what they make of the quite unprecedented progress it seems we're now witnessing.

And there are other important questions that you'd expect people to be debating with excitement or elation: is someone in custody? Has someone confessed? If not then how can the UK authorities apparently be so sure that the publicity won't result in flight? Will the monsters – we're assuming there must be more than one, if only to pass the child out of the window – sit around until the CPS has finished assessing the strength of the case?
The answer is: not much. Most extraordinary is the almost total lack of interest or speculation about who the potential suspects might be: you'd think that supporters – and here we aren't deploying the Bureau irony weapon – would be simply beside themselves. After all, we're not talking rumours or suspicions but the prospect of a prosecution by the UK authorities, the culmination of everything that Kate and Gerry McCann have fought and campaigned for over the years. How can anyone be incurious about that? Has damning evidence of a paedophile ring been uncovered? A gypsy tribe? Or has one of the many suspicious lurkers haunting PDL in May 2007 turned out to be the goods?

But no; cut and paste of the news stories is there but comment seems to be confined to ridiculing the "enemies" and their optimism at a possible resolution. Are Kate and Gerry's loyal supporters deliberately avoiding discussing the subject, or are they, for whatever reason, psychologically incapable of doing so?

That will get some comment, of course; unfortunately it will only consist of aggression, not answers. But then what's new?

by Liz Eagles 23.06.13 15:48

Not sure if this latest from Blacksmith has been posted today, apologies if it has.

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/implications.html?spref=tw

by scrants 24.06.13 16:56

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/across-no-man-land.html?m=1

A thought provoking piece from John Blacksmith

by lufc50337 24.06.13 18:21

Blacksmiths been on form lately

by **PeterMac** 24.06.13 21:34

sally66 wrote:Blacksmiths been on form lately

Makes on wonder if he is one person.

by aiyoyo 24.06.13 21:37

Writing style is the same, unless there are clouts of him.

Or maybe he's also getting excited too ....

by lufc50337 24.06.13 22:14

PeterMac wrote:
sally66 wrote:Blacksmiths been on form lately

Makes on wonder if he is one person.

I've wondered that a few times

by Liz Eagles 24.06.13 22:29

sally66 wrote:Blacksmiths been on form lately

He certainly has been on form - continuing to slag off Tony Bennett, saying there is nothing left to say on the McCann case, saying there is no going back, going back, saying a lot...what a drama queen.

by lufc50337 24.06.13 23:46

aquila wrote:
sally66 wrote:Blacksmiths been on form lately

He certainly has been on form - continuing to slag off Tony Bennett, saying there is nothing left to say on the McCann case, saying there is no going back, going back, saying a lot...what a drama queen.

I haven't seen anything about TB lately (could have missed it), I personally have liked his recent posts, everybody has different opinions of his blog and that's fine