Blacksmith:Sitting pretty

Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Sitting pretty

The current disagreement on twitter and elsewhere regarding who blinked first in the McCanns v Amaral case is, on the face of it, simply silly. Soon enough the court and the two sides will release information about events and at some point there will be a judgement.

So we have to wait, like it or not.


And yet

Yet something of significance is nevertheless happening. On the Net supporters of both parties, some of them authorised, fight it out and in doing so enable us to peer through the smoke and haze of deliberate disinformation and self-deception to gain some sort of picture – for everything in this world leaves a trace – of what the principals are actually up to. What is new is that, accidentally or otherwise, the proxies and commentators on both sides are finally opening themselves up in a way that will allow their credibility and their judgement to be tested.

The parents' supporters, with the tacit co-operation of the McCanns themselves, have been in the happy position of maintaining that the pair were officially cleared in 2008 and that any questions about their conduct are simply flat-earth expressions of loony Net hatred. The virtual silence of the UK overground media, broken only by occasional bursts of sympathy for the couple, or pit-bull attacks on Amaral, is taken as confirmation that no questions remain for intelligent adults to pose. That is why we’ve always said that the supporters of Kate and Gerry McCann are stuck in 2008.

But now they’ve decided, finally, to come up-to-date and start making their own factual claims, rather than parroting those of Menezes. It is an obvious and established fact, they say, that Amaral, originator of the whole case against the parents and the chief hope of the haters, is not just a crook but a loser who for years has been trying to wriggle his way out of the libel case that the McCanns so justifiably brought against him.

He knows for certain, they say, that he cannot win the case. They then give legal reasons why he can’t win, how “everybody” in the loop is aware he has no chance. And, they say, he has finally accepted reality by getting his lawyers to ask for the case to be suspended so that he can offer the parents vindication without being utterly ruined. Vindication will mean, obviously, the withdrawal of all the charges he has made against the pair.

No argument

Well, there’s nothing weasel-worded or ambiguous about that, is there? No hiding behind others’ views or saying that this is merely their opinion. These are matters of established fact that the poor Net loonies will soon have to accept.

Which actually means that the debate about who blinked first isn't trivial at all. The fact of Amaral’s withdrawal and the parents’ victory, if true, as they say, really is a huge development. It will finish the job that the archiving summary began and it will demonstrate that the parents’ critics have not only lost the focus of their hopes but have been shown up as both wrong and, worse, as either naive or as fibbers who are still trying to pretend that this hasn’t happened. Joana Morais and her crowd and the drug-taking fantasist Blacksmith and his crew of losers will have been caught out in their deceptions and are going to have to fall silent. It’s big, big stuff.

You know what? We agree with them. It isn’t just a matter of a futile guessing game. It’s a key moment for credibility. If Goncalo Amaral is found to have pleaded for terms and withdraws all his claims against the McCanns then yes, whatever Joana might do, we’ll accept the reality, accept that our information and judgement hasn’t been good enough, accept that maybe we’ve been used, apologise and close the Bureau down.

And…

Now what about the other side of the coin? Let us suppose that any settlement, in or out of court, clearly shows that Amaral wasn’t wriggling, hadn’t pleaded for terms, doesn’t withdraw his interpretation, doesn’t settle on the parents terms and demonstrates that if anyone has won it isn’t Kate and Gerry McCann.

First, what will it say about the truthfulness of these supporters? The claims they’ve explicitly made that we’ve listed above. That one’s easy: they will either be shown to be truthful or outright f****** liars, no ifs and buts. And their information about the case? Well that one will be easily answered too, won’t it? Either invented or they've been deliberately misled.

Of course that in turn might bring up the question who has been doing the misleading? And why.

Lastly, what will it say about the balance of reliability and judgement of the two sides over the last five years, about whether the active supporters of the parents, including those who have had direct access to the couple, have had the right end of the stick all along? And about the reliability and truthfulness of the McCanns’ own site, which came out with its own authorised statement on the rumours?

Facing the facts

But that's just speculation. The uncomfortable fact is that the active McCann supporters have got us right where they wanted us: they know the truth and they can sit back and laugh that the truth, when finally acknowledged, is also going to close the little Bureau down. It's a very big moment. Another one gone. What more could they want?

What a very strange piece.

Perhaps he/she/they've been on the Bute?

Apart from one or two of the faithful McSubalterns who pop-up here on occasion to countermand any and all form of reasoned debate, I've seen very little to suggest that anyone truly believes Healy & McCann were the initiators of the recent hiatus in their Case vs. Amaral. In fact, the McArmy have been pretty quiet altogether about it.

The End Is Nigh wrote:What a very strange piece.

Perhaps he/she/they've been on the Bute?

Apart from one or two of the faithful McSubalterns who pop-up here on occasion to countermand any and all form of reasoned debate, I've seen very little to suggest that anyone truly believes Healy & McCann were the initiators of the recent hiatus in their Case vs. Amaral. In fact, the McArmy have been pretty quiet altogether about it.

All I get out of it is that he doesn't know and why should his bureau close down whichever side wins/loses? The usual Delphic oracle dispensed to an evermore puzzled readership, now that might close the Bureau down. Boredom.

Twitter mainly TEIN,the end caught my eye...

The uncomfortable fact is that the active McCann supporters have got us right where they wanted us: they know the truth and they can sit back and laugh that the truth, when finally acknowledged, is also going to close the little Bureau down. It's a very big moment. Another one gone. What more could they want?

The 'active' McCann supporters know the truth & the truth will close the Bureau down...McCjail

Right-ho, Matthew: It's all a bit deep for me!

But I think I get a glimmer of the drift - now you've dug out the crux for us (Thankyou).

Even so, who on earth does he consider his readership to be?

The End Is Nigh wrote:Right-ho, Matthew: It's all a bit deep for me!

But I think I get a glimmer of the drift - now you've dug out the crux for us (Thankyou).

Even so, who on earth does he consider his readership to be?

Could be wrong...

who on earth does he consider his readership to be?

the ones who doubt & the ones that dont...i think

I think he's toying with the pros.
Either they're lying, or they've been lied to from above.
Indeed, the McCanns' very own OFM webmaster fielded a few questions by stating that the McCann cave-in was indeed all rumours and lies and he didn't want to talk about 'that nasty man' (his words) again.
But what happens when information released proves otherwise? As he says, it will be a big moment.
For some it will be a crisis of shattering disillusionment.
He's toying with them alright.

matthew wrote: the ones who doubt & the ones that dont...i think

So that I could continue to enjoy my Blacksticks Premier Cru on Irish soda bread, I stopped reading after the first paragraph!

Further than I got, Anna.

kitti wrote:Further than I got, Anna.

My brain just switches off!

That's why I like Dr Roberts pieces.


Straight to the point and easy to digest .


Keep it simple.

kitti wrote:That's why I like Dr Roberts pieces.


Straight to the point and easy to digest .


Keep it simple.

Dr Roberts presents his ideas in nice easily digested chunks!

sorry to say i get brain freeeeeze reading some of blacksmiths cryptic stuff -- i leave it to you good guys here to translate for me into streight talking stuff - ive oftern wondered if there is more than one person posting as bs

I didn't think it was particularly cryptic. He's just saying that many McCann supporters are publicly stating as fact that it is Amaral - and not the McCanns - who asked the other side to agree to an out-of-court settlement. Blacksmith seems to believe that official sources will eventually reveal who did the asking, and that if the McCanns are shown to be the ones who asked Amaral to settle, their supporters will be exposed as liars or as people who have been lied to.
Blacksmith seems pretty confident that it was the McCanns who asked Amaral for the out-of-court settlement, as he's offering to shut up forever if that's not the case. Some people might even call this a win-win situation...

I wonder who the 'drug taking fantasist' considers to be his crew ?

Popcorn wrote:I didn't think it was particularly cryptic. He's just saying that many McCann supporters are publicly stating as fact that it is Amaral - and not the McCanns - who asked the other side to agree to an out-of-court settlement. Blacksmith seems to believe that official sources will eventually reveal who did the asking, and that if the McCanns are shown to be the ones who asked Amaral to settle, their supporters will be exposed as liars or as people who have been lied to.
Blacksmith seems pretty confident that it was the McCanns who asked Amaral for the out-of-court settlement, as he's offering to shut up forever if that's not the case. Some people might even call this a win-win situation...

That is exactly how I read this article as well. He makes it very clear which side he believes and which side will have egg on its face once the truth is revealed.

jinvta wrote:

Popcorn wrote:I didn't think it was particularly cryptic. He's just saying that many McCann supporters are publicly stating as fact that it is Amaral - and not the McCanns - who asked the other side to agree to an out-of-court settlement. Blacksmith seems to believe that official sources will eventually reveal who did the asking, and that if the McCanns are shown to be the ones who asked Amaral to settle, their supporters will be exposed as liars or as people who have been lied to.
Blacksmith seems pretty confident that it was the McCanns who asked Amaral for the out-of-court settlement, as he's offering to shut up forever if that's not the case. Some people might even call this a win-win situation...

That is exactly how I read this article as well. He makes it very clear which side he believes and which side will have egg on its face once the truth is revealed.

I am surprised the issue is still in debate. CR in an affidavit in the TB trial (quoted on CMOMM) submitted a statement to the court:

"...the McCanns, via Isabel Duarte, wrote to Dr Amaral and to the Lisbon Civil Court, two weeks ahead of the final trial, asking for an adjournment"

Chris wrote:

jinvta wrote:

Popcorn wrote:I didn't think it was particularly cryptic. He's just saying that many McCann supporters are publicly stating as fact that it is Amaral - and not the McCanns - who asked the other side to agree to an out-of-court settlement. Blacksmith seems to believe that official sources will eventually reveal who did the asking, and that if the McCanns are shown to be the ones who asked Amaral to settle, their supporters will be exposed as liars or as people who have been lied to.
Blacksmith seems pretty confident that it was the McCanns who asked Amaral for the out-of-court settlement, as he's offering to shut up forever if that's not the case. Some people might even call this a win-win situation...

That is exactly how I read this article as well. He makes it very clear which side he believes and which side will have egg on its face once the truth is revealed.

I am surprised the issue is still in debate. CR in an affidavit in the TB trial (quoted on CMOMM) submitted a statement to the court:

"...the McCanns, via Isabel Duarte, wrote to Dr Amaral and to the Lisbon Civil Court, two weeks ahead of the final trial, asking for an adjournment"

Sharper than Blacksmith and more economical with words.
My opinion for what it is worth as already stated. Asking for the adjournment was a ploy. The main priority was to silence TB in the UK. Mission acomplished. Neither the McCanns, UK media or UK establishment care what happens in Porugal.

almostgothic wrote:I think he's toying with the pros.
Either they're lying, or they've been lied to from above.
Indeed, the McCanns' very own OFM webmaster fielded a few questions by stating that the McCann cave-in was indeed all rumours and lies and he didn't want to talk about 'that nasty man' (his words) again.
But what happens when information released proves otherwise? As he says, it will be a big moment.
For some it will be a crisis of shattering disillusionment.
He's toying with them alright.

That was exactly how I read it as well.

Theres another blacksmith if anyone wants to read it

Of course - it gives us something to chew over!

The trouble is that it's pretty tough and indigestible at times!

*** inserts dentures in anticipation ***

Its not hard to find,half the replies will be...cant be bothered to read it