Blacksmith - 5th March '...and conclude'

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

John Blacksmith (Antony Sharples) writes:

Head Twisters

So when it came to evaluating the story that the parents were suing for terms the predictability of the McCanns and their activist victims made the task easier.

The-who-blinked-first-yah-boo stuff was just a trivialization. There was no dispute that both sides had agreed to discuss terms. What mattered was that one of the two sides was acknowledging by its actions that it was facing comprehensive defeat. That also meant the dreaded cycle of appeals and counter-appeals was now unlikely: you don't ask for terms because your position is hopeless and then spend money on appeals.

So which side? I went for a walk under bitterly cold January skies to help me think and follow the logic through. The journalist had contacted us for confirmation of the rumour that it was the McCanns who were giving up. But all the UK national journalists possessed the contact number of ever-co-operative Mitchell. So why would they turn to the little Bureau, a place with no reputation for confirming anything? It could only be, I reasoned, because Mitchell had been contacted. The journalists were scratching around elsewhere, obviously, because they'd hit a blank wall: he'd refused to comment.

Mitchell never refused an off-the-record answer unless he'd been taken by surprise or was unable to work out a spin curve with the pair. Never. It stood to reason that any Portuguese agreement to pause couldn't have come suddenly: it would have been preceded by weeks of consideration, if not informal negotiation. If the question came as a surprise to Mitchell then the parents hadn't yet informed him of events, which told its own story. If he did know but the three of them hadn't yet worked out a curve, or even a temporary holding statement, then the news, again, couldn't be positive. Could the silence possibly be for legal reasons? No. Everyone knew the McCanns never stayed silent for legal reasons, whatever they claimed.

To me it was beginning to look open and shut. Still, I went over it again, from the other angle. What if it was Amaral who faced defeat? There'd been none of the usual gloating at the "lying cop's" problems from the Team or the Mirror but leave that aside for a moment.What would a losing Amaral have to gain by a false story claiming that he was on the verge of triumph? Clearly nothing at all: it would be a hopeless lie with no purpose, one bound to drive supporters away when the facts were finally established. So silence from the McCanns on the question and silence from Amaral meant two very different things, but both of them fatal to the couple.

I went on following it through from every angle I could think of, including, crazily, the idea that a highly respected McCann expert had put forward that it might be misinformation to trap and discredit the unimportant little Bureau. Possible, just, but vanishingly unlikely and, anyway, who cared? No, after all the thinking, whichever way I looked at it the analysis came out the same: the story had to be true, the parents were facing defeat and were temporarily incapable of response.

Over the next few days there was only one thing left to decide: how should the Bureau respond – stay quiet until the facts somehow reached the public or publish the story? The risk of betraying readers by claiming an unsourced story was true was real enough, so the safest course was to say nothing until neutral information or some other disaster beyond the libel courts, perhaps connected to "things not going well for the McCanns", produced certainty. And how long would that take?

There would be nothing of value from the media, that was for sure. The belief that if pressure was kept up for long enough the media would do the famous "turn", pull out their hidden dossiers and destroy the McCanns was, I was sorry to say, as unjustified as the belief in hidden protection. Whatever finally appeared in the media would only do so when the facts had been established elsewhere.

Broadcasters were now reduced to disingenuous timidity about the McCanns, the memories of their disastrous performance throughout 2007 still fresh in their minds, as their continuing failure to report the Lisbon appeal court findings showed so clearly. Only in spring 2012 had the BBC finally started to move away from its 2007 written commitment "to report the case exclusively from the parents' point of view" and begun to tip-toe into slightly more neutral waters in the Panorama programme.

As for the press, it was now irrelevant. Their witnesses at Leveson, with the notable exceptions of former Express editor Peter Hill – stressed, red faced and quietly defiant – and his PDL correspondent Pilditch – world-weary and resigned – had revealed such deeply confused shame about their entire McCann coverage and such fear that the hysteria surrounding Leveson might prompt legislation, that they were no longer capable of contributing. What an irony that their 2007 death ride and its galloping manipulation of emotion into hysteria had now been turned back on them! Still it was horrible to watch their public humiliation: the sight of UK journalists acting out the 1937 Moscow trials with loud cries of "we're so sorry, we're so ashamed" was just disgusting, an admission of collective breakdown. I'd watched Hill give his evidence and the atmosphere inside the tribunal, as he refused to roll over like a dog in his own urine under the maliciously contemptuous examination of the bearded Jay, grew spine-tinglingly tense as he stood his ground, while Brian Vyshinski-Leveson radiated a hostility which seemed to hit Hill like a wave and before which he struggled to speak at all.

The McCanns and their lawyers stood quite apart from the other witnesses: there was a vengefulness and, more important, a studied calculation in their performance (in which Kate McCann, notably, wore no make-up) which placed them on a different level from the others, whether these were cross (Grant) or comical (Murdoch), skittish (Rebekah) or farcical (Morgan). The McCanns were deadly serious with only one, unstated, aim: immunity. Even the politician Hunt, whose whole career depended on his day's testimony, seemed to be playing for altogether smaller stakes than the couple. As Pilditch would say, with a shrug, that's the way it goes. I'd seen enough of all this to last for the rest of my life and now that Amaral had won I didn't want to watch the whole miserable performance any longer.

As other reports began to come in, including the news that yet another UK journalist had been asking, here and in Portugal, for confirmation of the story which he clearly couldn't get from the normal source, and as the sightings tap was turned on yet again, I decided not to wait. Why delay and give the couple time to gradually put some sort of narrative together for the Amateur to drip-feed to the whipped curs in Kier Simmons-land? Forget that. Better to do it in our time, Internet time. You can never get people to admit the truth in Internet debate but the Net can be used to make them reveal the truth about themselves, on the record.

I decided to give the news in the most annoyingly provocative way possible to stir the activist bee hive, some of whose workers have a line to the couple, into even more than its usual demented action: that way they could show us the disbelief/fury/denial/silence cycle once again. Trivial but fun.

And the McCanns? Well those "real, professional" journalists hadn't been able to get the couple to break their frozen silence and confirm or deny the story, and nor could I. But the Net, now growing stronger than the overground media, most certainly could.Once the Twitter and Facebook amplifier was turned up to full volume I thought the uneasy silence would be impossible to maintain and the pair would be forced to say something. And why did I feel that if the McCanns were finally forced into a response by the Net uproar then it would be the fib, the false denial, that would come? Let Kate herself tell us by turning for the last time to page 205 of Madeleine:

"We'd never lied about anything – not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn't seem to have a choice."

That is how the pair work when they are pinned in a position where they don't have a choice. If silence is denied to them they always lie.

One of the many marvellous readers of this blog who are also actors in their own right about the case contacted me with an email exchange which they have now kindly (many thanks F) permitted me to reproduce here. It puts the final brick in place.

Can we quote you, Kate?

Hi
I'm also concerned like Mr xxx if the rumours about Kate and Gerry settling their libel claim on Amaral's terms are true there will be no money left for the search if it is needed. Could you please put my mind at rest. Thanks.
Regards

xxx


Dear xxx
I'm checking with Kate on this and will get back with you once I've had a chance to talk with her about this.
Thanks.
FM Webmaster
Find Madeleine Campaign

Dear xxx
The rumours are just that--rumours. Unfounded and not based on fact.
Thanks for the feedback.
FM Webmaster
Find Madeleine Campaign

Thanks Kate.

The End of the Game

Very recently I received this message from one of that select group of people in Portugal who have dedicated themselves to something worth struggling for and besides whom I feel very insignificant indeed. And it sums up better than I can the costs, as well as the final rewards, of fighting for an honourable cause.Its tone is justifiably emotional but intelligent and dignified, in sharp contrast to the coarse and gruesome sentimentality – that certain sign of inner dishonesty – that has always hung like an oily shroud over the defence of Kate and Gerry McCann.

"With the libel case, I almost went mad when the injunction was upheld. I was there, throughout the hearings (though of course we hadn't had the privilege of hearing the McCanns' witnesses, as they had been heard in secrecy). I thought that I had heard the same stuff that the judge had heard for I really had gone into it with an open mind. I actually thought that Isabel Duarte had put on a hell of a show - but I thought that it was obvious that it was a show, that she was trying too hard, that she didn't have enough arguments and needed to play the emotional, almost insane role - emulating the insanity that must befall parents who lose their children…

That ruling from the Appeals Court restored my sanity. I remember when Gonçalo received it, he called me and we met at a restaurant in Portimão, and I started to read it and he said nothing, absolutely nothing, as tears were falling down my face, because I rarely cry, and most often I cry out of joy, not sorrow.”

And thank you.

No wonder he failed as an Author.

Such a lot of cleverly crafted words to say little that is original whilst seeming to impress upon the more gullible that he has a pertinent role in this affair.

He does, however, in his more lucid offerings, generally extemporise in an interesting fashion upon what is already fairly well accepted wisdom. Entertainment in itself.

i like Blacksmith, all of them. who cares if he is as you say a failed author, many successful people become bankrupt before making millions. i dont think hes put himself in the case, he s commented on what he knows. braver man than me.

tanszi wrote:i like Blacksmith, all of them. who cares if he is as you say a failed author, many successful people become bankrupt before making millions. i dont think hes put himself in the case, he s commented on what he knows. braver man than me.

Totally agree. He has consistently put himself 'out there' and no doubt received a great deal of persoanl abuse as a result. Having been the butt of some of the 'pro' abuse myself, I can certainly appreciate how hard it is. As you say, brave.

His posts are always interesting. I feel he knows what he's talking about. And I don't think that makes me a lesser person.

I certainly hope he's right (as he has been in the past) and that this really is the 'end game'.

wantthetruth wrote:

tanszi wrote:i like Blacksmith, all of them. who cares if he is as you say a failed author, many successful people become bankrupt before making millions. i dont think hes put himself in the case, he s commented on what he knows. braver man than me.

Totally agree. He has consistently put himself 'out there' and no doubt received a great deal of persoanl abuse as a result. Having been the butt of some of the 'pro' abuse myself, I can certainly appreciate how hard it is. As you say, brave.

His posts are always interesting. I feel he knows what he's talking about. And I don't think that makes me a lesser person.

I certainly hope he's right (as he has been in the past) and that this really is the 'end game'.

I DID NOT SEND THIS LAST POST> It is not my words, nor my thoughts. How has this post turned up in my name?

Compare the User Names very carefully >> One is wantthetruth and the other is want the truth


Ergo, the Post is not in your name, but in the name of another Member with a similar name.

want the truth wrote:

wantthetruth wrote:

tanszi wrote:i like Blacksmith, all of them. who cares if he is as you say a failed author, many successful people become bankrupt before making millions. i dont think hes put himself in the case, he s commented on what he knows. braver man than me.

Totally agree. He has consistently put himself 'out there' and no doubt received a great deal of persoanl abuse as a result. Having been the butt of some of the 'pro' abuse myself, I can certainly appreciate how hard it is. As you say, brave.

His posts are always interesting. I feel he knows what he's talking about. And I don't think that makes me a lesser person.

I certainly hope he's right (as he has been in the past) and that this really is the 'end game'.

I DID NOT SEND THIS LAST POST> It is not my words, nor my thoughts. How has this post turned up in my name?

OH, RIGHT, just seen that there is another 'wantthetruth", apologies, a much longer-time poster than me, but without the spaces.
Whenever I have logged in I have had the two options which came up, and both seemed to have worked, so I will defer to the senior poster and change my side.
I shall re-register under another name since this closeness of title could continue to cause the very confusion that I have just seen.
Re-incarnation shortly underway.

want the truth wrote:

wantthetruth wrote:

tanszi wrote:i like Blacksmith, all of them. who cares if he is as you say a failed author, many successful people become bankrupt before making millions. i dont think hes put himself in the case, he s commented on what he knows. braver man than me.

Totally agree. He has consistently put himself 'out there' and no doubt received a great deal of persoanl abuse as a result. Having been the butt of some of the 'pro' abuse myself, I can certainly appreciate how hard it is. As you say, brave.

His posts are always interesting. I feel he knows what he's talking about. And I don't think that makes me a lesser person.

I certainly hope he's right (as he has been in the past) and that this really is the 'end game'.

I DID NOT SEND THIS LAST POST> It is not my words, nor my thoughts. How has this post turned up in my name?

Hi want the truth, as you can see the post you dispute is "wantthetruth" could it be there are 2 members with almost identical user names?

want the truth

I've never been confused about your posts being mine, so no worries there.

I'm puzzled that both names work for you though, as that would mean you could post from my account.

Don't feel you need to change the name on my account. Whatever is easier for you

Blacksmith has his good days and bad days , when he is good he is very very good , when he is bad he is on another Planet ....take the good with the bad
I say.

I think Blacksmith or A.S is trying on us samples of his novel to be published about the Madeleine Mccann's case. Isn't it a bit too early?
I said that , not because I don't believe his statements but because of the style of the writing. He presents, himself and others, like characters in a book with classical narrative processes.
He also mentions his name, or his penname, since last entry which inaugurates a new style, which could mean that he wants to be considered now more as the writer Antony Sharpless than the Blackmith who wrote before on the blog.

It depends on which "Blacksmith" is on duty that day. I personally believe that there are at least two. And possibly more.

wantthetruth wrote: want the truth

I've never been confused about your posts being mine, so no worries there.

I'm puzzled that both names work for you though, as that would mean you could post from my account.

Don't feel you need to change the name on my account. Whatever is easier for you

You know, it's funny (well perhaps it's actually more sad than funny) how you can see something and still not see it.
After what you said in red above, I was worried too, so I logged out, and on trying to log back in, yes both options come up, but my password only works with 'want the truth' with all its gaps.
When I tried your 'wantthetruth' with my password it didn't accept me.
So, firstly your posts are safely with you and secondly, i came to the wrong conclusion that it was a 'blip' in the technology, and didn't look for any further explanation.
OK, hands up, I'm above the age of "those born in the IT comfort zone". I'm of an age where if it's not a big black knob that you can turn, following the big white arrow, then it's an alien creature, in the hands of alien beings and I will probably have died before I get to grips with it all.
Thanks for your patience, I will stay 'as is', a 'gappy want the truth', for the moment, in case in trying to change ID again, it might all explode in my face or self-delete if I touch the wrong button.
(My kids by the way have great fun at my expense [and my ineptitude with 'confusers'...my name for 'computers'], but what is life if we cannot bring laughter)

Wintabells wrote:

"With the libel case, I almost went mad when the injunction was upheld. I was there, throughout the hearings (though of course we hadn't had the privilege of hearing the McCanns' witnesses, as they had been heard in secrecy). I thought that I had heard the same stuff that the judge had heard for I really had gone into it with an open mind. I actually thought that Isabel Duarte had put on a hell of a show - but I thought that it was obvious that it was a show, that she was trying too hard, that she didn't have enough arguments and needed to play the emotional, almost insane role - emulating the insanity that must befall parents who lose their children…

Good description of Isabel Duarte, that is indeed how she comes across - using drama for effect and sympathy which stops anyone looking beyond, at the facts.

A Footnote to Blacksmith's previous post, where he tells how Team McCann, having got themselves into a hole, failed to stop digging!

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

almostgothic wrote:A Footnote to Blacksmith's previous post, where he tells how Team McCann, having got themselves into a hole, failed to stop digging!

[url=http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/[/quote[/url]]
Thanks almostgothic, I liked this bit...".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."
Tell it like it is Blacksmith.

Panda wrote:

almostgothic wrote:A Footnote to Blacksmith's previous post, where he tells how Team McCann, having got themselves into a hole, failed to stop digging!

[url=http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/[/quote[/url]]
Thanks almostgothic, I liked this bit...".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."
Tell it like it is Blacksmith.

I liked that bit too, Panda

[quote="wjk"]

Panda wrote:

almostgothic wrote:A Footnote to Blacksmith's previous post, where he tells how Team McCann, having got themselves into a hole, failed to stop digging!

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/[/quote]
Thanks almostgothic, I liked this bit...".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."
Tell it like it is Blacksmith.

I liked that bit too, Panda

Hi wjk Why oh Why didn't the Portugese arrange a recon while the Mccanns were still in Portugal, this case would have been solved by now.