Latest from Blacksmith 08/08/2014

Blacksmith wrote:The sentence effectively imposed on the McCanns by their own actions, and put into words by the authors of the Archiving Summary, dwarfs anything that might have resulted from a guilty plea, tactical or otherwise, to disposing of their child’s body.

However much lawyers or agents of the couple try to spin the shelving document it makes no difference: the low-key yet lethal words buried halfway through the summary that the group’s actions and evasions cost the McCanns “the chance to demonstrate their innocence” cannot be argued away.

That isn’t because the prosecutors’ statements are convincing, or learned or powerful. It is because they reflect reality.

Show us!

That reality, that truth, that the couple’s innocence cannot be demonstrated is there in front of us. First, because it is based on facts established by the PJ and summarised in the report that formed the basis for the prosecutors’ appraisal. The questions raised by the facts and events listed in paragraphs 1-5 of the “reconstruction” section have never been answered and therefore the suspicions remain as valid today as in summer 2008. That is unanswerable reality One.

Reality Two is just as stark. The “failure to demonstrate their innocence” is at the heart of every comment on the affair for the last seven years, whether supportive or critical, since if the McCanns had demonstrated their innocence there would be no contention and nothing to argue about. That is what demonstrable innocence means: it exists, it can be demonstrated and it is finally self-evident. Yet even the most fervent defenders of the couple, whether in the media or the libel courts, are unable to point to evidence and say, “look, this clears them.” Instead the best they can do is repeat over and over that “the prosecutors say there is no evidence against them”, a line of argument that is an admission of defeat.

The same applies to the related matter of Leicester constabulary’s sworn statement – based, like the Archiving Summary on the facts of the investigation – that “while one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”

Kate McCann may huff and puff about how hurtful she finds it and the supporters may claim that it’s “old news” (!) that somehow doesn’t apply anymore (!) but none of them have been able to challenge the self-evident truth of the statement. That is why it has been neither withdrawn nor modified: withdrawing it would mean asserting that there is “clear evidence that eliminates them” otherwise the withdrawal would be meaningless. Where is it?

And exactly the same applies to Scotland Yard: Redwood can assert that the McCanns are not suspects but he cannot assert that there is now “clear evidence that eliminates them” without providing it. There is not a hint or trace of such evidence having been unearthed in the three years of Operation Grange’s existence.

Successful Cover Up

Such is their situation and their fate. Their graphically vivid disintegration, not at the hands of the “haters” or Goncalo Amaral but under the burden of the truly horrible pariah status that has resulted, possesses an elemental quality, a sense of inevitability foretold by the measured words of the catholic Menezes, whose phrases are, after all, only a repetition in legalese of an ancient message: the truth can set you free if you let it.

In other words nobody can ever release them except themselves — by submitting unreservedly to uncertain fate and telling everything they know without shame, hope or qualification. But that is something they clearly will not and cannot do, as the words of Madeleine alone make crystal clear.

Thus they stand locked in the modern equivalent of the medieval pillory with no prospect of release and without a single shred of dignity: instead of being pelted with old vegetables and stones by yokels they are stripped naked, probed, mocked and pissed and shit upon by internet mobs, their daughter the butt of filthy jokes on the sicko comedy sites, their “innocence” referred to with amused irony in the pubs and bars.

Whatever happens the future for the couple is unspeakably dark.

Blacksmith wrote:The same applies to the related matter of Leicester constabulary’s sworn statement – based, like the Archiving Summary on the facts of the investigation – that “while one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”

And exactly the same applies to Scotland Yard: Redwood can assert that the McCanns are not suspects but he cannot assert that there is now “clear evidence that eliminates them” without providing it. There is not a hint or trace of such evidence having been unearthed in the three years of Operation Grange’s existence.

LJC wrote:

Blacksmith wrote:The same applies to the related matter of Leicester constabulary’s sworn statement – based, like the Archiving Summary on the facts of the investigation – that “while one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”

And exactly the same applies to Scotland Yard: Redwood can assert that the McCanns are not suspects but he cannot assert that there is now “clear evidence that eliminates them” without providing it. There is not a hint or trace of such evidence having been unearthed in the three years of Operation Grange’s existence.

Yes and no hint or trace of anyone else being 'fitted up'.  However many people think there is a whitewash going on, surely this well written piece demonstrates there is nothing of the sort.

LJC wrote:Well, if by plunging the McCanns into an everlasting darkness by not being able to clear their names is called a whitewash, bring it on I say.  Its more like teasing them, saying they are not suspects but never being able to show them the evidence to clear them, showing contentment with the original dogs findings thereby not repeating   them, discrediting Jane Tanner  which thereby discredits the timeline.  I prefer to call it a blackwash.

mossman wrote:

LJC wrote:Well, if by plunging the McCanns into an everlasting darkness by not being able to clear their names is called a whitewash, bring it on I say.  Its more like teasing them, saying they are not suspects but never being able to show them the evidence to clear them, showing contentment with the original dogs findings thereby not repeating   them, discrediting Jane Tanner  which thereby discredits the timeline.  I prefer to call it a blackwash.

I agree with you LJC.  The McCanns will forever live under a dark cloud of suspicion and finger pointing if this crime is left unsolved.  For personalities like theirs, there would be no greater punishment, not even the loss of their child.  The public personas gone, the money dried up, the limelight gone.  That's their nightmare.

If SY cannot produce the responsible person and require him to stand trial, then all of the questions still remain along with the dogs findings.  The PJ files cannot be erased, the dogs can never be disputed without solid evidence to prove otherwise.

kitti wrote:I wish I was 20 because when I'm 50 the  hidden information about the mccanns culpability in Madeleines disappearance will have to be released.

Never mind.