Bullsh*t from BS

Don't you love Yoyos attention to detail. First class researcher.

No wonder mad Marcos run off to Bolivia!

I'm reckoning on Half a Million. Pounds, Euros, not that important. Plus Costs. Gonc probably hasn't got much more than that, what with his brother to pay, an all.

Oh, that's a gem. Top hounder is yoyo.

Oh, what a surprise, smiffy is backtracking already - yes, folks, he's burbled yet again.

He seems to be desperate for attention, doesn't he? The latest burble:

THURSDAY, 17 JANUARY 2013

Libel Diary - Early Evening January 17
John Blacksmith writes: I don't have any special secret sources and, as I have posted here previously, I have had no information from within Amaral's group since 2010. As far as I know GA has been in Lisbon working on the libel case and declining to comment since last spring.

The only information I ever get hold of is connected with the use of the term "we" in the Blacksmith Bureau. Everyone who is interested knows who I am since I posted my full name and location on the old 3As forum in 2008. Bureau contributions, however, don't derive from me or belong to me alone: the Bureau exists as a centre for messages and opinions about the case from a number of what we might call the "sane critics" of the parents, people who have done a great deal more investigation than I have and have dedicated much of their lives to the case in a way which puts me to shame.

We know about the negotiations which, we repeat, are known to all UK national editors. Anyone who knows the McCanns' modus operandi, either through watching the Leveson hearings or studying Duarte's briefing note for the Portuguese media after the Wikileaks episode, should know how they prepare the way for their media spin initiatives by confidential contact with editors so that there will be a spurious unanimity of view. That is what is taking place now.

The purpose of pre-empting their spin plan is not to build ourselves up but to remind all our readers of the secret, and disgraceful, way in which the media have supped with a very short spoon with the McCanns for six years, a subject which we have taken up with them on occasion, most recently with the editor of the Daily Mail, although we got little change from him. One of the reasons that the story is dragging on and leaking is that it is not just the McCanns who stand to lose but all the newspapers and a number of individuals that defamed Amaral so grossly while helping the McCanns keep Amaral's claims away from the British public. In helping the McCanns now they are attempting to help themselves as well.

And we want them all to fail, the lying, dishonest, greedy bastards. That's the axe we have to grind. Listening Kier? Listening Clarence?

I doubt it very much if anyone is listening to this bullshit, though it is providing fine entertainment on a dull, cold, January afternoon.

So, let's cut to the chase - basically, smiffy knows naff-all. So no change there. He claims he tried to pester the editor of the Mail, but was stone-walled. So he has now decided to invent a story and claim it is 'leaking'.

He hasn't heard anything from Portugal, he's just, well, made it up to give them hope.

Desperate, desperate stuff. What does this remind me of....oh wait, I know.

lily wrote:

Wish I could go too, Tony.

This is going to be great. Bennett is not going to be able to fool everyone with his lies.

Libel Diary - Early Evening January 17
John Blacksmith writes: I don't have any special secret sources and, as I have posted here previously, I have had no information from within Amaral's group since 2010. As far as I know GA has been in Lisbon working on the libel case and declining to comment since last spring

If Amaral had forced a settlement from the McCanns why would he still be working on the case.
PS Just had a quick look at my legs and one of them has bells on.

Poor wittle smiffy. The bureau has a nasty case of woodworm.

So, all his definite statements about Gonc's non-existent 'triumph', all that vain-glorious boasting with which he started the day, have come down to,

NO, HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING, BUT HE HATES CLARENCE MITCHELL AND THE EDITOR OF THE MAIL WON'T SPEAK TO HIM.

You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh

They still think we are as stupid as we used to be. To Settle means To Settle out of Court if you are being Sued. The McCanns aren't being Sued. Goncalo Amaral is being Sued. Only he can Settle.
Sheesh.

Ding ding ding. Sabot, you are correct!

bb1 wrote:So, all his definite statements about Gonc's non-existent 'triumph', all that vain-glorious boasting with which he started the day, have come down to,

NO, HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING, BUT HE HATES CLARENCE MITCHELL AND THE EDITOR OF THE MAIL WON'T SPEAK TO HIM.

You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh

So...what's new?

What's Clarence ever done, except defend The McCanns? He's been more insulted than insulting.
They can all dish it out, but they don't like getting it back, do they.

He's done something worse than that, Sabot - he's been successful, a cardinal sin in their eyes.

crazytony wrote:I am curious to know who's feeding him the false report.
Do they want him to look like an idiot when the true facts are revealed?

Hilarious that no-one is feeding him this garbage, he's made it up, sorry, speculated because - according to him - the editor of the Mail wouldn't speak to him. Doubtless because he hasn't a clue how Very Important smiffy is.

Rothley Pillowcase ‏@RothleyPillow
@mitch_1uk La la La la la Amaral's coming to get you La la La la la Amaral's coming to get you Nice guy takes Xmas dinners to JAIL #mccann

Oh, of course yes, Bonny. And they all said this case would be the death of his career. But he is rather good at it.

But what gets me is that All of them, including Bennett and Amaral, have been going around insulting anyone to do with The McCanns and their supporters for nearly six years now, but get mighty shirty if anyone kicks back.
What did they expect? Did they expect The McCanns just to sit there and take it?
I've lost count of the number of times I've been called a Paedo Lover, just because I believe in Innocent until proven Guilty. How fair is that? Nasty, perverted, sick minded barstards.

Says more about them than it does about anyone else, Sabot. Odd how they are all such experts on squalid subjects, isn't it?

Forker view of smiffy:


Don't recognise him from 3As,though he could probably be described as the drunken spawn from the marriage of Tylersmum and Coldwater.

Now there's a blast from the past. Tyler'smum. An ant, if I recall, but a fair one.

I just remember the interminable legal nit-picking, Sabot..it made my eyes glaze over.

That's actually an interesting point on MM - a lot of people can't really remember smiffy. And I'm one of them. I was vaguely aware of him, but not as any kind of great, interlectool heavyweight. He really only appeared on my radar apres-3A, when he was having that handbags at dawn fight with Raptors and pretended to be a character from the Just William books.

That was unreadable, too. But who can forget this stunning declaration in the course of the handbag duel?

I am not happy about introducing the law in any way to internet posting because of my belief in free speech. I can, however, be a litigious person and I have the experience and financial resources to deal with disputes at civil law. My solicitors are the firm that represented Robert Murat.




Then, of course, he flounced off for a while, after PFA caught him altering witness statements so they fitted in with his own witterings.

Sadly, he un-flounced.

Lord knows what's behind today's bizarre outburst; it's almost as good as the one when he fell out with the entire population of Portugal for not doing as he, smiffy, told them.

I don't know what he thinks he is up to, Bonny. Obviously The McCanns aren't pulling out of the case. They and Isobel Duarte will have known for some time of what their chances are, so they would hardly have waited this long if they thought they were going to lose.
The only think I can think is that Smiffy could say he was right no matter what happens. He wouldn't be, but he could say he was.

In a defamation case (as in any civil case), the plaintiff can pull out at any time. The defendant does not have that option (obviously) but the parties can negotiate a settlement prior to the case.

Under my understanding of Portuguese law, it is possible that, in the event of a plaintiff pulling out of a case, the defendant may be able to bring an action for damages. But that would be an entirely separate proceeding.

I suspect that Amaral knows he is buggered, the money in question has already been sequestred by the court, and he has made an offer - thus saving costs and face.

Sounds about right, J-P.