That is the question. There are so many possible answers.
When Exaro first emerged with their ‘credible and true’ allegations of exotic Westminster paedophile rings, the opprobrium heaped on the head of anyone, like Ms Raccoon for instance, who dared to suggest that perhaps tales which sounded too fantastical to be possible, were, indeed, too fantastical to be possible, was terrifying in its intensity.
Exaro had ‘thoroughly researched’ these stories; for instance the quite incredible tale of how high ranking paedophiles had tied a boy between two cars that they then drove off in opposite directions…..it was ‘murder’ Exaro said, a horrific end to a young life…
That was just one of the witnesses they claimed corroborated the allegations of their star turn – ‘Nick’. The other one was Esther; need I say more? David Hencke was particularly upset, a distressed state he doesn’t seem to have ever recovered from, after I published that article.
Imagine my surprise when the Sunday Times today published an interview with ‘Darren’, the other witness that Exaro urged us to believe corroborated ‘Nick’ – but now Exaro says we shouldn’t #believe ‘Darren’.
Now, don’t get confused here – Exaro aren’t saying that the tale they published of ‘VIP’ abuse to Darren shouldn’t be believed. They are saying that Darren shouldn’t be believed when he says the tale they published shouldn’t be believed….
Do try to keep up.
So, if we’ve got this straight; Exaro are to be believed when they write, corroborated by a witness, that a boy was murdered by being tied between two cars, subsequently driven apart, and they are also to be believed when they say that the same witness is not truthful when he says ‘don’t believe a word of it….I never said that’?
Darren says that “the tale of a boy being tied between two cars was true – but untrue that this resulted in his murder”.
I think I have it straight now. Exaro are always to be believed, but their witness is only to be believed when he says he witnessed VIPs murdering small boys…
Considering Exaro are making substantial sums of money out of these tales, and the witness ‘Darren’ has not been paid anything, I think I tend towards believing ‘Darren’.
He, after all, had nothing to gain other than notoriety.
Then there is the small matter of Mark Watts, editor in chief’s, reliability…..
“I have never lied. I was pressurised and manipulated.
I was coerced into saying some of the stuff that wasn’t strictly correct. It was exaggerated. They hyped up a lot of the stories”.
Exaggerated? By Exaro? Can that be remotely ‘credible and true’?
Who’d a thunk it?