Did disgraced Olive Press journalist Jon Clarke risk Madeleine McCann's life still further with his fake news?

Decline and Fall of Modern Journalism
One small slip for a man; one giant fall for a profession.

In previous short Chapters (29 - Fake News; 30 - Clarke Lies and videotape; 31 - On Lies and conspiracies; 33 - Jon Clarke Entrenched Lies ) I tried to unravel some of the extraordinary stories relating to the reported disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann put out by Jon Clarke the disgraced journalist, editor and proprietor of “The Olive Press”, a free tabloid newspaper and advertising sheet found at supermarket-check-outs in southern Spain.

I tried to unpick the way in which outright and provable lies were printed, published on-line, and then, bizarrely, put into first-hand reporting in the recent Netflix ‘documentary’.

I showed how a whole series of Clarke’s lies was immediately revealed by the contemporary video footage included in that same Netflix production, and how anyone watching and thinking about what they were seeing could identify the untruths and inventions and falsehoods he was uttering direct to camera, sometimes as he was actually making the mendacious statements.

As each Chapter was finalised new evidence was uncovered and comments from readers flooded in, drawing my attention to yet more aspects of this totally unacceptable behaviour.

What follows is a series of short essays to try to unravel still further what many believe to be a web of deceit .
*************************
Jon Clarke. The Olive Press

As readers of his paper have realised, Clarke is very free with invective and ad hominem abuse, Clarke and his paper love nothing more than identifying people by name, occupation, age and place of residence. He purports however to be protective of his own family. A long time ago his children were named by a contributor in an on-line forum, and he asked for the details to be removed. Very quickly they were.

It is in fact easy to find full details of Clarke’s wife and of his children by conducting a ‘google’ search. Even a cursory search will find a Daily Telegraph article – now no longer available except by using the WayBack search engine – where the meta-text, the précis and extracts which appear under the headline, remains.

People familiar with the system will know that by adding one of the terms from the meta-text and then repeating the search a slightly different result is obtained. After as few as five iterations of this type the full names of all the family and details of their home can be seen. The ages of his children are easy to calculate. [ As a matter of common courtesy I shall not append the details here.]

Clarke placed all this in the public domain himself, and yet complains when others do it. He may of course have been paid for the article, and that may have over-ridden his core objection.

During our unproductive e-mail exchange in which I asked for a retraction of the deliberate lies Clarke had told about me, and perhaps some sort of correction and apology, he finished by making an extraordinary statement about publishing details of my family.

It may be that this was a vague threat of some sort, but it is slightly confusing.

Given that my brother was a Blue and twice an Olympic athlete, (Montreal and Moscow, since you ask) then held a National position within the NHS, and lives in a house of historical interest which can be found on the internet; given that my niece holds a middle management position in PR for the UK’s oldest and most famous wine merchant and appears under her full name on the Company web-site; given that my nephews both hold high profile positions one within the world of finance, the other in on-line trading across the world, and that any cursory ‘google’ search will find them all, as indeed it will find me, it is unclear how giving out their details would disturb anyone.

Perhaps the theme of ‘knowing where someone lives’ is a powerful one.

Clarke claimed to have been forced to leave the Costa del Sol some years ago when his activities as an investigative journalist began to attract unwanted attention from his targets. His claims to have sought anonymity in a renovation project outside a small village in the mountains of Andalucia are slightly at variance with his decision to publicise the considerable renovation work in a major national newspaper, and then to open the place as a high quality rural retreat, advertised in all the usual places.

Fact, False Hope, or a Hoax ?

Clarke uses the theme in the story about the Angolan Bouncer [q.v] where it was said that he had ‘been forced to flee to Spain’ (Huelva) from Portugal to avoid his assailants.

The inconvenient facts that there is an open and uncontrolled Schengen-area border between Portugal and Spain; that Huelva is less than 50km from that border, less than 100 km from Faro, and less than 150 km from Portimão; and that the gentleman in question had been living happily in Huelva for some considerable time and had been instrumental in the local basketball team’s success in a relatively major competition – all of this discoverable within two minutes on ‘google’ – seem not to diminish the power of the words used.

The claim that the Angolan Bouncer was living in fear of the gang of high-profile and aggressive Portuguese child traffickers was also slightly contradicted, if not to say revealed as totally bizarre and frankly unbelievable, by the publishing of a full face head and shoulders colour photo at the head of the story in question, reproduced across all the syndicated papers, and still retrievable on the internet.

As with all things McCann, none of it makes sense, and much can only be explained by making the assumption that it is pure invention. Or in plain English – lies.

One of the (many) intriguing aspects of the Angolan Bouncer story is that despite its having been reported by a self-styled Investigative journalist, no follow-up article has even been published.
There is no mention of the result of phone calls to the Spanish police to confirm their receipt of the dossier, nothing about asking the PJ to confirm they had in fact received it, no details of emails to the FBI or Interpol, no follow up interview with the man himself, with his lawyer, or indeed with anyone.
No article either castigating the authorities for their total failure to follow up this important information, nor congratulating them for taking it as far as they did

The story exists as if in a vacuum. It came from nowhere, and went nowhere.
It is as insubstantial as a dream, a phantasm.
It became cat litter and was disposed of in the normal way. It exists in permanent form only in the internet archives in the deep caverns of northern Finland.

More worrying thoughts

The Angolan Bouncer story has been dissected at length and a long series of questions which naturally arise from it has been documented. To date it seems none has been addressed or answered.
There are yet other aspects of that strange story which are more worrying.

Did Clarke and The Olive Press, and the Sun for whom he was also writing, allow time for SpanPol to contact PortPol in the form of the PJ, to contact Interpol and to contact the FBI to start appropriate enquiries with the US Border and Passport control agencies among others, before they published the article ? Or did Clarke just blunder in and risk Madeleine’s life still further – or yet again ?

Kate and Gerry McCann: THIS WAS NOT TRUE

THIS WAS NOT TRUE:
They said to relatives the shutters had been forced and broken
They said the curtains were wide open
They said the closed curtains had blown in the wind and the door had slammed
They said the group had been checking every 30 minutes
They said Gerry had entered through the front door using his key
They said the blood and cadaver dogs were ‘incredibly unreliable’
They said they believed Madeleine could be in Morocco
They said they had an experienced private detective company searching
They said they had a second, more experienced detective company searching
They said they had a third, yet more experienced detective company searching
They said that a detective agency had not said they would find Madeleine by Christmas
They said they had no more photos in their possession
They said the Pool Photo was taken on Thursday 3rd May
They said the Tennis balls photo was taken on Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday
They said they had cooperated fully with the Portuguese police
They said they had answered all questions truthfully
They said they would not leave Portugal until Madeleine was found
They said they would take a Lie detector test
They said they had never lied to anyone, police, media, or anyone else
They said their reputations had been damaged by Dr Amaral’s book
They said they were not suspects
They said the shelving of the enquiry had ‘cleared’ them of suspicion
They said they needed money for the ‘search’
They said the “Fund” would not be used for legal expenses
They said the “Fund” accounts would be transparent and open
They said the “Fund” was for searching for Madeleine
They said they never called Madeleine - “Maddie”
They said they had not placed much emphasis on the coloboma
They said they believed in and supported Free Speech and “purporting theories”
http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/this-was-not-true.html

Madeleine McCann case: A summary of Robert Murat’s 17 changes of story about what he did on 1, 2, 3 and 4 May - did something significant happen on Monday 30 April which required him to jet out to Portugal immediately and confer with a number of powerful and well-connected people in Praia da Luz?



I. A summary of Murat’s 17 changes of story about what he did on 1, 2, 3 and 4 May


You may by now have lost count of the number of changes in Robert Murat’s story about what he was doing between 1 and 4 May, so here’s a convenient summary of his new account of events, and how these contradicted his earlier account of events:

1. Remembers that on 1 May he tried to contact Jorge da Silva.

2. Remembers that on 2 May he didn’t leave home at 10.30am but instead had a meeting with Sergei Malinka at the Batista Supermarket.

3. He had in fact taken Michaela and Malinka back to his mother’s house in Praia da Luz for a further discussion, something he’d omitted to tell the police in the first interview.

4. He now remembered visiting his bank and paying in 287.51 euros.

5. He now remembered he’d called at the home of Francisco Pagarete, his lawyer, that morning.

Kate McCann's evolving story of the 'jemmied' window

Kate McCann's evolving story of the 'jemmied' window Ga12

Kate McCann's evolving story of the 'jemmied' window


At 10pm, Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment, using her key and saw that the bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open. The doors were locked except the one at the back as already noted above.
Gerry McCann, in a statement to the Policia Judiciária, May 4th, 2007

At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
Kate McCann, in a statement to the Policia Judiciária, May 4th, 2007

Regarding the apartment: windows were closed but she doesn’t know if they were locked. Verandah window closed but not locked, curtains closed. The second window in the living room was probably closed, she did not touch it and does not know if the blinds were closed. The kitchen window was probably closed but with the blinds open as there was light in the kitchen.
The window in Madeleine’s room remained closed, but she doesn’t know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine’s room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open.
Kate McCann, in a statement to the Policia Judiciária, September 6th, 2007
It wasn’t until Kate walked into the villa at 10 and felt a sickening breeze—the front window had been jimmied open—that she realized something terrible had happened. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without. That was when Kate came out screaming, “Madeleine has gone!”
Vanity Fair, January 10, 2008

Kate McCann's book, Prosecution Exhibit 1: 'madeleine' - Discrepancies and Observations

'madeleine' – Discrepancies and Observations - always worth a re-visit

Below are some points mentioned in Kate McCann’s book “Madeleine” where she may not be 100% accurate. (Page numbers in the tables refer to the electronic version. In the text below the tables, the first page number is to the hardback version and the second is to the electronic version.)

Spot the difference: Drunken NHS doctor Roisin Hamilton faces being struck off versus Prime Suspect NHS doctors Kate and Gerry McCann who now cosy up to Royalty

Dr Roisin Hamilton from Bearsden was almost five times over the limit when she drove her car over the Jubilee Park in Armagh and now faces being struck off at a tribunal in Manchester.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7127227/Drunken-NHS-doctor-bit-policeman-attacked-husband-faces-struck-off.html
-------------

But if you're a pair of NHS doctors who have concealed your daughter's corpse, staged an abduction, transported her body in a hire car to god knows where; lied under oath; refused to co-operate with an official Police investigation; generated millions of pounds in public donations through a fraudulent 'Find Madeleine' Fund which, in turn, has cost UK taxpayers £12million for a scam investigation then you get elevated to 'celebrity' status, employed as an Ambassador for Missing people' and get to shake hands with the Prime Minister and Royalty!
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net

And here's another spot the difference:



Why is Dame Margaret Hodge MP always surrounded by paedophiles?


MARGARET HODGE MP

  • Margaret Eve Hodge, b. 8 Sept 1944 (previously Watson, previously Oppenheimer)
  • Andrew Watson (first husband)
  • Nicholas Daniel 'Nick(y)' Watson, b. 26 Jul 1971 (her son with Andrew Watson)
  • Rachel Watson (her late daughter in law who was married to Nick & died in strange incident)
  • Elizabeth Jane 'Lizzi' Watson, b. 13 Jul 1973 (her daughter with Andrew Watson)
  • Sir Henry Edgar Garfield Hodge, b. 12 Jan 1944 (second husband)
  • Amy R. A. Hodge, b. 8 Feb 1981 (her daughter with Henry Hodge)
  • Joseph Thomas 'Joe' Caluori, b. May 1980 (her son in law, married to Amy Hodge)
  • Anna Bedu, nee Hodge, b. 25 Dec 1978  (her other daughter with Henry Hodge)
  • Nicholas 'Nick(y)' Bedu (her other son in law, married to Anna Bedu)
  • Philip Martin Edmonds, b. 31 Aug 1962 (her nephew)

Margaret Hodge & Unilever

Margaret was a councillor on Islington Council from 1973-1994, serving as Deputy Leader in 1981, Leader from 1982-1992, and finally departing the Council in 1994.
Prior to overseeing the Islington Child Abuse Scandal, Margaret worked at Unilever as an economist (1966-1973). Unilever is also closely associated with the late prolific paedophile Leon Brittan and Leon’s corrupt cousin, Malcolm Rifkind. Unilever is additionally associated with Friend of Israel Anne Widdecombe, who, interestingly, worked for Unilever at around the same time as Margaret (1973-1975 in Widdecombe’s case).
At Unilever, cousins Leon Brittan and Malcolm Rifkind 'took turns' as non executive directors: serving, in the case of Brittan, from May 2004 (or 2000: sources differ) to May 2010; and in Rifkind’s case from May 2010 until April 2015.
Why did Cousin Leon pass the Unilever baton to Cousin Malcolm in May 2010? Perhaps because Cousin Leon was readying his affairs for his "premature death from cancer" a few years later (in Jan 2015): a turn of events that enabled him to evade prosecution for paedophile offences.

Theresa May and Amber Rudd suppress Westminster child abuse documents for national security reasons

Theresa May and Amber Rudd suppress Westminster child abuse documents for national security reasons

Labour MP Lisa Nandy just revealed in parliament the embarrassing inconsistencies between Prime Minister Theresa May and Home Secretary Amber Rudd over documents being hidden from the inquiry into allegations of child abuse by MP Cyril Smith.
“The Home Secretary told me that some papers would be withheld from the Cyrill Smith inquiry for national security reasons,” Nandy told the House of Commons, yet she added: “this week the Prime Minister has written to me to say we are clear that the work of the security services will not prevent information being shared with other such inquiries.”
– And she challenged Amber Rudd to confirm “for the survivors of Cyril Smith who have waited for decades” for justice – whether papers on historic allegations of child abuse against Smith will be withheld from inquiries for reasons of national security.

Logically, what can the ever mendacious Jon Clarke of the disgraced 'Olive Press' do now about the lies he's told for the past 12 years about the death of 3 year old Madeleine McCann?

Disgraced 'Olive Press' editor Jon Clarke's LIES about the disappearance/death of Madeleine McCann recorded in PeterMac's FREE e-book 'What really happened to Madeleine McCann?':
Chapter 29: Fake News
Chapter 31: Jon Clarke – Olive Press LIES and VIDEOTAPE
Chapter 32: On Lies and Conspiracies
Chapter 33: Jon Clarke Entrenched Lies 

In view of the seriousness of this issue and of the allegations, the chapters in question and some of the comments from CMoMM have been forwarded by the MMRG to the NETFLIX Producer and Director - Emma Cooper, and Chris Smith.


By PeterMac (28 May 2019)

What can Clarke now do ?    He has a few options
He could utilise the standard McCann Defence.
Sue someone – for something

Or more realistically think carefully about his options
1 Say and do nothing – and hope it will all pass over and be forgotten.
2 Continue to maintain that his story is correct and everyone else is wrong
3 Apologise, correct, explain, and beg forgiveness

Each of these has certain problems

1 Say and do nothing – and hope it will all pass over and be forgotten. This option passed a very long time ago, probably by early June 2007.  The McCanns and their money have kept it in the public eye for the past decade.  And given the level of global interest it is not simply going to pass and be forgotten.
Every time a journalist publishes or says something different from what has been said before, the interest is renewed and a tighter focus is put on the point raised.
So this option will simply exacerbate the situation, as the diffusion of the core lies and the clamour for explanation increase exponentially.

2 Continue to maintain that his story is correct and everyone else is wrong – has the unfortunate problem that there are three different, contradictory and incompatible stories, so Clarke would have to choose one of them, and discard the other two before he could adopt this posture.    He would then have to deal with those two before he could attempt this.  (Or possibly even come up with a fourth and say the previous three were false.)

3 Correct, apologise, explain, and beg forgiveness.
Correction, apology and explanation do not seem to be in the lexicon of any of the participants in this saga. The McCanns have never apologised for “leaving the children” – leading to the perhaps justified suspicion that in fact they didn’t.   For Clarke to do this would be astonishing.  He would have to admit three separate and mutually irreconcilable lies, perpetuated over a 12 year period and published in global media.   He would have to admit to the world that he had deliberately and cynically mis-led many people on significant issues concerning the disappearance and probable death of a little girl; his readers, his advertisers, and the producers at Netflix.

He might also be pushed to come clean about what actually DID happen.
To set the record straight in fact.   And that may be a step too far.   We understand that.

The ever mendacious journalist Jon Clarke, editor of the disgraced 'Olive Press' now commits a THIRD version of the same story to print

PeterMac: "It is difficult to find the appropriate vocabulary to apply to someone who will lie so relentlessly in such a tragic case."

Madeleine McCann reporter: 'I knew immediately Kate and Gerry weren't involved'

by Kristina Beanland | 28 03 2019

The first journalist at the scene reveals Maddie's parents' 'devastation'

Reporter Jon Clarke, 50, who lives near Malaga with his wife and two children, had been living in Spain for five years when he was sent to investigate Madeleine’s disappearance.

He says, “I hadn’t been to Praia da Luz for over eight years when Netflix asked me to take part in The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann documentary. It was eerie going back.

“The documentary has been accused of exploiting the McCanns’ ordeal for entertainment, but I hope it will encourage people who might know something to come forward. It’s also raised awareness of child traffickers, and I hope there’s now a more concentrated effort to stop these sick people.”

Recalling the phone call he received from a British newspaper the morning after Maddie’s disappearance, he says, “I remember thinking that, by the time I got there, she’d have turned up.

Jon Clarke, disgraced Editor of The Olive Press, and his Entrenched Lies in the Netflix 'Disappearance of Madeleine McCann' film

Jon Clarke Entrenched Lies

First an Addendum to previous chapters

After publication of Chapter 31: Jon Clarke – Olive Press LIES and VIDEOTAPE
and Chapter 32: ON LIES AND CONSPIRACIES
I have been contacted by several people who made important and trenchant observations.

I now realise that I have fallen into my own logical trap. I presented some of the case as a choice. Often called the ‘black and white’ fallacy; false dichotomy or dilemma, or the either/or, it is fallacious because other possibilities may exist, but here I was clearly in error by suggesting that two statements by Jon Clarke were mutually exclusive.
This
“When I arrived at about 11.45am I was firstly able to walk into the apartment, where I introduced myself to the McCanns”
- Versus -
“I said hello to them as they were leaving and introduced myself to them as a reporter from the Mail, and they said “Hi”, and I think they may have also said “thanks for coming”.

I suggested it had to be one or the other, or neither, but not both.

But it is now more clear that in a real sense BOTH could be correct.
Ignore the nonsense about the apartment and times and places, and concentrate instead on the message Clarke is trying to impart.
It need not be the exact words he used. It may not even be any of the words he used, but he is clearly trying to convey information. To get a point across.

So let us roll the quotes together. [Note - this is my elision, Clarke is not on record as saying this]
** “I said hello and introduced myself to them as the reporter from the Mail, and told them I would do everything I could to help, and they said “Hi”, and I think they may have also said “Thanks for coming”. **

Does that sound feasible ? If so, then even more serious questions remain.

Does this imply that the McCanns knew that the Mail were sending a reporter, and were therefore not surprised by his arrival, even thanking him for coming ?

– – – – –

A second issue was also raised.
It is always useful to go back to the core material. It helps us keep our eye on the squirrel.
The creche sheet - Jellyfish - for Friday 4/5/7 shows Amelie, Sean and Lily signed in by Diane W at 1010
So IF Kates' reported arrival of the PJ, and the discussions about what to do with the children took place at all, they MUST have been significantly before 1000, or DW would not have had time to round the children up, walk them round the pool and sign them in at 1010.

They were still 2 years old. Difficult to 'herd' at the best of times, and with the PJ and GNR and dogs and vans and traffic and reporters milling around, must have been a nightmare.
[ had they already come to an agreement that the children would not be photographed . . .?]

from KM’s book.
“It was about 10am by the time a couple of PJ officers turned up. . . .They told us they had to take us and our friends to the police station in Portimão. We couldn’t all go at once as somebody needed to look after the children. After some discussion, it was agreed that Gerry and I, Jane, David and Matt would be interviewed first and the PJ would come back for the others later in the day.”

The implication is clear. Kate is expecting us to believe that this is the first time they had realised they would need to go to a police station or make statements, and that until that point no thought had been given by anyone within the group to the logistics, nor to Child-care arrangements. How long the “some discussion” took is not explained.
Whether any of this is even credible is another matter entirely.

The three possible routes for DW and the children are shown here

Jon Clark, disgraced Editor of The Olive Press, and his curious comments in the 'Disappearance of Madeleine McCann' Netflix film


Quotes from Jon Clarke in the Netflix 'Disappearance of Madeleine McCann' film (episode 2) with replies by PeterMac in red;

Jon Clarke: Yeah, from the first day, I've got original high definition pictures. This is the police arriving for example, with sniffer dogs. [Jon is at his desk pointing at pictures on his laptop screen] at about four or five o'clock in the afternoon on the first day. By this point there were quite a lot of detectives in Lagos and none of them knew what to do or were doing anything. This is the Policia judiciaria, [chuckling] which is a funny looking headquarters. You can just about make out the police badge here. See all the detectives? Look at them, all plain clothes chaps, scruffy looking buggers. Look at them all wondering what to do next.

In what way does this advance your story ? 
The Dogs were in Pdl long before you arrived, as you well know, and you were filmed in the vicinity of the dog vans and handlers.
Plain clothes detectives often dress as ‘scruffy looking buggers’ so as to blend in with, say, investigative journalists, who are perhaps doing the same to blend in with, for example, plain clothes detectives.


 Jon Clarke speaking present day whilst footage of apartment 5a outside is being shown : “We had police confirmation that they were looking into well known paedophiles, British and German, who lived in the area that were on the sex offenders database that had come here and that were on an official Interpol list, which was really, straightaway, quite . . . sinister. “

Why is it sinister that the police were investigating the very thing the McCanns were insisting was the truth ?

Jon Clarke speaking over LC, present day: “Lori Campbell was the reporter on the ground for the Sunday Mirror and we went off to local villages, looking into known paedophiles in the area. I remember driving in and thinking, you know, it was a fairly pretty place…”

Preface written by Gonçalo Amaral for Paulo Reis' eBook: "The McCann's War"


PREFACE

The mysterious disappearance of a blue-eyed, blonde British child in a southern European country has turned into a tremendous Media case, largely because of a marketing strategy centered on the immaculate image of the parents, their exoneration, and a fierce attack on all those who, in the use of their right to opinion and freedom of expression, dare to put the kidnapping thesis for pedophile purposes in cause, but mainly because the investigation did not followed its normal course, that is, to cover all hypotheses, which twelve years later remain open.

The strategy of the parents of the child mysteriously disappeared presents dogmatic traces of truths similar to a new religion based on that immaculate image and not subject to scrutiny. Someone has already said that the truth of those parents has more force than the truth revealed by the "Messiahs" of monotheistic religions, Christians, Jews or Muslims.
As parents, they claim that there is no evidence of their daughter's death, as defendants they say that there is no evidence to blame them for the mysterious disappearance, as she was abducted in a planned manner by an international pedophile network, as claimants in a claim for compensation in the value of 1.2 million Euros they argue that any opinion contrary to their opinion will put at risk the survival of Madeleine and make impossible to found her. With the decision to file the investigation, they were cleared of any liability, following a second investigation that had been carried out until October 2007.

From a very early stage, their war strategically used the Media and the potential of the Internet, in order to discredit all those who dare to have an opinion contrary to their own, even if based on facts which, despite the millions of Euros spent, have never been questioned and still have evidence and have probationary force. We do not discuss the evidence of the death of the unhappy child, this can not be the center of the investigation of her mysterious disappearance. This kind of investigation must have a beginning, a middle and an end, in a normal zigzagging of any and all criminal investigations. In the end, the facts will speak for themselves.

JON CLARKE – OLIVE PRESS LIES AND VIDEOTAPE

JON CLARKE – OLIVE PRESS
LIES AND VIDEOTAPE
Foreword
Nota Bene: After reading the article under discussion I contacted “The Olive Press”, asking for a retraction and an apology. I received neither acknowledgment nor reply
A week later I sent a repeat email.
This time Jon Clarke, publisher and editor replied, denying that anything was ‘libel’.
I sent a suggested form of words for the retraction and apology.
He replied repeating that they did not consider that there was any libel.


In view of this I believe I am entitled to assume that there is no reasonable prospect of a retraction, a correction, nor an apology.
The attitude of “The Olive Press” towards defamation may also be clear, as it was expressed in an article of November 2011, trumpeting under a 44-point-bold banner headline –
          WHY LIBEL IS NO BIG DEAL IN SPAIN                                                                   [1]


In the previous Chapter “Fake News” I looked at an article by Jon Clarke, the owner and publisher of a free newspaper in southern Spain “The Olive Press”.
I showed how that article, published in 2017, was seriously divergent from, and often contrary to facts as reported by other people. Notably, and potentially seriously, it directly contradicted much of what Kate McCann herself had written in her autobiography “madeleine”. But there the matter rested. It was discussed on several Fora, but was largely dismissed as “the usual nonsense”.

In late March 2019 I went into a supermarket in southern Spain, purchased a bottle of wine and wrapped it in one of the free tabloid papers helpfully supplied at the check-out for this purpose.
On this occasion it was “The Olive Press”. Vol.13 Issue 314 to be precise.

On page 3 is an article on the recent Netflix documentary about missing Madeleine Beth McCann, saying “The Olive Press” played a “starring role” [sic] and entitled “Hoping for Answers”.
The article is not attributed and is written in the third person, but is clearly by Jon Clarke.
As the publisher and editor of the paper he is ultimately responsible for its content.

In it I am identified by name, occupation and location, and then subjected to the routine, gratuitous ad-hominen insults and abuse sadly so typical of what we have come to expect of those who uncritically support the ‘official’ story put out by Team McCann and their acolytes and apologists.

In that article, 7 column inches are devoted to Clarke and the Netflix documentary, whilst 3.5 column inches are devoted to maligning and defaming me. 293 words - v - 140 words
One third of the entire article is devoted to entirely gratuitous abuse.

Gratuitous in that it does not address the central point of the article, which is to emphasise the importance of Clarke and “The Olive Press” in the Netflix programmes.
Gratuitous in that yet again it sets up and then knocks down the straw-man argument about “proving that the McCanns did not kill Madeline’ which it is unlikely anyone actually believes.

I am a long since retired police officer as he accurately states, from a previous millennium and perhaps from a more robust generation. I am hardened to abuse of the sort we come to expect from drunks, drug users, criminals and tabloid journalists.

But there is more. He goes on to make four distinct statements about me.
It is in the public domain, published in 100,000 copies, with huge numbers of readers both on-line and via Facebook and Android apps - his figures, not mine - and so I give a quote

“The former Nottinghamshire copper has long trolled that the parents were guilty and even produced a libellous pamphlet on why they did it. . . .
. . [he] once tried to claim that Olive Press editor Clarke could not have been in Praia da Luz on the morning after Maddie’s disappearance.
In a disgusting blog post he also somehow suggested that Clarke may have been in some way involved.”


Strong stuff. So perhaps a measured and proportionate response is not altogether unexpected.

Let us pick it apart. Let us be clinically detached, ignore the sneering and abusive tone, forget the libel, and stick to the facts of what is being said. Keep our eye on the squirrel.

Australian journalist Mark Saunokonoko's 'Maddie McCann' podcasts

Mark Saunokonoko is a well respected Australian senior journalist based at Australia's 9NEWS.  Mr Saunokonoko is not a member of CMOMM or the MMRG, he has however called on the expertise of both CMOMM members retired Police Superintendent PeterMac (author of What really happened to Madeleine McCann?) and Portuguese journalist Paulo Reis (author of The McCann's War), in addition to basing much of his work on the research of CMOMM members and other commentators across social media.

Over a period of years, he has researched and worked on a series of podcasts concerning the case of missing Madeleine McCann. The podcasts have very recently been broadcast and can be heard here:








 

New book by Portuguese journalist Paulo Reis: The McCann's War

11 April 2019


A new factual McCann book is soon to be published, in both Portuguese and English, by a Portuguese journalist who was at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz shortly after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007. He witnessed how events unfolded at the time, and has closely followed the McCann's 'war' throughout the years.

From Paulo Reis' new blog: https://themccannswar.blogspot.com/

The McCann's War

Book Index

- Lunch at the restaurant "Carvi"
- The "insult" to the McCanns
- Persistent attacks
- PJ: "Pigs", "clowns" and "incompetent"
- The former British police officers who destroyed PJ's reputation
- "Daily Mirror": from praise to fierce criticism in a few days
- The shuttered blinds
- Gerry and Kate alone looking for Maddie
- The thesis of the abduction by a pedophile network
- Portugal, a "paradise for pedophiles"
- Morocco, the ideal place to host Maddie's kidnappers
- The phenomenon of unreliable sightings and witnesses
- The "uselessness" of evidence obtained through DNA
- The private detectives
- The "locators" of bodies
- The "liquidation" of the best sniffer dog of the world
- An "army" of journalists in Huelva
- The false proposal of "plea bargain"
- "Thousands" of missing children in Portugal
- A brilliant misinformation manoeuvre
- The "Team McCann"
- “The Lost Battle”: A "Perfect Campaign" in traditional media, completely destroyed by the Internet

MADELEINE MCCANN – REMARKABLE COINCIDENCES? OR PEOPLE WORKING TO A SCRIPT?

4th April, 2019

 

A. 60-80% sure,
B. Not a tourist,
C. Clothes made of ‘cloth’ or cotton,
D. Cream/beige trousers,
E. Date & time stamp,
F. ‘By the way he was carrying/holding Sean’

by Frank McLintock for the Madeleine McCann Research Group,

March 2019

Amongst all the witness statements in the released Portuguese Police files, there are six sets of remarkable and very specific ‘coincidences’.

There were three people who said they were 60% to 80% sure about the identity of someone.

There were three people who said they saw someone and who all said the person they saw was ‘not a tourist’.

There were five people who referred specifically to the clothes of an abductor/kidnapper wearing 'cream'/'beige' trousers and clothes made of 'cloth' or cotton.

There were two people who wove a complex tale about a photograph and who explained to police, in terms: ‘Look, the date and time stamp proves when it was taken’.

There were two people who were prepared to say that they recognised Gerry McCann as a person they had seen with Madeleine (in one case on 3 May, in the other case on 5 May), based solely on seeing a film of him carrying his son Sean down the steps of an aeroplane.

The details are below. 

A short analysis follows at the end.

A. 60-80% sure

Martin Smith

Statement to Leicestershire Police, 20 September 2007:  “I would be 60%-80% sure that it was Gerard [Gerald] McCann that I met that night carrying a child”.

MADELEINE MCCANN – REMARKABLE COINCIDENCES? OR PEOPLE WORKING TO A SCRIPT? 325
 

Martin Smith: After initially declaring that he would never recognise the man he said he saw, ever again, over 4 months later he claimed he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry McCann. But soon after that, he began working on behalf of the McCanns and their private detectives, helping to draw up efits for their use: efits that were never released for 5 years

Jane Tanner

Jane Tanner said that she was 80% sure that a new suspect, later known as 'Monsterman' or 'George Harrison man', drawn by Melissa Little [e-fits] was the same person she had seen on 3rd May. But she clearly admitted, originally, that she had never seen the face of the man she claimed she had seen. So how could she possibly be as much as 80% sure it was the same man? Moreover, on 13 May 2007, just 10 days after Madeleine was reported missing, she had told police that she was adamant that the man she had seen on 3 May 2007 was Robert Murat. Her credibility on anything top do with Madeleine McCann is zero. Melissa Little was not as well qualified as she claimed, and was paid by the McCanns' agent and head of their private investigation, stinking rich Cheshire businessman Brian Kennedy.

MADELEINE MCCANN – REMARKABLE COINCIDENCES? OR PEOPLE WORKING TO A SCRIPT? 242


Jane Tanner: Saw a man carrying a child, but not the man's face. Ten days later she said she was 'certain' that the man was Robert Murat. Later she decided she was wrong about that. Then the head of the McCanns' private investigation, Brian Kennedy, got a forensic artist, Melissa Little, to draw up an image of another suspect, a scraggy-looking man with a big moustache. She said she was 80% certain that it was the same man as the bloke whose face she had been unable to see, back on 3 May 2007     

Read more here: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t16022-madeleine-mccann-remarkable-coincidences-or-people-working-to-a-script

PeterMac's Free e-book: What really happened to Madeleine McCann?

Gonçalo Amaral's 'Maddie: Truth of the Lie

Richard D. Hall: 'When Madeleine Died?'

Richard D. Hall: 'When Madeleine Died?'
Please click on image to view all three Madeleine films

Prime Minister introduces Prime Suspect to Royalty

Prime Minister introduces Prime Suspect to Royalty

Popular Posts

Followers

Follow by Email

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *