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
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.
“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"


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.


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:


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


Follow by Email

Contact Form


Email *

Message *