Chapter 49
My Search for the Madeleine Call:
One Researcher’s 14-year Hunt to Solve Europe’s most Elusive Phone Call.
First a brief re-cap.
In September 2021 Jon Clarke, owner and editor of a small free ad-sheet and newspaper available at supermarket check-outs in parts of southern Spain released a book entitled
“My Search for Madeleine: One Reporter's 14-Year Hunt to Solve Europe's Most Harrowing Crime”
[We gloss over the solecism inherent in the title, with the strangely confused concatenation of ‘hunting for the person’ and attempting to ‘solve the crime’, and remember that Clarke is before all else a Tabloid Journalist, and therefore his poor grammar, vocabulary and syntax must be accepted or overlooked]
The publishing of the book was preceded and accompanied by a publicity drive which included an appearance on Sky News on Kay Burley’s morning show; a longer down-the-line interview on a local radio channel; Twitter: notices on the internet on the Olive Press on-line pages; the OP facebook page;
and on Jon Clarke’s own FaceBook page. https://www.facebook.com/jon.clarke.3745. REFS 1,2,3
(This publicity strategy rapidly extended to removing less than effusive reviews on Amazon, whilst ensuring that the more sycophantic ones, including one posted in his own wife’s name, remained despite not being marked as ‘confirmed purchase’.)
On his Facebook page Clarke also posted a shot of the full double-page spread in the renowned Spanish newspaper ABC, inviting people to read it, and saying
“For those of you who speak Spanish, an interesting article about my work - and the Olive Press - in Spain’s oldest national newspaper ABC yesterday.
And for those that don’t; I’m not a monster but a ‘hunter of monsters’. Some of them will comment below :”
It certainly turned out to be an ‘interesting article’, including as it did the following words (in translation - original in the appendix)
“On that very 3 May 2007, a call to a telephone in Ronda requested his presence. . . . That same night he met the little girl's parents, Gerry and Kate McCann.“
[Explanation of the translation of the word “mismo” to mean the emphatic ‘that VERY day’, or ‘that EXACT day’ may be found in Chapter 48a]
The meaning is clear, but to ensure that this was not a gross or negligent error on the part of the journalist in question, one of ABC’s more senior and experienced journalists, we contacted Sr. JJ Madueño himself, and the website Muckrack.
The Muckrack website has been discussed in Chapter 48a, but essentially ‘scrapes’ the work of journalists on its extensive list, and posts the first 150 words of their articles within a very short time of that journalist's hitting the ‘Return’ or ‘Enter’ key on the computer to upload it to the public domain.
(It will come as no surprise to find that as with all things McCann, there are at least two versions)
The Muckrack entry is even more specific and detailed
“That very 3 May 2007, a call to a telephone in Ronda requested his presence. . . << It didn't seem like an important case, but I went. I arrived at half past one in the morning in Praia da Luz. >>, recalls Clarke about his first contact with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.”
We must bear in mind that Madueño has had no known involvement or interest in this case. The words he uses are put in quote marks, to indicate direct speech from Clarke. It is also clear for those who have followed this case that the article, almost in its entirety, will have been virtually dictated by Clarke, even if he did not write the actual words himself.
This must surely leave his readers to believe that
– this is what he first wrote and uploaded,
– although the wording in the final printed version has been slightly amended it clearly means almost exactly the same thing, and that therefore
– he stands by both versions
Clarke was approached about the article and the Muckrack entry. The excoriating FAPE judgment against the Olive Press and Clarke himself was also mentioned. He responded in characteristic fashion, as he does when cornered, by issuing abuse, threats and attempting to intimidate.
On the first occasion he dodged the question entirely, rolled out the expected ad hominem abusive “Troll”, and suggested the interlocutor spent more time with his family. [Perhaps a bit rich, coming from a man who cheerfully boasts to the entire world in his book that he abandoned his own wife and children for several months]
The correspondence continued, to be replied to thus :
“Ha - I think one official complaint in 16 years (not even stood up [sic] - or contested) is a fabulous accolade! And you’ve got MANY MANY facts wrong - partly because FAPE only put one side out… [sic]
On top of that, one last time: I got to PDL early and spoke to the McCanns briefly - what’s the problem/issue? it was 14 years ago and neither I, they or the PJ,- and certainly not a troll - can know that exact time”
[One way might be to check with independent sources. Photos, news reel video, . . . Just a thought !]
The exchange continued and the next reply included the threat
“WRONG, WRONG, WRONG M*** - you are not only a bad liar but you clearly don’t understand Spanish - the girl was NOT pictured, the home was NOT identified.. and NO hordes of tourists descended on the house or the village…
You are getting close to libelling the newspaper and me … be careful… it’s taken very seriously here and in the UK”
The FAPE judgment has been dealt with elsewhere, [Ch. 31, Clarke, Lies, and Videotape] but one extraordinary thing about Clarke’s defence of his untenable position is that he seems to forget, neglect or ignore not only what he wrote in his own book, the subject of this entire enquiry, but also what he has published in his own paper about Libel in Spain.
To refresh memories, and to hammer home Clarke’s continuing egregious manipulation of facts and distortion of truth,
“we ran the story with two pictures, one of the village in which they lived and one of the name of the house, which inadvertently also gave the house number.” (Book. p 113) REF 4
and
WHY LIBEL IS NO BIG DEAL IN SPAIN
By Eloise Horsfield - 7 Nov, 2011 @ 10:44 (Olive Press) REF 5
Spain, a modern democracy recently released from the clutches of a far-left Fascist dictatorship, has a modern written constitution in which freedom of speech and expression is high on the list of Citizens’ Rights. Portugal has the same and for the same reasons, as the McCanns discovered when they attempted to extort a huge amount of money from DCI Amaral for writing a factual account of the investigation.
Neither jurisdiction is interested in Libel cases based on lies told by the Plaintiff.
What then are the possibilities ?
First that it is simply UNTRUE
That Madueño is a negligent, poor, and casual journalist, who does not bother to ask questions or check anything he is told, or perhaps alternatively that he is from the Tabloid stable, and simply invents things he believes may flesh out a story he is writing.
Second that it is actually TRUE
That Clarke told Madueño the facts. Madueño then wrote the article including the facts he had noted, downloaded the photo of Clarke totally surrounded by two copies of his book, and the longer piece of script about the book itself from Clarke, arranged the double page for publication, and uploaded the finished article.
It was then ‘scraped’ for posterity by Muckrack.
Some little time later he went back into the article and made the time slightly less exact, for what reason we can only guess, changing “half past one in the morning”, to “that same night”, which makes little difference. It is not as exact, but just as precise.
Which is the more likely option ?
Clarke clearly solicited the inclusion of his book in ABC, and then advertised the article on his own Facebook page, with the words
“For those of you who speak Spanish, an interesting article about my work - and the Olive Press - in Spain’s oldest national newspaper ABC yesterday.”
He was urging people to read it, and is clearly proud that it appears in a newspaper of record.
There is no hint of a caveat, no suggestion of mistake or misinterpretation.
Madueño was clearly told the exact time of arrival and either wrote it in his journal or keyed it in direct, and he was also clearly told that the phone call was on that EXACT day, that fateful day, the day in question, which he clarifies so there shall be no absolutely no doubt, no mistake, not even the remotest possibility of a misunderstanding – in both versions – by giving the date as 3rd May 2007.
Can Clarke now accuse him of being nothing more than the lowest rank of gutter press Tabloid journalist, prepared to make up stories and fill in with invented details, who will lie and libel purely for financial gain . . . ?
No he cannot.
Madueño is a respected and trusted senior journalist employed by a paper of record.
He wrote what he did in good faith.
*****
Has Clarke finally been caught out, this time not by his lies or by stretching the truth beyond its elastic limit, but by inadvertently having told the truth ?
Has one proven mendacious and libelling journalist been exposed by a decent and honourable one ?
It might help to explain the quite extraordinary sequence of ‘versions of the truth’ he has given the world over the past 14 years relating to his arrival and presence in PdL, each apparently tailored to suit the particular story under discussion at the time or to appeal to a particular audience.
The arrival time now spans 0130; 0900; 0930; 0945-1015; noon; later that day; that evening; and very possibly several more which have not yet come to light.
As we have seen in a previous chapter the time of the call now moves to 8pm 3/5/7 at the latest, some time before the alleged events and a considerable time before the official announcements to the press.
Although individuals like Mitchell and Clarke himself may not have known the full background details, and in some cases would be used as ‘useful idiots’ and have the facts actively concealed from them, it is probable that the more senior members of the network did know rather more. CEOPS, SIS, editors, Sky, and so on, appear to have been alerted a long time before, to enable them to get the outline logistical framework in place.
That the agreed story was badly developed, under-rehearsed and poorly executed was perhaps not to be expected of eight professional people, as it might have been thought that they would have come up with something a little better; certainly more persuasive and more coherent, and perhaps even backed by some evidence.
In this scenario, Clarke, Kandohla and Gusmaroli are mere stooges. Not-quite innocent victims.
Mitchell does not inspire belief in his intellectual agility and may also be a dupe, although some of his pronouncements lead to the belief that he may know much more.
Looking back at Clarke’s articles it is notable that the boastful ‘first on the scene’ idea does not appear until 2017. The 2007 piece makes no reference to his arrival, and by 2008 Clarke was telling the world he had arrived at ‘noon’, with no mention of speaking to the McCanns.
“I had been in Praia da Luz since noon on the day after her disappearance.”
The first/only journalist nonsense started on the 10th anniversary article in Olive Press, 2017, where both the ‘first on the scene” and speaking to the McCanns were seen for the first time. Since then both have been twisted and manipulated in a form of linguistic and logical torture which has squeezed any element of truth or meaning out of them.
Over the decade and a half we have noted and analysed various of the many outright untruths told by many of the parties, the McCanns, the Tapas 7, Mitchell, Solicitors, and many more. Many of the untruths and distortions were exculpatory, trying to get themselves out of impossible situations in which the objective facts placed them, but served merely to prove their infinite respective capacity for being economical with the ‘vérité.
Clarke’s lies are on another plane. He was not trying to get out of a situation. He was putting himself into a specific situation; attempting to position himself spatially and temporally – at a specific place at a specific time.
That at least was the theory, until now.
Now the suspicion grows that his previous attempts to place himself in PdL at a particular time were to conceal the fact that he was there at another time completely.
And that camouflage has now been stripped away. The cover story has been blown.
He is exposed, and trapped.
Strangely the FaceBook piece with all the remaining comments and questions has not been “whooshed” as were many previous ‘embarrassing’ questions or comments.
But perhaps even more strange is that Clarke has not posted anything else on his site since 23 October.
He has gone to earth; gone very quiet. It appears that all his bluster, abuse and threats have been exhausted, for the time being at least.
But the article itself is still on display. He has not taken it down.
It is still there and it says very clearly that
Clarke received the phone call on Thursday 3rd May 2007,
and arrived in Praia da Luz that same night.
REFS:
1. https://twitter.com/search?q=%23olivepress&src=typd&f=live&vertical=default
2. https://www.facebook.com/OlivePressNewspaper
3. https://www.facebook.com/jon.clarke.3745
4. Clarke, Jon. MY SEARCH FOR MADELEINE: One Reporter’s 14-Year Hunt To Solve Europe’s Most Harrowing Crime (pp. 113-114). OP Books. Kindle Edition.
5 https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2011/11/07/24455/
ABC Article – Original as Printed
El mismo 3 de mayo de 2007 una llamada a un teléfono de Ronda requirió su presencia. Los móviles no estaban tan extendidos y los grandes periódicos británicos buscaban contactar a Jon Clarke (Cambridge, 1968) en esta ciudad de Málaga. Acudió y le preguntaron si podía ir a Portugal.
Allí había desaparecido una niña inglesa. «No parecía un caso importante, pero fui a Praia da Luz», recuerda Clarke sobre su primer contacto con la desaparición de Madeleine McCann. Esa misma noche conoció a los padres de la pequeña, Gerry y Kate McCann. «Estaban destrozados y sentían que nadie les ayudaba», describe el periodista, que está afincado en la Costa del Sol.
ABC. Translation: [DeepL, edited]
On the very 3 May 2007, a call to a telephone in Ronda requested his presence. Mobile phones were not so widespread and the major British newspapers were looking to contact Jon Clarke (Cambridge, 1968) in this town in Malaga. He went and was asked if he could go to Portugal.
An English girl had disappeared there. "It didn't seem like an important case, but I went to Praia da Luz," recalls Clarke about his first contact with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. That same night he met the little girl's parents, Gerry and Kate McCann. "They were devastated and felt that no one was helping them," describes the journalist, who is based on the Costa del Sol.
Muckrack article
El mismo 3 de mayo de 2007 una llamada a un teléfono de Ronda requirió su presencia. Los móviles no estaban tan extendidos y los grandes periódicos británicos buscaban contactar a Jon Clarke (Cambridge, 1968) en esta ciudad de Málaga. Acudió y le preguntaron si podía ir a Portugal.
Allí había desaparecido una niña inglesa. «No parecía un caso importante, pero fui. Lleguéa la una y media de la madrugada a Praia da Luz», recuerda Clarke sobre su primer contacto con la desaparición de Madeleine McCann.
Muckrack. Translation: [DeepL, edited]
On the very 3 May 2007, a call to a telephone in Ronda requested his presence. Mobile phones were not so widespread and the major British newspapers were looking to contact Jon Clarke (Cambridge, 1968) in this town in Malaga. He went and was asked if he could go to Portugal.
An English girl had disappeared there. "It didn't seem like an important case, but I went. I arrived at half past one in the morning in Praia da Luz", Clarke recalls about his first contact with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
