STOP PRESS
Jon Clarke may have told the truth
A public apology
YET ANOTHER VERSION of Clarke’s arrival in Praia da Luz has just emerged.
It is in a 49 minute down-the-line interview for Expat Radio channel, and can be heard by accessing
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t17177p25-new-blog-jon-clarke-olive-press#443226
at Page 2, and clicking on the embedded video.
It is dated Friday 3rd September 2021, and was clearly part of the publicity drive for the book
It has been viewed more than 20 times.
At 12:30 Clarke again mentions the 5 Ws of journalism. When, Where, Who, Why, and hoW
But again he neglects the first and most important one which we have discussed before . . .
WHAT ?
and then at 12:40, talking about his actions on arrival he says - (this is as near verbatim as I can get).
“. . . you go into automatic mode just going through the paces, the first thing I found the apartment,
straight up to the apartment, go, and walked up the steps and asked, yer know, could I speak to the parents, and they happened to be, they were heading off actually relatively quickly to be, err, to the police station to file the official reports . .
But they were very friendly and you know obviously very stressed out . .
And they, they just told me the name . .
And, yer know, I said who I was and from the Mail and I would do my best to help, and they were like “thanks” and that was that.
So I didn’t, I can’t say I really interviewed them . .
but, yer know I, I wanted, yer know, I wanted to sort of just try and monitor, and gather as much information on – locally as you possible could. . .”
Clarke’s new admission that he went up the steps and ASKED to speak to the McCanns, indicates this was not 5A, as he has been insisting for the last 14 years, but 5H, the Payne’s apartment, a first floor apartment accessible from the central stairwell. It then clearly indicates that the McCanns were being ‘guarded and protected’ and that they were getting ready to leave with various members of the Tapas group and some detectives from the PJ, as we know they did around 1000 hrs. That much is on film.
For students of these things, the almost total breakdown of verbal fluency and coherence, and the addition of fillers and repetitions to buy thinking time immediately after he has admitted he did not interview the McCanns at all is an interesting case history in itself, even allowing for his apparent lack of articulacy and fluency, and his general demotic tabloid style of speech.
The whole of Clarke’s previous elaborate fabrications may therefore be built on no more than two words
“Madeleine” “Thanks”
But it seems he may have asked a question, made a statement, and received a response, even if was done through a Tapas member or a minder and not directly. So possibly on two phrases “She is called Madeleine”. “They say Thanks”
In the light of this new evidence which has come after 14 years, and in the light of his full and frank admission that he never interviewed them or even spoke to them again,
I UNCONDITIONALLY withdraw my suggestion that Clarke may never have spoken to the McCanns, at least until further evidence is forthcoming.
*****
His statement fixes his arrival at around 0945 Portuguese and British time, as we deduced from the documentary evidence and have stated on several occasions, despite being roundly abused by Clarke for having done so. That in turn has implications for the time of the phone call, of which perhaps more later.
It also nails forever the untruth of his walking straight into Apartment 5A, and makes more credible his various alternative ‘versions of the truth” that he didn’t because it was taped off.
****
Clarke has clearly been stung by the exposure that his previous claims over the last 14 years that he was the First or the Only Journalist at the scene were ‘somewhat less than accurate’ to put it mildly.
Perhaps in the light of having read some suggestions made here and elsewhere, he has now revised this in the radio interview to –
“You know I was there first because the press from the UK none of the national newspapers could get journalists down there until mid-afternoon or late afternoon . . .
so you know I was hands, I was kind of holding hands, holding their hands right the way through the day, making sure that I did the basic checks err, yer know, all the main, [long pause] talking to the manager of the Ocean club… “
To paraphrase in more coherent English,
I was the first British Journalist under contract to a British Newspaper – – – on the scene.
This is what we suggested many years ago, but it does not appear in any of his newspaper articles, advertising pieces for the Netflix film, the Netflix programme, advertising pieces for the book, on the cover of the book, or in the book itself, which use five different variants of First, Only, first British, and more.
This is a criminal case, and details are important.
****
Clearly both these newly discovered statements conflict violently with all the previous ones.
But these may be the truth, or at least may allow us to understand the truth.
And that is a Revelation and a Breakthrough.
What can we say, except “Well done Jon. The truth will out; truth has the mastery.”
*****
CHAPTER 47
“My Search for Madeleine” – Jon Clarke, 2021
Summary of previous Chapters
and some more interesting anomalies
The three previous chapters were written in haste and focussed on individual issues which leapt out of the pages as being simply wrong, or in contradiction to other things the same author had said previously (see above)
What follows therefore is an attempt at simplification and a statement of some of those issues before I then identity and develop yet more.
Readers should perhaps understand before tackling this confusing book that
It is NOT a new look at the available evidence.
It is NOT an analysis of what happened, nor of what could have or could not have happened
It is NOT a dissertation on the investigation
It IS a personal quest for a series of Captain Renault’s “Usual Suspects”, not one of which – except the libelled and persecuted Robert Murat – was identified by Clarke. Clarke gives the impression that he becomes convinced that each in turn is the Guilty party, even though, as mentioned above and like all other ‘believers’, he never states explicitly OF WHAT it is they are supposed to be guilty, nor HOW they are supposed to have done IT.
In this book
• Clarke admits culpability for the egregious libel of Nicole Kidman and Jude Law some years ago, and confesses that the money he was paid for the story enabled the purchase of his house.
Kidman was awarded substantial damages, and gave them to a Children’s Charity.
• Clarke admits culpability for the gross libel and subsequent ‘framing’ of Robert Murat which culminated in his being investigated by the PJ and interviewed as ‘arguido’ and being then libelled for a long time by the British gutter press.
Murat was awarded over £600,000 in damages, such was the extent of this disgraceful vicious attack.
It is not known how much Clarke was paid for this story, but he has substantially extended his property empire in Spain since that time.
AN ASIDE:
It may be an appropriate moment to mention this. It gives a good insight into the mind-set of tabloid journalists.
The News of the World was a red top, gutter press tabloid, sister paper to The Sun and The Sun on Sunday.
Recently one of their top ex-journalists and executives died.
His obituary includes these observations :– (Telegraph obit. edited)
“Greg Miskiw, who has died aged 71, was a senior executive at the News of the World sentenced to six months in prison for his part in the phone-hacking scandal that sank the paper in 2011.
As the paper’s news editor, Miskiw used his mastery of the dark tabloid arts to earn the nickname “the Prince of Darkness”, but also acclaim as the archetypal tabloid journalist.
“You were in a bubble at the News of the World,” he explained, “where the objective was very simple: just get the story. Just get it … no matter what … no matter how.”
… professionally ruthless, [his] journalistic exploits could lack empathy,
This emotional vacuum gave Miskiw a professional edge: he pursued stories with little regard for the methods used or collateral damage.
“This is what we do,” he once remarked. “We go out and destroy other people’s lives.”
The utter contempt with which tabloid journalists treat people, families, the law, and common decency is laid bare here in Miskiw’s own words. Not without good reason are they called the “Gutter Press”.
Clarke is therefore not alone. He was, and is, a frequent contributor to The Sun and The Sun on Sunday, as well as to other red top tabloid British newspapers.
His attempts to “destroy the lives of Nicole Kidman and Jude Law,” enriched him and his family, as he admits in the book. It is possible that his partially successful attempt to “destroy the life of Robert Murat” may have done the same, as he now owns several enviable rental properties in addition to his renovated family home; one in the outer-Ronda area, a series of small luxury apartments in old Ronda, and one in an exclusive location on the Costa del Sol, all tastefully appointed and at the upper end of the rental market, some commanding over €4,500 [£4,000] per week. All are widely advertised in the internet.
People’s Lives Matter ? Or People’s Lives PAY ?
To continue.
In this book
• Clarke now admits that all his previous stories about the phone call and his journey to and arrival in PdL were incorrect, and has now explained that his encounter with the McCanns, if any, was limited to probably no more than two words. (see above)
• Clarke trumpets his major involvement in the absurd Marcelino Italiano episode. This story has been dissected at length over the years since it was first published. The story is now padded out with some more detail, but nothing which would enable an independent researcher to check any of the given facts. Clarke concludes the chapter with the full tabloid mystery treatment – “Ominously I have been unable to track him down again and wonder where he may be currently living… or did he continue digging and eventually put himself in a shallow grave?”
Clarke fails to acknowledge that it was researchers who discovered that Italiano had been living in Huelva for some time and was playing for the local basketball team. He had apparently been totally unaware of this when he first ran the story, even though it took Google about 4 milliseconds to find it.
• And now we see Clarke’s most recent obsession. This time with Christian Brückner. He devotes almost 200 pages to him, and details his several years spent charging around Europe like some latter-day “Indiana Clarke and The Quest for the Eighth Suspect”
• Clarke emulates Kate McCann’s book in drifting into irrelevant autobiographical detail, even at one point confessing to having abandoned his own wife and children for a considerable period, though naturally he uses the common euphemism ‘separated’. The inclusion of that detail is entirely gratuitous; we didn’t know, we didn’t really want to know; but now we and the whole world does.
We are left wondering whether all these outpourings of guilt and admissions of wrong-doing are a lead up to a catharsis or a quasi-religious “confession of sins”.
But it is necessary in both those cases to feel remorse and to show contrition. Clarke does neither of those things.
He seems genuinely proud of his actions, and boasts openly of the amount of money he made by trying to destroy Nicole Kidman’s life, thus adding Pride and Greed to his personal list.
As such he exists in the same Moral vacuum as the late Greg Miskiw. Unscrupulous and morally bankrupt.
******
There is a clear and present danger of deciding the outcome before looking for evidence, but it is into that elephant trap or ‘deep trench’ that Clarke has thrown himself.
He clearly “believes” that there was an abduction without troubling to examine the evidence, or consider total lack of it. It follows therefore that he believes someone must have done it. It only remains to identify, or even to “frame” someone, as he tried to with Robert Murat.
The first third of the book is therefore devoted to the people who came briefly to notice before being eliminated. The wording he uses is capable of showing his apparent genuine distress or concern that not one of them could be convicted or more likely ‘fitted up’. He uses the construction “I now wonder if...” no fewer than ten times.
The people whose profession is to look for evidence of WHAT happened and then to develop a scenario round a credible Modus Operandi – found nothing. But Clarke is contemptuous of the Police, of the diplomats, of the Public Prosecutor, the Portuguese legal system, their Appeal court, and their Supreme Court (twice), of police search advisors, and indeed of everyone who does not agree with his own personal “belief”
[See chapter 18 for a list of those who are paid to believe or say they believe in an Abduction, against those professionals who have the necessary training and skills and examined the available evidence - who do not]
Only two people say there was an abduction.
Others simply ‘believe’ what they have been told, without ever asking for the evidence.
As Krishnamurti said “Belief [faith] is the excuse you use if you don’t have a good argument”,
which has been rendered as – “Belief [faith] is the alibi you use when you do not have an ounce of proof or validity for your argument.”
Clarke perhaps inadvertently acknowledges this several times in his text.
“I have never wavered in my belief that the parents were innocent. I laid out my argument in a long feature I wrote for the first anniversary of Maddie’s disappearance in May 2008. I repeated it again on the tenth anniversary in 2017 and nothing has come close to changing my view.”
But he provides no evidence, and merely quoting from something he had written previously, also unreferenced, and itself only a ‘belief’ does not, with respect, reinforce his position.
In the next sentence then has absolutely no choice but to dismiss the dogs’ alerts as “so-called evidence from sniffer dogs – who allegedly scented her body and blood in the apartment in two places, particularly behind the sofa, as well as in the McCanns’ rental car.”
As of course he must. Having staked all on something (though he refuses to state exactly what) he has no option but to sneer at and dismiss the known facts. His contempt for people, for their privacy, their family lives, extends now to deriding the facts and professional people’s independent findings.
A problem with Clarke’s approach may be that he has insufficient access to the PJ and BKA reports, probably lacks the time to index and cross reference them as investigators do, and then utterly refuses to accept them even when he does read them.
The alleged sighting of Madeleine at Alcossebre in a VW Westfalia camper van is an example of how lack of the full information combined with a refusal to accept the facts can lead a rank amateur astray. That much is evident as Clarke devotes an entire chapter to the episode, despite its having been dealt with in June 2007, seven weeks after the alleged event, and some eleven years before Clarke started his latest quest.
Briefly: the VW van with the man and little blond girl was on Berlin registration plates. It was traced and the German man and van were eliminated from the enquiry, as was his little blond daughter.
The VW van owned by Brückner was traced to a scrap yard in Portugal close to Foral where he had been staying and was on Portuguese registration plates. It was subsequently recovered by PJ officers.
Photos of both vehicles are available, showing the registration plates. But only if you know where to look, and are prepared to consider the evidence.
Clarke ends that chapter with an astonishing paragraph, demonstrating in only 115 words his utter contempt for Police, his sneeringly superior and xenophobic attitude to “foreigners”, his self-appointed detective status, and most dangerously his totally un-evidenced assumption that there was an abduction and that Brückner therefore must have done it, simply because Clarke says so.
That is not how the legal system works in enlightened western societies.
“Having worked here as a journalist for nearly 20 years, I know the Spanish police well. I also know that in any case involving a foreigner they can be laid back, at best, and I am simply not convinced they went out of their way to locate and eliminate this ‘German man’ from their enquiries.
Maybe they actually did locate Brueckner and, as in 2013, he managed to easily brush it off and evade them.
This could well have been the best chance to have caught Maddie alive so far. We must never give up hope that she might still be alive. And the police finally charge Brueckner with her kidnapping. Only time will tell.” p.267
When we remember that this time he is simply substituting the name Brückner for Murat, Malinka, Walczuch, vonAesch, Hewlett, Ney, even Monteiro this should send a chill down the spine of any intelligent reader.
As has been observed before (? Mark Twain ?). “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
When that descends into what at the moment is nothing more than blind belief, leading to witch-hunt or lynch-mob mentality, it becomes pathological and extremely dangerous.
*****
Clarke’s refusal to accept the possibility of error or to apologise or explain is well documented. As is his contemptuous dismissal of the tort of defamation. In a previous chapter I demonstrated this with his 48 point bold headline “LIBEL NO BIG DEAL IN SPAIN” just a few issues before he grossly defamed me. [Ch. 31]
His arrogant dismissal of the rights of others were displayed in the Kidman case, the Murat scandal, and in the general tone of articles in his paper about individuals with whom he disagrees.
Even the excoriating Federation of Association of Journalists of Spain (FAPE), judgment against him and the Olive Press for the hounding of a family with a young blond daughter is belittled and ridiculed.
In the book he states that he did not receive a letter from FAPE, was not allowed to put his side of the story, and didn’t even realise they had been censured until the following year. He does however admit to having received a letter from the family, and a phone call, and claims to have tried to apologise.
Would a professional body really have moved to final published judgment without making serious efforts to contact the ‘respondent’? The family had both the postal address and a phone number and was clearly upset enough to pursue the matter without, for example, an informal resolution of apology and retraction.
Some may think it is straight out of the Del-Boy Trotter list of excuses. “The letter’s in the post; we never got the summons; the dog must have eaten it; my wife used it to light the wood-burner; I must have been on an assignment / holiday / in hospital; we had heavy rain and it must have got lost in the flood . . .”
Readers will make of that what they choose.
Given Clarke’s previous history I regret to have to say that for me, it just doesn’t wash, for this reason:–
Spain’s postal delivery service operates in towns but not in outlying areas. Customers in villages often have an allocated letter box (Buzon) typically at the foot of a block of flats, or physically in a purpose build structure at the entrance to an Urbanisation. (This is not the same as a PO Box – Apartado de Correos in Spanish – which is physically located within a Post Office.)
In 2012 the Olive Press operated such a system. The box in question is in a purpose built bank at the entrance to an Urbanisation over one kilometre from the then office and Clarke’s family home and first rental property. It is clearly stated on the legally required contact information on the editorial page. p.6
If delivery were ‘infamously erratic’ it is submitted they would have moved to something more reliable.
Does this make Clarke’s statement that he did not receive any communication from FAPE even less likely?
In the book Clarke states
“we certainly didn’t expect to receive a legal letter from the Federation of Association of Journalists of Spain (FAPE), the Spanish equivalent of the Press Complaints Commission. Indeed we didn’t actually receive one, but FAPE had supposedly sent one to our office outside Ronda, which being in the countryside opposite my home was infamously erratic for receiving post. Incredibly, FAPE hadn’t felt the need to send another letter, or indeed call or send an email. p. 114”
Leaving aside the contorted grammar and strange vocabulary of the relative clause in the bolded sentence, it must be clear that no letters were ever delivered to nor ever addressed to the office opposite the house. There is no delivery service, and there is no letter box – as a search on “google maps - street view” will confirm.
But that must be set against this statement earlier in the chapter.
“The girl’s mother, who had not been at the interview, was not happy. She phoned the paper demanding a retraction and apology, which perhaps we didn’t deal with quickly enough or seriously enough.”
Given what we have established about Clarke’s and the Olive Press’ attitude towards people’s privacy, rights, common decency, and much more we may not be surprised that he dismissed a valid complaint in that cavalier fashion. He has dealt with similar complaints about defamation and gross falsehoods in the same arrogant and dismissive way but continues to publish them. [ see Ch. 31. Jon Clarke - Lies and Videotape]
Does any of this matter?
Well yes.
The strong suspicion that Clarke did receive the letter and a copy of the formal judgment but contemptuously ignored them is hardened towards near certainty by an email of 14 October 2021 direct from the Secretary General of The Commission for Arbitration, Complaints and Ethics in Journalism, which ensures compliance with the Code of Ethics of the Federation of Associations of Journalists of Spain (FAPE)
Doña Maria del Carmen Pérez de Armiñán Garcia-Fresca. in which she says: – [translation. Original in App.]
“We acknowledge receipt of your letter of 24 September, in which you bring to our attention information about the version, eight years after the ruling issued by the Commission for Arbitration, Complaints and Ethics in Journalism in 2013 (ruling 2013/82), published by Jon Clarke in the book "My Search for Madeleine".
It is clear that, if the allegations in the book were true, Mr Clarke would have filed a complaint with the Commission at the time, which never took place.”
Doña Carmen Pérez de Armiñán goes on to say
“I understand that your email is only intended to provide us with information on the allegations made against our organisation, for which we are enormously grateful.
Yours faithfully”
It would appear that we must now add this to the long and rapidly increasing list of Clarke’s contempt for facts, for truth, for common decency, and even for the normally accepted standards of Journalism.
It is in fact just another invented story to cover up his own lack of professional and personal integrity.
To repeat the late Greg Miskiw’s words:
“…the objective was very simple: just get the story. Just get it … no matter what … no matter how.”
“This is what we do. We go out and destroy other people’s lives.”
And we may care to reflect at this point on Danielle Gusmaroli’s input into this charade, of another Tabloid press “JOURNALIST” inventing almost totally a story to support the McCann’s “official abduction story” and timed to perfection with the publication of the McCann’s own forged Pool Photo . . . Chapters 20 and 36
They are ALL at it.
It is sadly impossible to take at face value anything they write.
Gusmaroli emigrated to Australia, as did Wendy Williams, one of Clarke’s journalists involved in the FAPE scandal. Clarke tells us this was because of the FAPE judgment. It now seems more likely it was collateral fall-out damage from his own arrogant failure to deal properly with the initial complaint and his contemptuous refusal to challenge the statement of facts in a hearing.
Miskiw served 6 months in prison for his crimes and sins.
Clarke should perhaps reflect on what he is doing.
An insight into Clarke’s pure Tabloid gutter-press mentality may be seen in an extract from a book about his take-over of the Olive Press. Extracts were published in the Olive Press itself, along with photos of Clarke and his wife who is given her real name and not the clumsy pseudonym he affects in the book. [Appendix]
****
The Shakespearean Tragedy of this saga – Shakespearean rather than Greek in that the Characters are in charge of their own destinies and sub-plots and supernatural elements are included – is that one day soon the McCann’s surviving children will look up on the internet what happened to their big sister, and will discover all the people who have made money out of her death. They will, as all children do, start to ask questions, as will the children of the Tapas 7.
One day Jon Clarke’s own children will read his book and discover that the beautiful house they live in was built from the proceeds of another family’s misery caused directly by the actions of their father. They may then remember that he caused them misery when he abandoned them during their formative years.
The shame, misery and guilt will pass down the generations.
Does this make Clarke’s statement that he did not receive any communication from FAPE even less likely?
In the book Clarke states
“we certainly didn’t expect to receive a legal letter from the Federation of Association of Journalists of Spain (FAPE), the Spanish equivalent of the Press Complaints Commission. Indeed we didn’t actually receive one, but FAPE had supposedly sent one to our office outside Ronda, which being in the countryside opposite my home was infamously erratic for receiving post. Incredibly, FAPE hadn’t felt the need to send another letter, or indeed call or send an email. p. 114”
Leaving aside the contorted grammar and strange vocabulary of the relative clause in the bolded sentence, it must be clear that no letters were ever delivered to nor ever addressed to the office opposite the house. There is no delivery service, and there is no letter box – as a search on “google maps - street view” will confirm.
But that must be set against this statement earlier in the chapter.
“The girl’s mother, who had not been at the interview, was not happy. She phoned the paper demanding a retraction and apology, which perhaps we didn’t deal with quickly enough or seriously enough.”
Given what we have established about Clarke’s and the Olive Press’ attitude towards people’s privacy, rights, common decency, and much more we may not be surprised that he dismissed a valid complaint in that cavalier fashion. He has dealt with similar complaints about defamation and gross falsehoods in the same arrogant and dismissive way but continues to publish them. [ see Ch. 31. Jon Clarke - Lies and Videotape]
Does any of this matter?
Well yes.
- He is “investigating” at least two of the most serious crimes known to any legal system.
- Clarke is purporting to write a truthful account, not a work of fiction.
- The fact that the book is full of errors and provable falsehoods is worrying.
- He may argue that details such as whether he interviewed witnesses or spent that evening with an old university friend drinking specialist lager;
- whether he bothered to check the registration numbers of the VW camper vans;
- whether post is delivered to his door or left in a bank of letter boxes nearly a mile away;
- whether he went into Apartment 5A or 5H on arrival;
- the time of the phone call alerting him and his time of arrival;
- the numbers of journalists, police, dogs and film crews –
- he may argue that all this may be of no great importance in the scheme of things, and serves merely to divert attention from his avowed aim to frame a man in prison in Germany for a crime he not only may not have committed, but for a crime which may not have been committed in the first place . . .
The strong suspicion that Clarke did receive the letter and a copy of the formal judgment but contemptuously ignored them is hardened towards near certainty by an email of 14 October 2021 direct from the Secretary General of The Commission for Arbitration, Complaints and Ethics in Journalism, which ensures compliance with the Code of Ethics of the Federation of Associations of Journalists of Spain (FAPE)
Doña Maria del Carmen Pérez de Armiñán Garcia-Fresca. in which she says: – [translation. Original in App.]
“We acknowledge receipt of your letter of 24 September, in which you bring to our attention information about the version, eight years after the ruling issued by the Commission for Arbitration, Complaints and Ethics in Journalism in 2013 (ruling 2013/82), published by Jon Clarke in the book "My Search for Madeleine".
It is clear that, if the allegations in the book were true, Mr Clarke would have filed a complaint with the Commission at the time, which never took place.”
Doña Carmen Pérez de Armiñán goes on to say
“I understand that your email is only intended to provide us with information on the allegations made against our organisation, for which we are enormously grateful.
Yours faithfully”
It would appear that we must now add this to the long and rapidly increasing list of Clarke’s contempt for facts, for truth, for common decency, and even for the normally accepted standards of Journalism.
It is in fact just another invented story to cover up his own lack of professional and personal integrity.
To repeat the late Greg Miskiw’s words:
“…the objective was very simple: just get the story. Just get it … no matter what … no matter how.”
“This is what we do. We go out and destroy other people’s lives.”
And we may care to reflect at this point on Danielle Gusmaroli’s input into this charade, of another Tabloid press “JOURNALIST” inventing almost totally a story to support the McCann’s “official abduction story” and timed to perfection with the publication of the McCann’s own forged Pool Photo . . . Chapters 20 and 36
They are ALL at it.
It is sadly impossible to take at face value anything they write.
Gusmaroli emigrated to Australia, as did Wendy Williams, one of Clarke’s journalists involved in the FAPE scandal. Clarke tells us this was because of the FAPE judgment. It now seems more likely it was collateral fall-out damage from his own arrogant failure to deal properly with the initial complaint and his contemptuous refusal to challenge the statement of facts in a hearing.
Miskiw served 6 months in prison for his crimes and sins.
Clarke should perhaps reflect on what he is doing.
An insight into Clarke’s pure Tabloid gutter-press mentality may be seen in an extract from a book about his take-over of the Olive Press. Extracts were published in the Olive Press itself, along with photos of Clarke and his wife who is given her real name and not the clumsy pseudonym he affects in the book. [Appendix]
****
The Shakespearean Tragedy of this saga – Shakespearean rather than Greek in that the Characters are in charge of their own destinies and sub-plots and supernatural elements are included – is that one day soon the McCann’s surviving children will look up on the internet what happened to their big sister, and will discover all the people who have made money out of her death. They will, as all children do, start to ask questions, as will the children of the Tapas 7.
One day Jon Clarke’s own children will read his book and discover that the beautiful house they live in was built from the proceeds of another family’s misery caused directly by the actions of their father. They may then remember that he caused them misery when he abandoned them during their formative years.
The shame, misery and guilt will pass down the generations.
APPENDIX:
“The Commission for Arbitration, Complaints and Ethics in Journalism is constituted as an ethical body of the profession based on independent and responsible self-regulation, and ensures compliance with the Code of Ethics of the Federation of Associations of Journalists of Spain (FAPE).”
2 Insight into the Tabloid mentality of journalists. “…the objective was very simple: just get the story. Just get it … no matter what … no matter how.”
“Olive Press: News from the land of the Misfits” Jason Heppenstall - 2019. Amazon.
Quoted in Olive Press, Issue 34. 13/10/2019
“WHEN Jon Clarke strode into our lives I immediately knew that nothing would be the same again.
His initial communiqué arrived in the form of an email stating matter-of–factly that he had picked up a copy of The Olive Press at Granada Airport and, upon reading it, had been overcome by the feeling that we were in desperate need of his help.
He was, he said, a Fleet Street journalist who now lived in Ronda, several hours’ drive to the west of the Alpujarras.
. . .
He sat down and – just as he had done when we first met him – pulled out the latest copy of The Olive Press from his leather case, slapping it on the table between us.
I couldn’t fail to notice that – once again – it was covered in more red ink and scribbles.
“The newspaper is great,” he started out.
“But,” he continued. There was always going to be a but, “you chaps are still not bold enough with your headlines!”
I squinted at the paper to see what he meant.
“Exactly,” he exclaimed. “Look, I know a thing or two about what makes a hit and what makes a miss. Tiny headlines and weak captions look like failure to me.
“You see this caption?”
It was a story about a local girl who had been injured by a wild boar during a fiesta. There was a stock photo of a boar and a caption: “The girl sustained injuries in the attack.”
“That’s weak,” said Jon, pointing at the much-abused newspaper.
“The headline should be ‘BEAUTY SAVAGED BY BEAST – VILLAGE IN SHOCK’ and it would be in bold caps in 90 Times Roman.
“And if they hadn’t caught it, I’d have a close-up of some snarling teeth and ‘WANTED: HELL BEAST ON THE LOOSE’.”
“Hmm,” I said, taking a sip of wine.
We went through the whole newspaper in this way. By the time we’d finished, Jon had demolished The Olive Press, making it seem like the most inept attempt at a newspaper in the history of mankind.
“But don’t mind me,” he finished, “the story’s still great… and it’s up to you whether you use me or not.”