CHAPTER 52
August was also a quiet month (?)
For those who keep their eye on the “newsnow.co.uk” site it certainly seemed that August was ‘All quiet on the Madeleine front’ the only entries being the ludicrous stories about Rebecca Vardy’s having (allegedly) received threats and denigratory comments on her social media, including the insane one that she was in some way linked to the case of Madeleine McCann, and even (allegedly) accusing her of having been the one who ’snatched’ her.
REF. 1
This nonsense was duly churned by the red top Tabloids with their trademark lack of attention to detail.
***
When the previous Chapter, 51, “Some Random Unrelated Thoughts” was referenced on the usual facebook pages, Jon Clarke of the Olive Press, who had been mentioned more than once, retorted in characteristic ad hominem (abusive) fashion . . I quote:
"Jon Clarke
What a sad man - more lies and long, boring oft-repeated conjecture.
Sitting longer in a dark room than normal, but I suppose it must be hot there in Nerja - or is Maclewd [sic] hiding from someone or something?
His hatred for the media must have some basis in something - not that anyone on this dwindling forum will care to probe.”
REF 2
There were of course no details of what was supposed to be untrue, any more than details were ever provided of how, where, when, or to whom I was supposed to have revealed details of his house and his family, an alleged act for which he threatened me with legal proceedings – to be started by midnight nine months ago – and involved two firms of solicitors in the ‘conversation. As a matter of record neither has had the decency or professional courtesy even to confirm receipt of my email reply. But then neither has Clarke nor his wife who was copied by Clarke into all the exchanges. (Vide Chapter 50, “A Quiet Month for Madeleine Watchers?”
REF 3
I felt constrained to answer the specific point about the ridiculous and totally untrue allegation that I hold a “hatred for the media”, which I copy here so that readers will know where I stand.
QUOTE
“The day after this Chapter was published and ‘churned’ to various Facebook sites, Clarke responded in characteristic belligerent fashion, denouncing it as lies, and finishing with
“His hatred for the media must have a basis in something…”
which is as we might expect completely untrue.
I do not hate the ‘media’
I am second to none in my admiration for good, and particularly for diligent investigative journalism.
We remember
* Bernstein and Woodward, who brought down a President “the single greatest reporting effort of all time”,
- Heather Brooke who spend over five years delving into MPs’ expenses, to reveal when it was finally published (by the Telegraph) that it was a scandal which led to several being imprisoned, others losing their seats, and to a wholesale review of internal systems within the heart of Parliament
- Sue Reid whose focus on the Tavistock Clinic has led to its being closed this very week
- Nick Davies on the phone hacking scandal
- Andrew Norfolk on grooming and trafficking in Northern towns
- Claire Newall on the corruption at the heart of FIFA
- and many more
What do they have in common ?
They all refused to accept the “Official Story”.
Each one was determined to challenge of at least to check what they had been told, what the ‘experts” and the politicians and the Police and the Spokesmen were telling them.
… ‘that it was just a routine burglary (Watergate); that all receipts were properly inspected (expenses); that this was recognised medical practice and did not cause harm to children (Tavistock)’ . . .
They refused to accept this and to drift away.
And the others ? The hacks who turn up at incidents, ask damn-fool questions to which the answers are obvious anyway, and even more stupid ones which they must know cannot be answered for various reasons of legality, security or common decency ? I do not hate them. I pity and deplore them and the Tabloids which then publish the tripe they write, but I do not hate them.
The gutter press has a place to keep the illiterate masses happy. Page 3 of the Sun was there for a reason.
The News of the World had its infamous place in the order of things, as do the Star and the Record
I reserve my contempt for those who passively accept the official line on anything whilst falsely claiming to be independent and to be investigating. For those who pretend that pursuing a suspect who has already been exonerated is in some way helping an enquiry. For those who by refusing to look at evidence, even as basic as a registration plate on a motor vehicle or the shutter on a window, and who by concealing facts make a saleable stories out of falsehood. For those who fail to do even basic research, invent ‘facts’ to fit a story, or mistake personal prejudice for evidence.
But that is not “hatred’. It may be contempt, pity, despite, scorn or many other things, but not Hatred.
That may be reserved for those who use their publishing power to lie, libel and abuse those who lack adequate means of reply.”
END QUOTE
REF 4
And so it is with the pathetic people who allegedly accused Rebecca Vardy of having been in PdL and having ‘snatched” Madeleine McCann. [Assuming of course that Vardy’s evidence can be believed. It wasn’t in the High Court !]
But is there a qualitative difference between making that inane allegation, and printing the ridiculous and incidentally very serious allegation in a paper and on-line that Ms. Kay Burley of Sky News was in PdL at the time of the incident ? It is clear to the entire world that she was not, since she was in the studios presenting the very news reports as the situation unfolded. Everyone knows that. The timed and dated video evidence can be found on YouTube, and yet Jon Clarke published in his own newspaper and on-line years later that it was so.
And despite the passage of time, despite its having been pointed out to Clarke over several years, and despite himself appearing on Burley’s own news ‘show’, Clarke has never amended the on-line version, nor to my knowledge published a correction to the hard copy.
(IT IS STILL THERE on Clarke’s own website. I have just accessed it to check. The reference screen shot shows clearly the time and date Tue 13 Sep. 13:15 [EEST])
REF 5
That same paragraph contains the preposterous lie about the deep trench.
Here it is in all its gruesomely and risibly mendacious detail.
“The only reporter on the scene till late that evening – apart from Sky News reporter Kay Burley, who happened to be on holiday there – I spent time grilling neighbours, before noticing that a road crew was still digging up the street to lay sewage pipes literally right outside the apartment. The trench was nearly two metres deep and three men continued to shuffle around inside it.”
Olive Press Exclusive ? Buy One Lie, Get One Free ?. Actually get TWO free, since he wasn’t the first journalist on the scene either, (till late evening or at any other time, but we’ll charitably count that as One)
What can one say ? What do we do with the extraordinary suggestion that having been first at the “scene”, he spent time footling around ‘grilling neighbours” BEFORE even noticing a six foot deep trench “literally” right outside the apartment . . . ?
Despair ?
Perhaps it is a mercy that everyone else can see right through this, and can find the truth.
To explain to newcomers, or to ram it home to those who want to believe something else . . .
…only reporter on the scene – – – – – he wasn’t
…Kay Burley on holiday there – – – – – she wasn’t
…trench - literally right outside – – – – – there wasn’t
Three lies on one short sentence. Even for Tabloid journalist that is pushing towards a record.
Also still on-line, on Clarke’s own Facebook Page is the article and advert for his book, “MY SEARCH FOR MADELEINE: One Reporter’s 14-Year Hunt To Solve Europe’s Most Harrowing Crime". (Available world-wide on Amazon, in Print and Kindle editions, price £10.99.).
The article in the one of the three leading Spanish newspapers, ABC, and under the name of one of their most respected journalists, Sr. JJ Madueño, first quoted Clarke as having said he got the phone call ‘that same day’ which can only refer to Thursday 3/5/7, and that he arrived in PdL at 1:30am the following morning, which can only mean Friday 4/5/7.
This was amended a little time later in the print and on-line version to arriving in the “early hours of the morning”, which amounts to the same thing, but the original was accurately copied by the MuckRack website, as well as by diligent ‘investigative researchers’ who took screen shots and noted links, and is preserved to this day.
This has been discussed before, at Chapter 48 “My Search for Madeleine”. and assuming it was different from either of the printed versions, Clarke has failed or refused or been unable to explain the details of what actually did happen.
He has however left the article on his Facebook page, and after 11 months it must surely be the case that the reading public are entitled to be permitted to analyse its veracity.
The reference screen shot shows the date and time, Tue 13 Sep 13:38 [EEST]
It also shows that this has been on-line, presented by Clarke as the “journalistic truth” since 23 October 2021.
REF 6
I quote from a commentator writing recently in the context of lockdown for COVID, and the revelations which are gradually unfolding that the advisors and the PM were NOT in agreement, and that decisions were being made which were NOT in accordance with the best advice.
“Journalists Knew that it was either wrong, or as least not the unanimous and settled solution as they presented it. They were therefore either coerced, or conspirators.”
“It is not the function of journalists to be the gatekeepers. It is their duty to report all the facts, and not their job to select.”
He goes on to say
“Decent journalists are becoming exasperated at the unprofessional nature of what their colleagues are doing.”
REF 7
There are of course, still some decent journalists in the world.
Readers may recall the uproar after Meghan Markle (Duchess of Sussex) claimed that when she attended the premiere of ‘The Lion King’ in 2019, a cast member from South Africa told her, “When you married into this family, we rejoiced in the streets the same we did when Mandela was freed from prison.”
This was swiftly debunked by a couple of real investigative journalists, who tracked down the only South African cast member, and found he had not even been at the Premier.
They followed by ‘tirelessly’ investigating further – by making another phone call – and spoke to the only other South African, the composer of the soundtrack. He HAD been there and had spoken to Meghan, but denied having discussed anything of the sort, and reported that he only spoke to her for a few minutes about the film itself and didn’t mention Mandela at all.
Is this a case where “recollections may vary” or was it a simple Lie ?
There is also at least one other decent journalist who wrote and published a simple account of the proceedings before the ECHR in the case of “McCann & Healy -v- Portugal”, pointing out, contrary to the nonsense in the Tabloid press that it was NOT a case against Dr Amaral, that case having been concluded in Portugal in 2017.
REF 8
But the gutter press continue to churn out nonsense. It is inconceivable that not one Editor, sub-editor or member of the legal team does not understand the legal process. That they continue to publish the same parallel untruths could lead sentient people to believe they are being controlled and paid.
And now the inevitable judgment has been handed down – that one of their complaints was not even admissible, and the other whilst legally admissible was rejected partly on the grounds of the McCanns’ own behaviour – Editors are showing either that they still don’t understand, or that they are in the pay of someone who is still controlling what they write.
*****
What do we know and what can we prove about Clarke and his visit to PdL ?
We know he was there. We have independent evidence, timed and dated photographs and video of that, some of it aired on Sky news bulletins, by Kay Burley herself, on the day in question.
We know he looked towards the window and the shutters. We have independent evidence, timed and dated photographic and video, of that.
We may surmise that he observed that the shutters were not broken, forced, smashed or jemmied. It is possible, though extremely unlikely, that this did not register with him. What is certain is that he remained in PdL for some days or weeks, during which the lies surrounding the shutters were circulated, and that he had time to revisit to scene to make his own independent observations.
In any event he did not, and does not to this day, tell his readers the facts. They have to resort to their own research for that.
Whilst conducting the necessary research for this chapter, checking references and ensuring that quotes were copied accurately, I came across YET ANOTHER more recent ‘version of the truth’.
This one was clearly written by Clarke himself, and appears under his sole authorship.
It is in the ‘i’ newspaper, and may be viewed on-line at the address in the reference section. [It is behind a paywall, but this can be defeated by using the 12ft.io/ site as the prefix, as can most paywalls. I give the original link, and the amended one for those who choose not to pay a subscription for nonsense.]
REF 9
The first paragraphs will indicate to regular readers and followers of the endless changes of Clarke’s story that all is well. Nothing has changed. He continues to alter the story as time goes on.
“I was one of the first reporters on the scene after Madeleine McCann’s disappearance. This is what I remember”
Note: Not THE first. He is now ONE OF the first. This is demonstrably TRUE, but a reversal of what he has been violently arguing for the past 14 years.
“It’s been 15 years and five days since I rolled into the sleepy seaside resort of Praia da Luz as a journalist covering the Iberian Peninsula, expecting a three-year-old toddler to have turned up either dead in a pool or alive by a miracle.”
Note: This directly contradicts one of the statements in his own book, where he talks of his financial situation, and eagerly grasps the opportunity to take on a “MEATY” case, whilst only a few pages before saying he thought Madeline might have been found even before he arrived. Attempts have been made to reconcile these two positions, so far without success. [pp. 21 & 37/437. Kindle ed.]
“I was on the scene only 12 hours after Madeleine McCann went missing and I am as certain today as I was then that she was abducted by a predatory paedophile.”
Note: This implies that immediately on arrival he became convinced of “abduction by predatory paedophile”, without a moment of consideration of other possibilities, or of the lack of evidence for this particular assertion.
“What was remarkable back then, during those early hours, was just how lackadaisical the police effort was to find her. When I arrived, a couple of local cops milled around, while a few expats scratched their heads.“
Note: Now that Clarke is admitting he arrived around 10am, his insistence that there were only a “couple of cops” is directly contrary to the known and observable facts, though interestingly this might have been more persuasive for an arrival time of 1:30am, as was reported in his article in ABC. He is filmed on several occasions with GDR police, with PJ officers, close to dog handlers and their dogs and vans, forensic staff, quite apart from the many fellow journalists with whom he seen comparing notes. All this is supported by contemporaneous news-reel video and photographs, the links to which are provided below in the references.
Then comes the remarkable revelation > > >
“So unsecured was the crime scene I could literally walk up some steps under a flimsy piece of police tape and right into the apartment. I would have been nearly the 30th person to have left my DNA imprint in the holiday rental in just a few hours. Thankfully, I had the good sense not to try.”
In this extraordinary paragraph the first sentence is in the simple past, and indicates – in standard usage – that Clarke DID walk up some steps. His [mis]use of the word “literally” has been commented on before, in the context of the “Deep trench”. (© J Clarke) See Chapter 33 “Entrenched Lies”
He seems to believe it acts to negate what follows, rather than merely to exaggerate and emphasise what is being said in the informal usage, without being ‘literally’ true in the formal sense of ‘exact’.
The second sentence uses a conditional perfect “I would have been . . .”, indicating that he did was not and not.
And the final sentence tells us definitively that he did not.
[for non-native English speakers “I could walk” = I did walk. It was possible and I did.
“I could have walked = I didn’t walk, even though it was possible
“I would have been nearly the 30th person = I wasn’t, because I didn’t do it, though it was possible ]
But in his own book, written, proof-read and edited by him, and vetted for content by two solicitors, Clarke tells us that, in fact, he DID.
“… I walked up the short flight of stairs to the apartment, number 5A, – completely unimpeded by police – to speak to the parents, as any decent journalist is programmed to do on arrival at a job like this. I walked inside the open front door and bumped straight into the McCanns,…”
[Clarke, Jon. MY SEARCH FOR MADELEINE: One Reporter’s 14-Year Hunt To Solve Europe’s Most Harrowing Crime (p. 23). OP Books. Kindle Edition. at p 22/437]
And in many other articles he has told us the same, that he did enter, sometimes up the stairs from the side entrance and through the patio doors, sometimes by the front door, and that he spoke to the McCanns, either briefly or at length, or as they were leaving, sometimes not until later that day, or alternatively at the press conference. On other occasions there is no mention of this important meeting, leading us to believe that on balance it may not have happened at all.
I made a crude attempt in Chapter. 46 “Jon Clarke through the Looking Glass” to list the many ‘versions’, and in Appendix A I have revisited and updated this list. Readers will be able to judge for themselves the veracity of Clarke’s writings, and then to assess for themselves the likelihood of anything else he writes or has ever written being remotely associated with the facts.
The rest of the article includes the by now familiar litany of Brücker’s admittedly sordid and criminal past, but at the end, where Clarke clearly loses editorial control, the whole effect and purpose of this sales enterprise is destroyed by the ‘advert’ for the book.
“Jon Clarke is an author and journalist. His book ‘MUST LEAVE: My Search for Madeleine’ [sic] is available on Amazon.”
On Amazon.es a search for this brings up two items; one a book about “Big Potato and the strange things people search for”; the other a table top game “The Search for Planet X”.
Which may inadvertently and gratifyingly be serendipitously appropriate under the circumstances.
REF 10
The article is also stylistically “Vintage Clarke”. He cannot resist the usual sneering scorn when he describes Mark Williams-Thomas as “Ex-policeman turned Journalist . . . “
As opposed to “ex-Geography student turned hack reporter” perhaps ?
Nor can he resist moving his own goalposts, when he says, confidently, “and over the next year or two Christian Brueckner will finally be charged with the murder of Madeleine McCann.”
For a long time Clarke has been telling any who bothered to listen that Brückner would be charged within weeks, or by the summer. Now the months and the summer have come and gone his ground seems to be less firm. Or possibly his ‘mole’ in Wolters’ office has been unearthed.
Strangely, given the wealth of detail in his book, in this article he does a “reverse ferret”, a U turn, a complete altering of course as he accuses the PJ of incompetence. “It comes after first pointing the finger at Murat (an unusual chap, who has never explained three late-night phone calls on the night Maddie went missing), when the facts, assuming the book is accurate on this, are that HE, Jon Clarke, in collusion with Lori Campbell pointed the finger at Murat. They set him up. The PJ had a look at him. The British gutter press feasted on him, and he was awarded £600,000 in libel damages, none of which was payable by Clarke or Campbell, of course.
REF 12
[And by the way, despite the lie Clarke keeps publishing, Murat does NOT have a glass eye. He has a detached retina.]
REF 13
But Clarke cannot let him go. “He has never explained three late-night phone calls . . .”
The McCanns have never explained the 64 deleted calls and SMS messages on their phones, a fact which Clarke does not merely gloss over. He studiously (or obediently ?) never mentions it.
And then the endless Lie Eternal, believed only by acolytes and apologists, but provably FALSE.
”the parents, who were quickly cleared of any involvement in her abduction…”
How often do reasonable and sane people have to keep pointing out that this is NOT TRUE ?
How long before the gullible and factually challenged begin to realise they have been lied to ?
Firstly – It wasn’t Quickly. The McCanns were Arguidos from 7/8 Sept 2007 to 21 July 2008, a period of some ten and a half months.
Secondly – the Parents were not and have not ever been CLEARED. That is what half of the entire case in the ECHR was about. The parents themselves KNOW they were not cleared. That is why they have spent so much money complaining about it.
Why journalists of a certain persuasion cannot understand this is unclear.
The suspicion is that most of them do fully understand, but are paid to pretend otherwise.
Alternatively they could just admit to being stupid.
Notably there has not to date, and to my knowledge, been any mention of the ECHR judgment in the Olive Press.
Let me once again quote the Justices of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Portuguese Republic, sothat perhaps with repetition it begins to sink in. I have bolded some parts to assist in this process.
“"It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn’t committed a crime.
"The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to
obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
"There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally
admissible foundations of the archive ruling. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling,
based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence."
They added: "It's true that the aforementioned criminal inquiry ended up being archived, namely
because none of the apparent evidence that led to the appellants being made 'arguidos' was
subsequently confirmed or consolidated.
"However even the archive ruling raises serious concerns relating to the truth of the allegation that
Madeleine was kidnapped."
REF 13
The ECHR held that this was an entire neutral and correct statement of the legal position, and in no way implied guilt. It simply did not permit the parties to infer their own innocence.
The depth and breadth of misinformation / lack of understanding / deliberate mendacity / paid dissembling, or whatever it is which drives some journalists is on of the factors which has made this case so remarkable.
Never in the Field of Modern Journalism have so Many been lied to for so Long by so Few.
[with apologies]
Appendix A:
https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2022/09/52-appendix-updated-from-chapter-46-jon.html
References:
https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2022/09/chapter-52-references-1-2-httpswww.html