Some unconsidered trifles, the usual lies, stupid mistakes,
falsehoods and total nonsense.
Nothing to see here. Move along please !
Having read Jon Clarke’s articles on-line for many years, and now having read this book, one is forced to ask the question “Why does he do it ?”
Not “why does he write articles” ? That is easy. He is a journalist and the owner of a small free news and advert paper which he claims has a readership of over 500,000.
(It is notable that this figure is not Audited and verified by the PGD/OJD, which is the section for free publications of the OJD, the official Spanish media auditors, which verify circulation figures.
This is to protect advertisers, so they are not scammed by wholly invented circulation figures.
But Clarke says the figure is 500,000. “and surely he is an honourable man”. ). 1
Over the years we have been treated to a huge rock on a road which we were told was less dense than balsa wood, we have had a small Spanish fighting bull seriously described as weighing more than an elephant, and much more.
The question is rather “Why does he churn out such rubbish.?”
This book does not change that question
••••
JON CLARKE-KENT. SUPERSLEUTH
In this case he has promoted himself to Detective. He becomes determined to Solve the Case Himself.
“From the very first moment I arrived in Praia da Luz that May morning in 2007, my overbearing [sic] drive was to solve the mystery and find young Maddie.”
“We went straight down to investigate and, not for the first time, I genuinely believed we might have been close to solving the mystery.”
“But it didn’t solve the mystery of Maddie.”
And then he imputes this motive to others. Writing of Robert Murat he says
“given he was a local expat, and would, understandably, want to try and solve the crime” [Try TO is better]
Murat was there trying to help the Police, the PJ, in their investigation, not to “solve the crime”.
Murat would, as almost everyone else would, want the ‘crime’ to be solved. But not to do it himself, singlehanded.
Might it be that Clarke’s eagerness to frame Murat was to remove him as a potential challenge to himself ? [See Chapter 42, The framing of Robert Murat]
Later he clearly gets worried and frustrated that his glory is about to be snatched away, first by Lori Campbell –
“By the time I woke up it was all over the national news networks and Sky reporter Ian Woods was reporting live from outside Murat’s home. It looked like a massive breakthrough so it was frustrating that despite Lori and I [sic] appearing to have almost cracked the case, I was in Spain. I could only flick from channel to channel as Lori appeared on Portuguese and British TV, explaining her theories.”
and later by the makers of the Netflix documentary –
“I wondered what the filmmakers might have found. Would there be anything groundbreaking? Would it solve the crime of the century?”
Clarke’s histrionic performances in that film may be another manifestation of his wish to feel ‘important’ in the scheme of things, so that when whatever happened is finally determined his name will be forever associated with that determination.
There is however an obvious trap inherent in that approach. If, or more likely when it is determined that there was no Abduction, as is obvious to many who have studied the case from the first detectives at the scene onwards, and/or if it becomes apparent that Christian Brückner was not in any way involved, Clarke’s name may indeed be forever associated with the case, towards the top of the list of those totally duped and deceived by the “official story” and who deliberately and wilfully ignored the clear evidence available to them because it conflicted with their own pre-judged ‘Belief’.
He will not be able to argue that he was independent and disinterested [in the correct use of that word],
and was merely reporting on events as they unfolded before him.
His plaintive whimper that he is merely one the crowd neither convinces nor excuses.
“There were lots of whispers and conjecture, but I can honestly say that not one reporter, at that stage, considered for a second that the family might in any way be involved.”
****
NONSENSE ON STILTS
We now come to one of the most astonishing, ludicrous, and seriously libellous claims we have read so far.
Clarke’s claim that Madeleine’s DNA was “PLANTED” in the hire car.
“We will also look at credible claims that Maddie’s DNA might have been planted in a hire car the McCanns had hired three weeks AFTER she had vanished,…”. p. 17
The fact that he doesn’t return to the issue, neither ‘looks at the … claims’ nor references them points to this being another malicious invention on his part.
[Dr Amaral and his legal team have been made aware of this gross Libel.]
“So desperate was Amaral to get a win, I now wonder if it was possible that the police even planted Maddie’s DNA in the rental car the family had hired from Europcar a month after she went missing.” p.83
Just chew that over for a moment.
Clarke is alleging, albeit trying to keep out of serious trouble by using the words “might” and “wonder”, that DCI Amaral conspired with others to plant evidence in the form of Madeleine’s DNA in the hire car, in order to obtain a wrongful conviction and false imprisonment of one or both of the parents.
Even the most superficial knowledge of this case will tell you that there was no uncontaminated comparison DNA of Madeleine found in the apartment, and that GM had to return to Rothley to bring a pillowcase, which is said to have had sufficient cellular material for her DNA profile to be established.
“It was widely reported that the father returned home to Rothley in mid-May 2007 to obtain a pillowcase from her bed. For some reason there was no toothbrush, no hairbrush, no clothing nor any other object exclusive to the child while on holiday from which a profile could be obtained.
It would also seem that there was no toothbrush nor hairbrush available in Rothley, either.” REF 2
“It was widely reported that the father returned home to Rothley in mid-May 2007 to obtain a pillowcase from her bed. For some reason there was no toothbrush, no hairbrush, no clothing nor any other object exclusive to the child while on holiday from which a profile could be obtained.
It would also seem that there was no toothbrush nor hairbrush available in Rothley, either.” REF 2
This is in fact the trip which coincided with the release of the forged Pool Photo, GM departed 20th May, returned with Mitchell 22nd May, sister PM also arrived on 22/5, photo was sent to APF on 23/5 and released into the public domain on 24/5 with the exhortion to ”look at the time”, clearly an instruction to look at the date.
It was that total absence of any forensic evidence of any kind including Madeleine’s DNA which raised one of the very many early Red Flags in the investigation, leading to the suggestion that the whole apartment had been deep-cleaned during the week to remove all traces of blood and bodily fluids and any cellular material.
There is therefore a vanishingly small amount of Madeleine’s DNA available, and it would be confined to the items sent for screening.
The suggestion that the PJ, under the command of DCI Amaral would wait until the McCanns hired a car 28 days later just before they went to Rome, and then ‘plant’ Madeline’s DNA in it, specifically in the wheel well, in the boot and on the key fob is, with respect, so utterly ludicrous as to render worthless almost everything else Clarke may have to say about this case.
The dogs did not alert to DNA. Dogs cannot detect DNA. That is an elementary and fundamental lack of understanding of one of the most important issues in this case.
They alerted to Human cadaverine, a chemical formed by putrefaction with the formula NH2(CH2)5NH2 which does not contain DNA, and to Human blood, which contains very little. [Only white blood cells – leucocytes – contain DNA. Red corpuscles have no nucleus and therefore no DNA – which is why they are not called ‘cells’]
The Scenes of Crime officers collect specimens, their colleagues in Forensic Science laboratories search for, isolate and identify DNA within the nuclei of the leucocytes or within, for example, cells from a hair follicle. The mouth swab we are familiar with from modern Police dramas collects cells from the mucosa of the cheek. Cells, each with a nucleus containing DNA.
DNA is not something you can carry round in a convenient spray, or on a swab in a jiffy bag ready to smear on the vehicle of anyone you want to ‘set up’.
But Clarke is determined that he is right, and pours scorn on any evidence which does not fit his preconception.
“… and nothing has come close to changing my view. Not even the 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. Some of their explosive findings might well have some critical relevance today, as we shall see.”
“So-called evidence”, “allegedly scented her body and blood”
It is difficult to know where to begin with sneering nonsense of that sort, or whether even to try.
I will observe that yet again Clarke falls into the very trap the McCanns are determined he should avoid as he incriminates them even more than do the actual facts.
The dogs alerted to Human Blood and Human Cadaverine. The McCanns specifically deny it was Madeleine’s, and came up with a list of possibilities of varying absurdity – from a previous tenant’s having cut himself badly whilst shaving and then wandering round the apartment including behind the sofa all the time dripping blood onto the floor tiles, to the now legendary and unforgettable Kamikaze mosquitos which having drunk from a human flew so fast and so erratically they smashed themselves into the wall behind the sofa leaving drops of blood as they burst on impact. [This is not a phenomenon known to reputable conventional science]
As Jane Tanner once notoriously said “I am not making this up”.
But Clarke says the dogs allegedly scented HER body and blood. And as a Geography graduate he will clearly know better than dog handlers, seasoned detectives, Scenes of Crime operatives and forensic scientists.
****
MORE NONSENSE
“However, when I opened the boot I noted that the spare tyre was still in place and out of curiosity I lifted it out of position to see if anything was underneath … and there standing out like a sore thumb was a pair of surgical scissors, that I later brought up with the prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters, with him scoffing ‘what would I be expecting to find on it?’ I might as well have replied, ‘DNA of Maddie’s’, and had there been gaffer tape and a mask, we could have been in the realms of a Sopranos episode.”
Clarke has no German and is therefore unable to ask about what the scissors might represent, and may therefore be totally and blissfully secure in his own ignorance of German Traffic Law which makes compulsory the carrying of a First Aid kit in a motor vehicle. With Teutonic efficiency it further specifies exactly what must be in it. It must include by law, ”Scissors DIN 58279 - B 190”. These are blunt ended ‘Lister’ scissors, with angled blades to allow them to push the lower blade with the flattened end under restrictive clothing, a tight seat belt or a dressing to cut it open.
Like this. These are modern and have the Plastic handle
Like this. These are modern and have the Plastic handle
This is the Kit provided in a BMW Roadster
And this one of the cheaper versions on sale.
Neatly packed into a small black plastic box, designed to
fit in the wheel well ‘inside’ the spare wheel.
fit in the wheel well ‘inside’ the spare wheel.
There is a small black plastic box visible on the ground under the boot of the Twingo. It is highly likely this is the First Aid box, out of which the children who did exactly what Clarke did – opened the boot and removed the spare wheel – before throwing stones at the car to break its windows, and using their BB and airguns to make the small visible dents in the bodywork, and then removing and playing with the bandages and other contents.
And yet Clarke, fount of all knowledge on things German, sneers at the State Prosecutor for not taking seriously a pair of scissors.
“…and there standing out like a sore thumb was a pair of surgical scissors, that I later brought up with the prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters, with him scoffing ‘what would I be expecting to find on it?’ I might as well have replied, ‘DNA of Maddie’s’, and had there been gaffer tape and a mask, we could have been in the realms of a Sopranos episode.”
****
DOGS , POLICE, – AND MORE SNEERING
You will notice the dog vans, the dog handlers, the dogs, the reporters milling around close to the stairwell, the groups of Police officers, and general bustle of activity clearly apparent before the McCanns are ushered out and taken away by car. If you scroll back in one of the videos you will see Clarke staring at the dog van and toward the unmarked and intact shutters after shaking hands with the GNR officer.
Despite knowing full well that this is in the public domain and can be viewed free by the entire world, Clarke insists there were very few Police around, no journalists and for reasons entirely of his own – no dogs,
“I was shocked to see some sniffer dogs making an appearance later on that afternoon, some 18 hours after the child had gone missing.”
“Among the information I filed was the arrival of the sniffer dogs at around 4pm.”
This is again in direct contradiction to what Kate McCann recorded in her autobiography, and therefore Clarke has no choice but to attempt to negate what she said.
“At the time, I didn’t know if they had been there the night before (in Kate McCann’s book Madeleine: Our Daughter’s Disappearance and the Continuing Search for Her, she insists they had two dogs brought in to track the surrounding area at around 2am the night Maddie went missing), but it struck me as tardy to bring them into the actual apartment.”
Look at the wording of that.
He does not say “At the time, I didn’t know THAT they had been there the night before..” which would amount to an admission that he had been wrong and a correction of an important detail.
He says “At the time, I didn’t know IF they had been there the night before . . “ and then goes on to sneer at Kate McCann’s clear recollection implying that he is right and Kate is wrong. “she insists” being code for “She is lying”.
We see the use of the term elsewhere.
Gamble “insists” that the Madeleine webpage was not set up on 30th April.
Tanner “insists” that she is not lying about her sighting “I’m not making this up, you know”
Clarke “insists” there were no dogs until 4pm. Kate “insists” they were there from 2am.
Clarke’ seems incapable of stopping or of moderating his language and continues with this abject nonsense.
“I walked inside the open front door and bumped straight into the McCanns, who were heading off to the police station in nearby Lagos to make an official missing persons statement. . .
It was clear they couldn’t hang around and needed to go and get the local police force to actually give a damn, for it was apparent right from the start that they really didn’t care very much. This was obvious from the shortage of officers on hand. There were two local bobbies on duty, but the side of the house was unguarded and life in the resort was going on as normal.”
p.24
The facts, such as they are can be determined from Kate McCann’s autobiography –
“Having moved out of apartment 5A . . . It was about 10am by the time a couple of PJ officers turned up. (One of them, in his thirties, tall and well built, I thought of for ages simply as John. I’m not sure he ever gave us his name, but later – much later – we found out that it was João Carlos.) 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.”
Readers will note the clear statement that the McCanns were NOT EVEN IN apartment 5A, the absence of any reference to Clarke, the fact the PJ were doing the organising, and that very obviously the McCanns were NOT trying to get a local police force to “give a damn”.
Clarke’s version is so ridiculous, so far removed from objective reality, and so divorced from any normal concept of decency and truth that it must be listed as yet another LIE.
****
STILL MORE NONSENSE AND MISINFORMATION
“… exposés that have begun to finally turn the Portuguese public away from the belief that the McCanns killed their own daughter. Saying that, Sandra herself was convinced of it, at one point, and even directly accused them in a famous live TV broadcast soon after their arrests.” p.28
“I was back in Ronda with my family when Murat got arrested.” p.49
“Sergey Malinka was arrested two days later” p.60
For the record, and so that everyone shall understand NO PERSON WAS ARRESTED IN THIS CASE.
Several were questioned, some of them ‘Under Caution’, known as “arguido” status which gives the person certain legal rights. But no one was Arrested and subsequently detained in a cell, or bailed.
That is simply wrong. Profoundly wrong. Many of Clarke’s Sun readers will know the difference between Arrest and being interviewed under caution at a Police station.
Why he persists in this untruth is unknown. Having done 14 years of “tireless research” he surely cannot genuinely believe it, and if he does not it must qualify as a LIE.
****
A VERY ODD USE OF WORDS
“She even provided the police with the phone number that her ‘friend’ Christian had called her on during the drive. A pay-as-you-go number (915 078 040), not entirely dissimilar to the one used outside the Ocean Club the night that Maddie disappeared in May that year. In further questioning, however, she insisted Christian was in Germany at the time of the call and was still there ten days later.”
This must rank as one of Clarke’s more bizarre sentences. Is he using Not entirely dissimilar to mean Exactly the same ?
If so it is a strangely and singularly inappropriate use of the figure of speech – Litotes – “An ironic understatement in which an affirmative is expressed by the negative of its contrary”
Or does the number in fact differ, perhaps by only one or two digits. If so, it is emphatically NOT the same number and this entire paragraph is redundant. It’s only purpose can be to attempt to fill in the enormous gaps in the actual evidence by inventing or twisting other things to fit.
****
DELIBERATE FALSEHOODS IN THE PRESS
In the same article in The SUN, dated 27 August 2021 Clarke states REF 2
“I believe the cash Christian B used to buy the motorhome found in the box factory came from a burglary in Portugal.
His former girlfriend used inside knowledge to help Christian B steal €100,000 from a family where she worked as a babysitter.
She has been interviewed three times about her relationship with Christian B and prosecutor Wolters confirmed he has not ruled out charging her in connection with the 100,000-euro theft.”
The burglary was in November 2007
Brückner owned the vehicle in March 2007 (Dieter Fehlinger p.111) , and was seen with it at the Orgiva festival in May/June 2007 by Michael “Micha” Tatschl. (p.146)
Has Clarke just made an innocent silly mistake during his tireless research ?
Well no. This was quite deliberate.
In the book, which was published the next month and must have gone for printing and binding a long time before the article, Clarke says of an interview with H. Wolters on 21 June 2021
“When I later returned to the subject of Nicole and asked him about the claims that she and Brueckner were involved in the robbery of the two Portuguese women of 100,000 euros, in Praia da Gale, he confirmed he knew about the case and added, ‘Maybe that’s where the money came from for the Winnebago.’ I didn’t say that it was most likely bought around six months earlier, but maybe he was right. After all, he was the prosecutor working on the case for three years. Maybe Christian had bought the ‘Winnebago’, or Tiffin Allegro, a few months later. Pushing him on the subject of the robbery, he said the German police ‘certainly have their eyes on this theft of 100,000 euros.’ Note, he said ‘have’ not ‘had’.”
Elsewhere in the book he says giving evidence from another character –
“Yet a year later he told me that he ‘mostly slept in the Winnebago’, which Bischof actually helped him purchase from a computer at his house in the Spring of 2007. He couldn’t recall the exact date.” p.223
The conclusion is clear.
Clarke wrote the article in his own paper then sold it to the Sun, and other Tabloids KNOWING it contained false information.
In common parlance, he LIED
****
PROTECTIVE OF HIS OWN FAMILY ?
The reality is slightly different. Readers must draw their own conclusions about what this says about his character.
In this book Clarke makes a rather pathetic attempt to protect the family by giving them false names, but makes them very similar to the real ones, in one case by adding only one letter.
And then in a piece he clearly wrote at a different time and which appears in a different place in the book, he uses the real familial pet-name for his wife, which gives the game away.
It was not always so. He has previously included them all in a self-congratulatory piece in the Telegraph about his rebuilding of the farmhouse bought with the dirty money from the Kidman libel scandal.
The full correct names are still there, as they are on several Facebook and trip advisor pages, and can still be found if anyone is even remotely interested.
But in this book he then goes on to confess to having abandoned them all. He uses the normal euphemisms men like him do on such occasion “we had briefly separated for a few months”, but it amounts to the same thing. He walked out and left them.
The strange thing is that there was absolutely no need to do so. The context is someone calling at the house, and finding neither parent there, just the children being perfectly properly looked after by a friend,
so “I wasn’t at home” or “we weren’t at home” would have been quite sufficient.
We did not need to know; did not want to know about their marital problems and his abandonment.
Is he proud of it ? If not, why tell the world ?
And whilst we are on the subject of photos supporting libellous allegations to make money . . .
What did Clarke DO during those “few months” he was free of his wife and children ?
He has a good car, money, speaks Spanish, is – I am reliably informed – well built and not altogether ‘repellent in aspect’, and would probably scrub-up well. He has a fund of stories about disasters, crimes and criminals to relate, and I have little doubt is a good raconteur.
Did he live as a Trappist Monk ? Or did he return to what he describes as “the fleshpots and bling of the Costa del Sol,” trip the light fantastic and do what most married men do who abandon their wives and families when they get Seven-year-itch.
In case anyone is offended by this train of thought the book itself contains two photos of Clarke with his arm round the waists of two different MEN.
****
There is more, much more. But not for today.
REFS
1 
2 from “Madeleine Beth McCann. A Mystery Story”, by Albert Moisiu
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AlbyM_Books.htm
3 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15986828/madeleine-mccann-prime-suspect-lair-shallow-grave/
Videos of the scene long before and when Clarke arrived, showing dogs, dozens of Police officers, police vehicles, at least six journalists including another British one, unbroken and not-smashed shutters, the taped off Apartment and much more, may be found at
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-around-the-ocean-club-apartments-in-pria-news-footage/487715446
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-of-tourists-outside-the-ocean-club-news-footage/649708440
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-of-the-beach-and-ocean-at-praia-da-luz-news-footage/649700450
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-of-police-searching-the-exterior-of-the-news-footage/649707852
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-of-police-and-members-of-the-public-news-footage/649708278
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-of-police-searching-the-grounds-of-the-news-footage/649701232
To access the Netfllix documentary
netflix disappearance of madeleine mccann - Google Search
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AlbyM_Books.htm
3 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15986828/madeleine-mccann-prime-suspect-lair-shallow-grave/
Videos of the scene long before and when Clarke arrived, showing dogs, dozens of Police officers, police vehicles, at least six journalists including another British one, unbroken and not-smashed shutters, the taped off Apartment and much more, may be found at
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-around-the-ocean-club-apartments-in-pria-news-footage/487715446
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-of-tourists-outside-the-ocean-club-news-footage/649708440
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-of-the-beach-and-ocean-at-praia-da-luz-news-footage/649700450
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-of-police-searching-the-exterior-of-the-news-footage/649707852
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-of-police-and-members-of-the-public-news-footage/649708278
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-of-police-searching-the-grounds-of-the-news-footage/649701232
To access the Netfllix documentary
netflix disappearance of madeleine mccann - Google Search
No comments:
Post a Comment