Showing posts with label Jon Clarke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jon Clarke. Show all posts

Jon Clarke Through the Looking Glass: “Why sometimes I believe six impossible things before breakfast”.

 My Search for Madeleine” - Jon Clarke, 2021


Jon Clarke Through the Looking Glass
“Why sometimes I believe six impossible things before breakfast”.

Some impossible things to believe


Everyone understands that multiple witnesses to an event will produce slightly different multiple versions differing in small particulars, according to their detailed recollection and understanding of the event at the time.

In the McCann parallel universe we have become familiar with the phenomenon of single witnesses producing multiple and contradictory statements.

•   we have curtains pulled wide open – AND drawn tight closed
•   we have shutters smashed, forced and jemmied – AND totally unmarked
•   we have a photo taken in hot bright sunshine – on a cold and overcast day
•   we have a man in the apartment for 30 seconds – AND for 30 minutes
•   we have a man using the locked front door – AND the unlocked patio door
•   we have people without watches - remembering they stood up at 9:04 ‘by his watch’

In ‘Alice through the Looking Glass’, The Red Queen exclaims “Why sometimes I believe six impossible things before breakfast”.
For most people that is fantasy.     For Clarke it is clearly a daily reality.

Jon Clarke. Press owner, Editor, self-proclaimed investigative journalist and Super-sleuth, is clearly in a league of his own. He has single-handedly produced no fewer than eight separate versions – so far discovered – of one event, every one of them either impossible or demonstrably false by application of the most basic logic and examination of contemporaneous video film and photographs.

There are five separate details of his initial involvement which Clarke changes ad libitum.
•   Time of the initial phone call
•   Time of his arrival in PdL
•   Number of journalists present on his arrival
•   Entry to Apartment 5A
•   Speaking to the McCanns

And there are at least eight sources of ‘information’. Many are written by Clarke or were clearly under his editorial control. All are different.
•   Article Olive Press 2017. (OP17)
•   Article Olive Press 2019. (OP19)
•   Interview with Sandra Felguerias within the Netflix transcript. (SFIG)
•   Netflix publicity 2019. (NET19)
•   Netflix Documentary - transcript 2019. (NET-TRANS)
•   Article CLOSER Magazine 2020. (CLOSER)
•   Article BELLA Magazine 2021. (BELLA)
•   "My Search For Madeleine” - Jon Clarke 2021. (BOOK)

All are quoted in detail in the Appendix, with links and references, so there shall be absolutely NO DOUBT that what follows is an accurate record – of what we have been told.

Let us take each detail in order, and then rationalise and compare with the known facts in each case.

Time of the Phone call

OP17 – – – – 0715
OP19 – – – – 0700 - 0730
SFIG – – – – – 0700 - 0730
NET19
NET-TRANS – 0700 - 0730
CLOSER
BELLA
BOOK – – – – 15 minutes before he left, which was before 0700

Arrival in Praia da Luz

OP17 – – – – 1145. [if we assume that is Spanish time = 1045 Portuguese]
OP19
SFIG
NET19
NET-TRANS
CLOSER
BELLA

BOOK – – – – 0945 - 1015 local time (Portuguese)

Number of Journalists Present

OP17 – – – – Only reporter on the scene till late that evening, (apart from Kate/Kay Burley)
OP19 – – – – First Journalist on the scene
SFIG
NET19– – – – First UK Print journalist
NET-TRANS
CLOSER
 – – – One of the first journalists on the scene
BELLA
BOOK – – – – First British journalist on the scene

Entry to 5A

OP17– – – – – I was firstly able to walk into the apartment
OP19
SFIG
NET19
NET-TRANS
 – – – it [tape] went up and I looked in
CLOSER
BELLA
BOOK
 – – – – up the short flight of stairs to the apartment 5A . . .I walked inside the open front door

Speaking to the McCanns

OP17 – – – – in the apartment
OP19 – – – – as they were leaving
SFIG
NET19
NET-TRANS
 – – – as they were leaving; I think I tried to speak to them
CLOSER – – – – few hours after arriving met Gerry and Kate; later that day
BELLA – – – – – at a press conference that night
BOOK – – – – – in the apartment

It is important to examine some of these issues
ARRIVAL: We know that Clarke must have arrived in PdL around 0945 Portuguese time at the very latest to have been filmed watching the McCanns leaving in the police vehicles to go for their interviews, the departure timed roughly at 1000. So each one of his times is inaccurate.

PHONE CALL: On his own admission he stopped for a coffee and toast en route, and adding all the times together - (Ronda to coffee at Utrera, coffee etc, round the Seville ring road at peak time, then on to PdL) gives us about 4h 45m. Subtracting that and the half hour before that for the phone call gives 0430 UK time, 0530 Spanish time. Which means that then entire media circus, the Politicians and diplomatic must have been on full alert by 0330 BST, and that all his times are inaccurate.

NUMBER OF JOURNALISTS: Contemporaneous news film exists and is easily accessible, showing at least SIX journalists at the scene with Clarke clearly the most recent arrival. He is also seen speaking to, or in close proximity to, Len Port, a British ex-pat journalist who had been on the scene since 0830, and had been filmed walking the ground. Port has written a mature and measured account of the situation he found and as it developed through the morning.

ENTRY TO 5A. Despite Clarke’s frequent insistence that he entered and spoke to the McCanns in apartment 5A the scene was in fact taped off, there were police officers around to enforce it, Scenes of crime operatives were working inside, and crucially – the McCanns were not in 5AThey were simply not there. They had been moved out at 2am, the apartment secured for photographs and then locked up overnight. The McCanns were firstly in the Payne’s first floor apartment 5H and then by that evening were moved into the first floor 4G. It is for that reason that the McCanns emerged from the stairwell to go to the cars before being taken away, just as Clarke was filmed walking in the opposite direction past the group of police officers, the dog vans and the Scenes of crime operative. Following that he doubled back, crossed the road, and is filmed emerging from between parked cars to stand helplessly in the middle of the road as the cars drive past him.

SPEAKING TO THE MCCANNS. There is no question of Clarke’s having spoken to the McCanns in 5A, because they weren’t there.
Film mentioned above shows Clarke not speaking to them “as they left” in the cars, but simply standing in the road as they pass.
A few hours after arriving” can only mean after 2030, eleven hours after arriving, when they returned from Portimão. Kate McCann is very clear in her autobiography about what happened on their return, and it did not include being interviewed by any journalist, even if their minders and close friends had allowed it.
at a press conference that night” must refer to the torchlight reading of the Press statement by Gerry McCann at 2200 to coincide with the News Bulletins in the UK and elsewhere. The news-reel shows the statement, and then Gerry and Kate moving swiftly back into the shadow of the stairwell and the safety of their friends, family and the minders who had arrived during the day. It also shows that they took no questions and did not speak to anyone,.
Not even Clarke.

It is therefore considered highly unlikely that Jon Clarke spoke to the McCanns that day, or at all.
He has failed to identify a credible ‘window of opportunity’ for him to have done so. He has also failed to provide a verbatim, or even approximated record of any conversation or interview.

INTERESTING NOTE:
Even Martin Brunt, the highly experienced and trusted Crime Correspondent for Sky News, who was there for ten days did not manage to speak to them.      See Refs

14 years later the McCanns refused to speak to Clarke.   Book
They clearly want nothing to do with him. Mitchell gave him the message “It is thanks, but no thanks,”

To sum up,
Are any of Clarke’s “versions of the truth” true or credible ?
Phone call – NO
Arrival – NO
Journalists present – NO
Entry into 5A – NO
Speaking – NO

If there is another definitive version – the objective Truth, which fits the known facts AND the video and photographic evidence, then the world is waiting to hear it.
But for the moment we wait.

Journalists' Association, FAPE, handed down a Judgment against 'The Olive Press' and Jon Clarke for 'Maddie' article

In 2013 FAPE, the Federación de Asociaciones de Periodistas de España - the Spanish Journalists’ Association, handed down a judgment against “The Olive Press” and Jon Clarke for having published a long article entitled “Maddie? Yes, but not the one we were looking for...” and found it infringed Articles 4 and 13 of the FAPE Ethical Code for not having respected the right to personal and family privacy of M.A., a minor, and of her parents, Mr. L. A. and Mrs. R. E., and also did not bother to check the sources of the information.


FAPE Judgment against Olive Press 2013/82  

RESOLUCIÓN 2013/82  

http://www.comisiondequejas.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/82.pdf  

 

The judgment continues [my translation]. “In the reasoning of this resolution it states that the journalist has acted with remarkable flippancy and published a scandalous story based on very flimsy material. The information published in "The Olive Press" is an example of irresponsible sensationalism to attract the attention of the prospective reader. Its content is pure charlatanry, "gossip" in the language in which it has been written and in journalistic language “amarillismo", [sensationalist journalism] always reprehensible but much more when an innocent subject of the information can be endangered”  

 

amarillismo  translates as Yellow Journalism  


FAPE Resolucion 2013/82


La información publicada en “The Olive Press” es un ejemplo de sensacionalismo

irresponsable para atraer la atención del eventual lector. Su contenido es

charlatanería en estado puro, “gossip” en el idioma en el cual se ha escrito y en el

lenguaje periodístico “amarillismo “, siempre reprochable pero mucho más cuando se

puede poner en peligro al sujeto pasivo de la información que irrumpe

inesperadamente en el ámbito de la intimidad de la menor, una niña de ocho años,

sacándola a la luz pública con perjuicio de su estabilidad emocional e incluso con

riesgo para su integridad personal. 


[my translation]. “In the reasoning of this resolution it states that the journalist has acted with remarkable flippancy and published a scandalous story based on very flimsy material. The information published in "The Olive Press" is an example of irresponsible sensationalism to attract the attention of the prospective reader.   Its content is pure charlatanry, "gossip" in the language in which it has been written and in journalistic language “amarillismo", [sensationalist journalism]  always reprehensible but much more when an innocent subject of the information can be endangered”


VII.- RESOLUCIÓN

Teniendo en consideración los anteriores razonamientos de la ponencia, esta

Comisión de Arbitraje, Quejas y Deontología del periodismo ACUERDA que don Jon

Clarke, editor de “The Olive Press” y doña Wendy Williams, autora del reportaje

“Maddie? Yes … but not the right one” han infringido los arts. 4º y 13 del Código

Deontológico FAPE por no haber respetado el derecho a la intimidad personal y

familiar de Madeleine A., menor de edad, y de sus padres, el señor L. A. y la señora

R. E., ni haber cuidado de contrastar las fuentes de la información, no dándoles

además la oportunidad de ofrecer su propia versión sobre los hechos.

Madrid, 6 de noviembre de 2013


[my translation].   In 2013 FAPE, the Federación de Associationes de Periodistas de España - the Spanish Journalists’ Association, – “is agreed that Mr Jon Clarke, editor of “The Olive Press” and Wendy Williams, the author of the report, “Maddie? Yes, but not the one we were looking for . . .”  infringed Articles 4 and 13 of the FAPE Ethical Code for not having respected the right to personal and family privacy of M.A., a minor, and of her parents, Mr. L. A. and Mrs. R. E., and also neither bothered to check the sources of the information, nor gave them the opportunity to offer their own version of events.”

Madrid, 6 November 2013

“My search for Madeleine’. Jon Clarke - 2021 “The love of money is the root of all evil.” 1 Timothy 6:10


More story changes, more errors, more nonsense, more mistakes, but most importantly
MORE MONEY

In this and the following chapter I shall list and explain a number of issues in the book,
for example 
  • Money
  • Schoolboy Howlers
  • Changes in the story
  • Mistakes, errors, grossly negligent reporting, or downright lies
  • Deliberate Confusions
  • Nonsense - and libel
  • Inconsistencies
We shall also examine what the book reveals about Clarke’s personality, about his code of conduct, about his view of the world and the rights of others, about Integrity, Objectivity, Professional competence, Confidentiality, and Professional behaviour.

***
First permit me to explain the most disgusting and reprehensible episode to which Clarke has so far confessed.
It involves Money. Lots of it
I say the most disgusting and reprehensible, though it ranks alongside the Murat scandal as we shall see,
[see Chapter 43, The Framing of Robert Murat] and in both cases was clearly driven by Clarke’s naked greed without any regard to personal freedoms, dignity, privacy or respect for others.
We may take it as read that the facts did not come into it.
Are those strong words ? You decide.

In his book, at page 36/7 Clarke says
“The opportunity had arisen after an unexpected windfall while working on a feature about the movie, Cold Mountain, filmed in Romania and starring Jude Law and Nicole Kidman. I’d come across photographs of the leading actors ‘getting intimate’ at the wrap party. They dutifully made the front page of The Sun, paid for our trip to Spain and, by the time the story had been followed up by Hello! Magazine and the rest, had paid for a deposit on a stone farmhouse in Ronda.”

I’d come across . . . in other words Clarke did not take the photos. He wasn’t there. He either bought them or ‘acquired’ them in some other fashion, legal or not.
He then sold them to the papers he mentions, and very possibly wrote the editorial copy which accompanied them, since he was ‘working on a feature’ about the film. His quip “and the rest’ included his favourite Red Top – the Daily Mail, and indicates he was paid by others in the same journalistic swamp.

This all seems fairly normal gutter-press sensationalist and intrusive journalism until we follow up what then happened.

The story alleged a three month extramarital affair between the two, and further that Kidman had actively encouraged Law, who was at that time still married. The photos were included as “proof’.
It was of course, totally untrue, baseless and without foundation.
Kidman sued. She won. Substantial amounts in damages were awarded against the Sun and the Mail. The Sunday Telegraph which had been seduced into printing a version of the story made an unconditional apology.

The British director of the film, Anthony Minghella, was quoted as saying –
“it is all lies.”
“the "poisonous" stories circulating about the pair are in danger of thwarting Kidman's chances of winning an Oscar.”
“the party where the pair were reportedly pictured acting closer than friends was attended by some 30 of the cast.”
"Nobody seems to care about the facts getting in the way of the story.”
"There have been so many poisonous things written about Nicole recently."


REFS AND COPIES IN APPENDIX

Clarke’s photo and story caused the Sun to pay out, the Mail to pay out and the Telegraph to apologise,
but he STILL got enough money to buy a farmhouse in which he is perfectly happy for his wife and children to live, despite its eternal grubby and tainted origins. And he seems both proud of it, and happy to tell the world that it was he who inflicted such immense misery on Kidman and Law, and their respective families.

His wife is not unintelligent and must know the origins of the unexpected windfall of funds used to buy the house she now lives in, and the enormous damage her husband’s lies caused to another woman – like her, a mother – and to her children, not to mention to Law, who also has three children, and was married at the time.
Clarke claims to be protective of his own family.
Other people’s families, it seems, can be destroyed so long as it makes money for him.
She may one day care to reflect on his willingness to sacrifice a mother and her family for personal gain.
Clarke’s children may one day find out for themselves the depths to which their father will sink in the pursuit of personal gain in his ‘profession’.
It is all in the public domain. Google and the internet work in mysterious ways, and children grow up quickly.

Kidman donated her substantial damages to FARA, a charity for abandoned children in Romania.

Clarke kept his contaminated lucre and bought himself a farmhouse.

Lies – Damned Lies – And Jon Clarke

Over the 13 years and 3 months we have been following and analysing this dreadful case we have been variously disappointed, astonished, appalled and disgusted at the way the Media in general and the press in particular have failed to adopt their constitutional role as disinterested reporters of the known facts.

 

We learned to expect that Kandohla, a some-time gym friend of Kate McCann, would write drivel which simply churned out the ‘official story; that Lazzeri would publish nonsense; and that The Sun and other gutter-press tabloid red-tops would maintain a decade-plus long campaign of disinformation.

 

This is normal, and to an extent we have to accept it. A free press is free to publish what it chooses, and the alternative of having the press shackled by law, by ministerial edict or by libel lawyers is the first sign of tyranny.

 

In the internet age some of the press maintain ‘Comments’ columns where their editorial stance or the statements they make may be challenged or corrected.

 

The hope of all decent people is that one day the press will themselves start to behave decently, will report known facts and make clear what is no more than speculation and hearsay, and identify what is clearly fantasy.

The laws of Libel and in some cases the internal monitoring of the press by their own Professional body should act to prevent excess.

 

The position of Jon Clarke, editor and publisher and, it is believed, part owner of The Olive Press is altogether more worrying.  He operates in Spain, is not answerable to English legal system nor to the Press Association, and cares nothing for the law of Libel, as he clearly set out in banner headlines in his own paper.

[1]

Let us first explore what we do ‘know’

In previous chapters I showed, giving full and detailed references, how Clarke has changed his story over time. He has claimed –

• to have been phoned at 7:15am CEST (Spanish time) = 6:15am BST (Britain and Portugal)

• to have arrived, after a 4 hour car drive, in PdL at 10.45am (unclear which time zone applies here, since  neither fits the known facts. Spanish time allows him to have seen the McCanns leaving, – which is recorded on video –  but even that does not allow sufficient time for the journey). see Ch 32

• to have been the FIRST journalist at the scene – or alternatively

• to have been the ONLY journalist at the scene until late afternoon

• to have walked straight into Apartment 5A and to have spoken to the McCanns there – or alternatively

  to have found the apartment taped off and therefore NOT to have walked straight in, but to have spoken to the McCanns as they were leaving [to go Portimão for interview]   to have spoken to the McCanns in those early hours and so on. 

[2][3][4]

 

Many of these versions with some minor variations have been repeated in the years leading up to and then including the Netflix production.  Mercifully for seekers of the objective truth that same Netflix production included several pieces of contemporaneous video footage from the day in question recorded by the many News crews who were already at the scene with their many reporters and journalists and presenters, not to mention the many police, dog-handlers, dogs, forensic teams and a throng of others - when Clarke arrived. 

Those videos have been and remain available in the public domain, notably on You Tube, and can be double and cross checked by anyone with the will to do so, [including Libel lawyers]

I appended some still shots in Chapter 31 and 33 where I expose yet more of Clarke’s more egregious mendacity, [or in plain English disgraceful lies]  and provide the full references and the YouTube links

The clips and the fuller videos show conclusively that much of what Clarke said was simply untrue

[3]

For non-native speakers of English, let us conjugate the verb

                  Infinitive                                 To lie

                  Present indicative                 Clarke lies

                  Present continuous              Clarke is lying

                  Simple Past                            Clarke lied

                  Past Perfect                           Clarke has lied

                  Perfect continuous               Clarke was lying

                  Pluperfect                              Clarke had lied

                  Past imperfect                       Clarke used to lie

                  Future                                     Clarke will lie

                  Future perfect                       Clarke will have lied . . .

                                    and so on

 

But now yet another of Clarke’s “versions of the truth” has been exposed.


It comes from the magazine CLOSER, published by the Bauer Media Groupin Peterborough, who produce

at least 40 magazines, and have 51 radio channels.

This is from the on-line version at https://closeronline.co.uk/ and is BY KRISTINA BEANLAND | POSTED ON 11/06/2020

Jon Clarke - Olive Press: Lies and Videotape

Foreword

Nota Bene: After reading the article under discussion I contacted “The Olive Press”, asking for a retraction and an apology. I received neither acknowledgment nor reply

A week later I sent a repeat email.
This time Jon Clarke, publisher and editor replied, denying that anything was ‘libel’.
I sent a suggested form of words for the retraction and apology.
He replied repeating that they did not consider that there was any libel.


In view of this I believe I am entitled to assume that there is no reasonable prospect of a retraction, a correction, nor an apology.
The attitude of “The Olive Press” towards defamation may also be clear, as it was expressed in an article of November 2011, trumpeting under a 44-point-bold banner headline –
          WHY LIBEL IS NO BIG DEAL IN SPAIN                                                                   [1]