PeterMac's analysis of Jon Clarke's book: 'My Search for Madeleine'

 

All chapters contained within this blog have been tirelessly researched and written by retired Police Superintendent PeterMac and copied over from his FREE e-book: 'What really happened to Madeleine McCann?'  which he has been working on for the past fourteen years.

https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/

'My Search for Madeleine' - Jon Clarke. Mopping up the mess

 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

Clarke has successively described himself as a ‘stringer’, an editor, a journalist and an Investigative Journalist. In this case he is not content to report or to investigate before reporting.

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.

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