A short recap: A brief restatement of some of what we know

 A short re-cap.

A brief restatement of some of what we know.

An easy entry point for people new to the research and analysis. 

And above all a reminder to us all of why we are still here after 13 years.

First the known facts:

On Thursday 3rd May 2007 the world was told that a three-year-old British girl, Madeleine Beth McCann, had been abducted that evening from her bed in an unlocked apartment in Praia da Luz, a small seaside resort on the Algarve, Portugal.

Over the next 24 hours details were released for publication. Many of these were proven within a very short time to be false; others were so extraordinary as to be incapable either of proof or refutation.

Over the following weeks more stories and details were added, and eagerly seized on by the world’s media. Many of these have been shown to be false, and several are clearly deliberate fabrications.

This was spotted in the very early stages of the investigation by the GNP – The Portuguese National Police – and then by the PJ – the Polícia Judiciária, the Portuguese Criminal Investigation service.

British police were sent to assist the PJ with nationally accredited search experts and others. All came to the same conclusion: the story was not coherent; the “abduction” hypothesis was not credible.

In plain English – it did not hang together.

Bluntly – the more they looked, the less they found.

Several of the initial stories are characterised by their inaccuracy or impossibility

The shutters	were not	broken, forced, smashed or jemmied
The curtains	did not	“whoosh”
The apartment	could not	be watched from the tapas bar
The pool photo	could not	have been taken on Thursday 3rd May 2007
The tennis balls photo	was not	taken by Kate after mini-tennis
The waterslide	did not	even exist
The deep trench	was not	immediately outside the apartment
Jane Tanner	did not	see an abductor
Jon Clarke	did not	go into the apartment and speak to the parents

And so on for dozens more examples.

Every one of these lies has been exposed and picked over. In some cases we have the facts behind the falsehood; in others it is more difficult to see why the lies were told.

But every lie has a motive. Lies are told for a reason, often a very specific one:

Press Freedom: The Good, the Bad, and the VERY Ugly in Journalism

PRESS FREEDOM

The Good, the Bad, and the VERY Ugly in Journalism

A free press is one of the foundations on which modern ‘liberal’ democracy rests.

“ Freedom of speech ” has long been recognized as important “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington

We have become used to reading and hearing, and more recently actually seeing, proceedings in Parliament. Our Parliament. It was not always so.

Hansard, which publishes a verbatim but edited record of proceedings in the House, was founded only in 1771. Before that date only decisions had been reported, not the content of the debate, and to attempt to do so was punishable by both Houses. A commentary at the time refers to "the difficulties faced by independent newspapermen who . . . in varying degrees, attempted to educate the populace to the shortcomings of their rulers.” Hansard we know today began only in 1909.          

[1]

We have also become accustomed to access to a range of newspapers. We accept that each will have its own political agenda reflected in the leader article or evidenced by the general tone of the editorial and commentary.

There was a time when journalism was a respected profession. It was referred to as the 4th Estate, with a mission to hold the Establishment to account by reporting the truth and by fearlessly exposing corruption and deceit.

Thomas Carlyle attributed the origin of the term to Edmund Burke, who used it in a parliamentary debate in 1787 on the opening up of press reporting of the House of Commons of Great Britain

     "Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all”

[2]

Relatively quickly however, that importance and power began to corrupt. As Lord Acton observed in 1887 “Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely”

Oscar Wilde wrote in his 1891 pamphlet The Soul of Man under Socialism:

     "In old days men had the rack. Now they have the Press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it is very bad, and wrong, and demoralising. Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism."

Though he was also scathing about its purpose: “There is much to be said in favour of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.“ 

[3]

What are the gradations, the categories of truth and of truth telling?

Is truth indivisible? Can it have context or nuance?

Can you have your personal “version of the truth”?

Can it be placed onto a scale according to some level or quantum of truth or mendacity, or by assessing the spectrum of damage caused to individuals and to the freedom of us all?

And when that truth is reported, what then?
I have tried to fit it into a scale here.

(I use the word Truth to mean objective and provable fact, and I use Mendacity to mean deliberate, calculated falsehood, as opposed to error, mistake, misunderstanding, or misinterpretation.)

You may observe that I include a category not normally associated with Journalism, but I believe intimately concerned with Truth and Mendacity and able to influence freedom of speech. Libel Lawyers.

Let me try to develop this

Jon Clarke Entrenched Lies

Jon Clarke Entrenched Lies

First an Addendum to previous chapters

After publication of Chapter 31: Jon Clarke – Olive Press LIES and VIDEOTAPE
and Chapter 32: ON LIES AND CONSPIRACIES
I have been contacted by several people who made important and trenchant observations.

I now realise that I have fallen into my own logical trap. I presented some of the case as a choice. Often called the ‘black and white’ fallacy; false dichotomy or dilemma, or the either/or, it is fallacious because other possibilities may exist, but here I was clearly in error by suggesting that two statements by Jon Clarke were mutually exclusive.
This
“When I arrived at about 11.45am I was firstly able to walk into the apartment, where I introduced myself to the McCanns”
- Versus -
“I said hello to them as they were leaving and introduced myself to them as a reporter from the Mail, and they said “Hi”, and I think they may have also said “thanks for coming”.

I suggested it had to be one or the other, or neither, but not both.

But it is now more clear that in a real sense BOTH could be correct.
Ignore the nonsense about the apartment and times and places, and concentrate instead on the message Clarke is trying to impart.
It need not be the exact words he used. It may not even be any of the words he used, but he is clearly trying to convey information. To get a point across.

So let us roll the quotes together. [Note - this is my elision, Clarke is not on record as saying this]
** “I said hello and introduced myself to them as the reporter from the Mail, and told them I would do everything I could to help, and they said “Hi”, and I think they may have also said “Thanks for coming”. **

Does that sound feasible ? If so, then even more serious questions remain.

Does this imply that the McCanns knew that the Mail were sending a reporter, and were therefore not surprised by his arrival, even thanking him for coming ?

– – – – –

A second issue was also raised.
It is always useful to go back to the core material. It helps us keep our eye on the squirrel.