PeterMac's FREE ebook: Two new chapters coming up this weekend - not to be missed!

crusader wrote:Was there nothing written about Madeleine in Clarke's paper at all during the 6 months Clarke was working for other newspapers.?

mande1270 wrote:

Verdi wrote:

mande1270 wrote:

According to records, sunrise in Portugal in late April early May is around 06:20H - consistent with Clarke's past wavering.

what does the sunrise time in Portugal have to do with the use of the word? 

I thought it was you emphasizing use of the word, implying confirmation of a 01:30 telephone call.  Apologies if I misunderstood

I wrote quite a long reply on this thread yesterday but unfortunately (for me) my computer crashed when in the process of posting - I lost the whole lot.  In addition another post of mine 'disappeared' after sending, now you see it now you don't!

My response was primarily based on the inference of the word/exclamation 'mah', it stuck in my mind as I had to google, the word/expression not being familiar to me.  I thought it was you who first used it in your lengthy first post in response to my comment and now that seems to have disappeared so perhaps I was mistaken.

Please be assured, I don't dismiss, 'mah', anything without providing an explanation as to my reasoning.  Nor do any other more active members here on CMOMM so I respectfully ask that you don't dismiss the opinion of others here so readily because they don't agree with your viewpoint.  We are all researchers in our own way, CMOMM doesn't promote a group + researchers definition, we are all equal playing a part, there is no them and us!

It would appear you registered with CMOMM to defend your extensive research on the subject of Jon Clarke of the Olive Press, no one can fault you for doing that, I'm sure all those working with you fully endorse and appreciate your commendable efforts but again, we are all different and view life differently, thank goodness.  Nothing would be gained if we all agreed on every subject under the sun.

I don't intend to try and re-write my lost post, nor to again explain my opinion of Jon Clarke - suffice to say, I just don't think he's worthy of too much attention. Aside from perhaps a degree of ridicule.

Your research appears to be based on a lot of supposition, character analysis and third hand information scattered across media sources.  That's fine, who knows what you might uncover and I wish you well with your research project but somehow I think this a classic case of 2 + 2 = 5.

As I've already said, there are so many misfits embroiled in the case of missing Madeleine McCann, not only from the journalistic/media world but politicians, police former and current, medics - even friends and family?  Why single out Jon Clarke?

I think it very unlikely anyone telephoned Jon Clarke at a time that could throw suspicion over his prior knowledge of events in Praia da Luz or involvement, it seems to me he was just another journalist rushing to be the first at the crime scene.  He might be the editor of a successful [sic] ex-pat news organ but a key player in the mystery of a missing child?  I doubt it!  There are far more influential characters of interest in the complete cover-up of Madeleine McCann.

As an aside, the Telegraph article showing the publishing time of 12:01 is a default position - the myth of being the time the article went to press continues to be propagated to this day.  Confirmation of this fact can be easily researched.  If you refer back to the PJ files and other documented material, it's clear to see that informing the press back in the UK was a priority for the McCanns and their holiday group.  Such news would understandably create pandemonium for the media - telephones must have been buzzing non-stop for the first 24+ hours.

Excuse my manners - !

Onwards and upwards!

could you be anymore insulting? now i realise why I did not join the forum sooner.

PeterMac wrote:1:30 am
That same night
9am
9:30am
9:45 - 10;15am
10:45am
11:45am
noon
later that day
.....
take your pick.  He has said them all, and they are in print and saved.

The chapter has been circulated in English, Portuguese and German to all the usual suspects, most of whom have opened the email already.  The wheels are in motion.

Chambers wrote:

PeterMac wrote:1:30 am
That same night
9am
9:30am
9:45 - 10;15am
10:45am
11:45am
noon
later that day
.....
take your pick.  He has said them all, and they are in print and saved.

The chapter has been circulated in English, Portuguese and German to all the usual suspects, most of whom have opened the email already.  The wheels are in motion.

I can't see the relevance of this man or any of the iterations of his account. The only agenda he's pushing is his own and changes his story in response to the zeitgeist.

PeterMac wrote:YOU SAY :  I don't intend to try and re-write my lost post, nor to again explain my opinion of Jon Clarke - suffice to say, I just don't think he's worthy of too much attention. Aside from perhaps a degree of ridicule.

There are those of us who always look closely at the last person to see her alive.
GM tried to dump that on MO, but he had the sense to get out of that trap by changing his official story to say he didn't turn his head to the left and therefore didn't actually see Madeleine, which is why this was left out of the second Version of the Truth timeline

In exactly the same way we focus on the first person at the scene.  It is well known that arsonists are very usually in the crowd looking on.   In other situations people involved will often volunteer to help with the searching, or talking to 'witnesses' or get themselves deeply embedded in the enquiry.

THEREFORE focussing on Clarke who insists and maintains he was the First / only / first British journalist at the scene, and puts his time of arrival variously as later that day / noon / 11:45 / 10:45 / 9:45-10:15 / 9:30 . . .  and now early hours of the morning / later that same night / 1:30 AM  is, with respect, an important part of unravelling the story.

There are those who think that it embeds Clarke deep within the organisation and promulgation of the "official story" which he caused to be published across the Sun, Daily Mail and watched and profited hugely as it was syndicated to the gutter press of the world.  He did this for SIX MONTHS before he wrote a single article in his own newspaper.

His well recorded history of invented 'sightings' or of stories about 'sightings which he had followed up and found to be nonsense, published at exact points which gave the impression that their timing was to divert attention from something else embarrassing to TM, leads one further to suspect his involvement.

It is possible that he is a "useful Idiot" and yet as a not unintelligent journalist he will be aware of being manipulated against his will or without his knowledge.  That is therefore less likely than his acting under instruction.

Jill Havern wrote:

Chambers wrote:

PeterMac wrote:1:30 am
That same night
9am
9:30am
9:45 - 10;15am
10:45am
11:45am
noon
later that day
.....
take your pick.  He has said them all, and they are in print and saved.

The chapter has been circulated in English, Portuguese and German to all the usual suspects, most of whom have opened the email already.  The wheels are in motion.

I can't see the relevance of this man or any of the iterations of his account. The only agenda he's pushing is his own and changes his story in response to the zeitgeist.

PeterMac has already explained "the relevance of this man and the iterations of his account":

PeterMac wrote:YOU SAY :  I don't intend to try and re-write my lost post, nor to again explain my opinion of Jon Clarke - suffice to say, I just don't think he's worthy of too much attention. Aside from perhaps a degree of ridicule.

There are those of us who always look closely at the last person to see her alive.
GM tried to dump that on MO, but he had the sense to get out of that trap by changing his official story to say he didn't turn his head to the left and therefore didn't actually see Madeleine, which is why this was left out of the second Version of the Truth timeline

In exactly the same way we focus on the first person at the scene.  It is well known that arsonists are very usually in the crowd looking on.   In other situations people involved will often volunteer to help with the searching, or talking to 'witnesses' or get themselves deeply embedded in the enquiry.

THEREFORE focussing on Clarke who insists and maintains he was the First / only / first British journalist at the scene, and puts his time of arrival variously as later that day / noon / 11:45 / 10:45 / 9:45-10:15 / 9:30 . . .  and now early hours of the morning / later that same night / 1:30 AM  is, with respect, an important part of unravelling the story.

There are those who think that it embeds Clarke deep within the organisation and promulgation of the "official story" which he caused to be published across the Sun, Daily Mail and watched and profited hugely as it was syndicated to the gutter press of the world.  He did this for SIX MONTHS before he wrote a single article in his own newspaper.

His well recorded history of invented 'sightings' or of stories about 'sightings which he had followed up and found to be nonsense, published at exact points which gave the impression that their timing was to divert attention from something else embarrassing to TM, leads one further to suspect his involvement.

It is possible that he is a "useful Idiot" and yet as a not unintelligent journalist he will be aware of being manipulated against his will or without his knowledge.  That is therefore less likely than his acting under instruction.

So if Peter has established that Jon wasn't first journalist on the scene, then why the continued pursuit of a man whose only 'crime', for want of a better word, is embellishment of the truth for personal gain?
He's no paid shill, or 'acting under instruction', he's been hawking his latest attempt at a book at the WRVS in Luz ffs. He's a jobbing journo who was posted to the crime of the century and has had his snout in the trough from the get go. In my opinion.

The nutters are now trying to implicate Clarke as a smoking gun or something!

Chambers wrote:
So if Peter has established that Jon wasn't first journalist on the scene, then why the continued pursuit of a man whose only 'crime', for want of a better word, is embellishment of the truth for personal gain?
He's no paid shill, or 'acting under instruction', he's been hawking his latest attempt at a book at the WRVS in Luz ffs. He's a jobbing journo who was posted to the crime of the century and has had his snout in the trough from the get go. In my opinion.

mande1270 wrote:

So if Peter has established that Jon wasn't first journalist on the scene, then why the continued pursuit of a man whose only 'crime', for want of a better word, is embellishment of the truth for personal gain?
He's no paid shill, or 'acting under instruction', he's been hawking his latest attempt at a book at the WRVS in Luz ffs. He's a jobbing journo who was posted to the crime of the century and has had his snout in the trough from the get go. In my opinion.

your question aside, which I'm going to refrain from answering, I might be a conspiracy theorist here, but your recent joining of this forum, coinciding with your style of replies, and the recent copying of screenshots from this forum to another, not to mention the berating and outright slander of people from this forum and their viewpoints, tell a rather telling story.


I also notice that my recent first post evoked a trolling of Facebook to see who I was, and I was then labelled 'another myth spewer' not to mention the usual honour of being called a troll.


All rather coincidental, and not something im inclined to think is coincidence. Unlike you I have nothing to hide, hence my user name reflects my name and I can be easily looked up on Facebook, where you will find nothing, not a former plod, or another blonk lawyer., or another, whats that word your forum uses for people who think contrary to the popular media theory. Ah yes 'Haverns'.


I will point you in the direction of the definition of an internet troll. 


"An internet troll is someone who makes intentionally inflammatory, rude, or upsetting statements online to elicit strong emotional responses in people or to steer the conversation off-topic."


Now, not for me to judge, what you do on your own time and forum is your concern, but note the use of the word intentionally. I am sure you will deny deny deny as is the common practice, and maybe the members of this forum 'wash over their heads the various points of slander that I read recently, and maybe I won't take your trolling of my personal facebook posts as an affront, I will however choose to not answer your questions that although veiled as new member innocence or playing devils advocate, are a poor attempt to hide your obvious intentions, as well as your identity. Now toddle off back to your forum and ill take note of the replies that will fill the boards for the next day or so, unlike you I don't need to use fruitful or slanderous language to make a point, you do know by the way that the moment you use that language, your point is lost right? even if it did contain something of note. 

The nutters are now trying to implicate Clarke as a smoking gun or something!

or something!, if your going to state facts on your forum, then at least try and be clear, precise and specific. anyone can spout their mouth off, having something to back it up requires a little bit more upstairs.

CaKeLoveR wrote:Martin Brunt 'excellent'  -