PeterMac's FREE e-book: What really happened to Madeleine McCann?

Chapter 25: How much of this is Fraud, and how much totally innocent?


In the accounts for 2008 the figure for setting up the website is given as £ 37,071 (Thirty seven THOUSAND).
A website, even of the complexity it now has, seven main pages, some with supplementary pages, and a Shop page, would cost a professional website master less than £ 2,000 (TWO thousand) to set up and to run for a year.

Source, Daily Mail, [1]
Note that the Professional fees for creating the “Fund”, which we assume refers to solicitors, Bates Wells Braithwaite, a top of the range firm, based in central London, amounts only to £ 36,070.
‘Accountants’ (Haysmacintyre ?) is shown separately, as £ 7,050
So we are asked to believe that a teenaged school leaver, in Ullapool, charged more than one and quarter times the average wage for Scotland, (£ 28,296 in 2008) [2] to produce a relatively simple web site, available off-the-peg.
Cost of a Large-Sized Website
Website costs increase considerably as you move up in scale. With multiple sections, 40 to 50 pages and lots of functionality, large websites are ideal for big companies or established online brands.  [3]
The website was created by Calum MacRea, a police officer’s son, then aged 18. [4]
An article in the Scottish ‘Sunday Herald’, reported that he had been designing websites “since he was 10”. He had allegedly been approached by Gerry’s sister, the egregious Philomena, previously his teacher, within four days of Madeleine’s being reported missing.
So what are the possibilities ?
1. Callum MacRae invoiced the “Fund” for £ 37,071. The accountants signed it off and he was paid this amount. If so, this is potentially fraudulent.
2. Callum McRae was paid no such amount, but it has been entered as “creative accounting”, and the actual cash has gone elsewhere. If so, then two further possibilities arise.
a. Haysmacintyre did not know and did not notice
b. Haysmacintyre DID know, but let it pass anyway
The first option suggests incompetence, the second - fraud.
3. Is there another option ? Is there a sensible explanation ? If so, I confess I cannot see what it might be.

REFS:
1 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1131284/Where-2m-gave-Madeleine-McCann-gone.html
2 http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12372742.Average_wages_in_Scotland_continue__to_grow/
3 http://webdesign.expertmarket.co.uk/how-much-does-website-cost
4 https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1465-calum-macrae-and-the-mccann-website

Post scriptum
To the above we have to add the strange dealings with criminal organisations and people posing as Private detective agencies, such as M3 and Halligen; the extremely suspicious way in which ALPHAIG was set up as a company some time after Mitchell had announced the contract; the lack of transparency of the “fund’ from its inception; the threats of action for defamation by the Solicitors and accountants when pertinent questions were raised; the sudden withdrawal by the accountants - apparently without having prepared a final account . . .
And so on
All very strange - as my grandmother would have said.

Chapter 26 : What do I think happened to Madeleine ?

Over the past decade I have looked at this case and dissected bits of it, trying to decide what parts of the story are credible and to distinguish them from what is frankly not, and to try to see which parts were pure fabrication.

So I am now prepared to rise to the challenge, and to present my “purported’ theory.

I thank all those who have led me to this point, but stress that this, and all the mistakes and inaccuracies which may be found are entirely mine.

I would hope that any inaccuracy or misinterpretation could be pointed out or explained, so I may revise my idea, as everyone should on being confronted with new evidence.


What do I think happened to Madeleine ?

On Saturday night she did not sleep - a combination of excitement and her documented habit of wandering into the parents’ room during the night

Discussion - Kate tells us this in her book, (p. 59) and there is evidence from the “Star Chart” in the Rothley house, and family members. Excitement and over-tiredness on the first day of a holiday is normal

On Sunday evening she and the twins were therefore all given a sedative with their documented ‘cup of tea and a biscuit’. The twins sleep. This continued during the week.

Discussion - Kate tells us in the book that she suspected sedation from the start. Both she and Fiona Payne are qualified anaesthetists; Kate specialised in paediatrics. Strangely neither report that they took any of the medically appropriate steps towards the twins on the night of 3/5/7, leading to a inference that both know exactly what had been given and therefore had no concerns.


Madeleine did not sleep well and during the evening got out of bed, went into the parent’s room, found they were not there, and climbed onto the sofa to look out of the window to see where they were.

Discussion - One of the early theories involved Madeleine ‘wandering off’. Even if those particular shutters had been closed she would not be aware of them, only of the curtains, and would have tried to look out. We were told definitively that Madeleine could not have opened the sliding doors, even though they were allegedly unlocked.

She fell down the back of the sofa, and because the gap was narrow and she was sleepy, was unable to break her fall with her hands. She may have struck her head or face first on the sill as she slipped forward. She landed head first on the terrazzo floor, and some time during the night died of a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage, with light bleeding from the ear and possibly the nose and mouth.

Discussion - The ‘Eeyore’ pyjamas were washed because of the “large brown stain” (p.63) and then dried and photographed on the blue sofa, but then they became confused about what they had said, and why they would have taken a photo of the pyjamas in the first place, and subsequently held them up at a news conference in Berlin on 6th June 2007, describing them as “the ones she was abducted in”. This was confirmed by uncle John McCann when he reported that Amelie had been dressed in the garments and had immediately identified them saying “Maddie’s jammies. Where is Maddie ?”

Bleeding would have been confined to some small leakage from an ear - possibly including cerebrospinal fluid, typical of brain damage - and from the mouth and nose, which stops once the heart stops.

The parents came back late, crept very quietly into their room and went to bed without checking the children

Discussion - There is evidence from other sources that on some nights the parents stayed out into the early hours, and in the book this is admitted (p.60)

In the morning they see the empty bed, and during the frantic search find Madeline’s body behind the sofa, by now stiff and cold and leaking bodily fluids.

In her grief Kate holds and cuddles the body tightly to herself, covering her own clothes and cuddle-cat in cadaverine, which is detected a long time later. She then stays with the twins in the bedroom, getting them dressed and ready, and cuddling them both, holding them all tight to her. Cadaverine is transferred to the red T shirt worn by Sean at this stage, which was alerted to later, and to whatever Amelie was wearing.

Meanwhile Gerry puts Madeleine’s little body into the blue Tennis bag, and places it under the bushes in the garden, so that it will not be seen by the cleaner - if she comes, nor by the twins.

Discussion - The little gate at the bottom of the steps keeps everyone out. In Spain and Portugal there are very few dogs roaming around. The chances of a random intruder entering, searching, finding a bag of ‘stuff’ under a bush and deciding to steal it - without looking inside are - in the author’s estimation, slightly less than the chances of an abduction = 0.

During Monday the bag is left in the flower bed, and the cleaner does not see it. The sofa is pushed fully back against the curtains and the cleaner does not bother pulling it out to clean behind it. Kate goes to the supermarket to make purchases (p. 56) - perhaps including cleaning fluids.

Discussion - The bag may have been brought indoors for Monday night, and placed on the shelf. Bodies do not begin to smell strongly for some time. But if left in the garden it would have assisted the cooling, as the air temperature fell to 10º C (50º F) during the night of 30/4/7/- 1/5/7

There was a suggestion that the cleaner might have been sent away on the Monday. In any event a quick clean two days into a one week holiday does not involve anything much more than beds, bathroom and kitchen area. Moving furniture and cleaning underneath and behind it is confined to the day of departure or a deep “spring’ clean. Even if the cleaner did move the sofa, she would simply mop with bleach.

Personal problems, stains, spills, leakages, soiled sheets and towels are nothing to comment about if you are a cleaner in a holiday resort. The amount of leakage is unlikely to have been much, would probably have been mopped up by the parents, and with three very young children, two in night-time nappies, in an apartment a certain amount of ‘soiling’ would be well within a middle aged Portuguese cleaner’s comprehension and be totally unremarkable.

Robert Murat is summoned, and arrives early on Tuesday. He offers the assistance of a nearby hotel, which has outhouses and chest freezers. Gerry, in full tennis kit, and carrying the tennis bag is able to take Madeleine there and conceal her. Possibly by taxi, or perhaps in Murat’s rented car, and giving some meaning to Gerry’s quote: “I’m not going to answer that . . .” when asked whether he knew Murat previously.

Discussion - Murat had rented a car, as his own was allegedly in for repair (according to his statement). Some may argue that the body might have started to smell by that stage, but Tuesday is only 36 hrs post mortem. Some studies of dead piglets have reported that putrefaction only starts being noticeable to humans at 2-3 days, (but discoverable by dogs within 90 minutes of death ). https://australianmuseum.net.au/image/

Bin liners and air fresheners are on sale in the supermarket.
Gerry’s answer may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qNhoWz0rQw&feature=related

Gerry returns and spends much of the next few days playing tennis at every opportunity to establish his credentials. The now empty tennis bag is placed on the shelf, and the process of scent transference starts

Discussion - despite the denials, the blue tennis bag is clearly visible on the photos taken during the night of 3-4/5/7. It then disappears from the record and like the pink Princess blanket has never been traced. The spot on which the blue tennis bag is shown is the exact point at which the cadaver dog alerts - and it alerts to no other place in that room. The depth of detail in the book about each of the tennis sessions is extremely suspicious. On one day he was reported to have had an injury to the Achilles tendon, which prevented his playing tennis during the afternoon, but was able to resume later that same day. This has not been confirmed.

The conspiracy is hatched with the entire group. After the dreadful event of the Sunday night they all pull together and ensure nothing else could ever happen like that to the other children . . . and begin to work out the strategy. This includes all the children being looked after by one adult every evening.

Discussion - There is much circumstantial evidence to support this theory. It is concealed in statements about recurrent illness accounting for the absence at dinner every night of at least one of the group.

The planning stage concentrates on large issues, but neglects details like cuddle cat, the pink blanket, and the pyjamas. It also neglects the weather, ambient temperature, evidence to be deduced from the lack of photographs and video recording, and the sheer implausibility of the half hourly checks being made by everyone every evening. It becomes overcomplicated with far too much detail and precision being offered.

Discussion - At some stage during that week the Pool Photo - which may be the last or penultimate photo of Madeleine, is selected as ‘proof’ of her continued existence on 3/5/7, and an elaborate strategy is developed, firstly to ensure the Polícia Judiciária never obtain a copy, (included in GM’s second statement in which he affirms and signs that he has no further photos in his possession, only to produce the Pool Photo via Mitchell exactly three weeks later ) and secondly to falsify the time and date. It is clear that the Pool Photo CANNOT POSSIBLY have been taken at lunchtime on 3/5/7, and is most likely or almost certainly - considerably beyond the test of the ‘balance of probabilities’ - to have been taken at lunchtime on Sunday 29th April.

The date for the discovery is deliberately chosen to allow the Police one whole day to take statements before they had to allow people to leave on Saturday, but not to allow them two whole days to conduct follow up interviews or detain witnesses when inconsistencies began to show.

Discussion - The Tapas 7 mostly return to the UK on Saturday 5/5/7 as planned and are replaced with close McCann family members who close ranks


I think this fits with what we know. Whether it is accurate or near the truth is an entirely different issue.
What I do not know is WHY ?

Chapter 27: Can any of this really be true?


Metodo 3          whose principal investigators went to prison for 4 years
involving :
Francisco Marco  - was appointed in September 2007, or possibly earlier, by the McCanns and their advisers, to head their much-vaunted ‘search for Madeleine’. He was the boss of the disreputable downtown Barcelona detective agency, Metodo 3. The agency had been in constant trouble with the authorities, having been caught up in a telephone tapping scandal in the 1990s, when all their top staff were arrested. During the period leading up to Christmas 2007, his staff did not look for Madeleine. They were busy promoting fake sightings to keep up the pretence that Madeleine had been abducted. In the lead-up to Christmas, he was exposed as a serial, and practiced liar. He said he knew Madeleine was alive. He maintained his men ‘knew where she was being held’. He claimed his men were ‘closing in on the kidnappers’, and finally promised that ‘Maddie will be home by Christmas’. These were all outright lies.
(Strangely the lawyers for the McCanns denied in writing that he had said this, only later to realise that Kate had included it in her book)

Antonio Giminez Raso   -  once a high-flying Detective Inspector in the Regional Crime Squad of Catalonia. He had a prime position in the Drugs and Human Trafficking Department. This employment came to an end around the end of 2004; whether he ‘resigned’ or was ‘pushed’ is unclear.

and
Julian Peribañez   -  who admitted in his book Cortina de Humo that he had been paid to invent sightings of Madeleine in Morocco  

Kevin Halligen  - operating under the company name of Oakley, who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for fraud.
Mitchell told the world “The hunt for Madeleine is becoming more and more international, and it was felt that a truly international firm was now needed to lead the inquiry.  
These really are the big boys. They are absolutely the best . . “ In fact Oakley was not set up until after Madeleine had been reported missing.


Followed by

The ALPHAIG 2  - David Edgar and Arthur Cowley - who did not go to Barcelona to investigate an allegedly strong lead, (but probably charged the “Fund” for [not] doing so.)  The pair who it seems continue to maintain that Madeleine is being “held in a hellish lair in the lawless hinterlands...”.  
Again the egregious and mendacious Mitchell led the world to believe that they were Alpha Group Investigations – a non existent company, but with a name similar to Alpha Investigations Group, a large internationally known American company.
       ALFAIG was in fact registered some time after the TV documentary in which their appointment had been announced.




Clement Freud  - A known Paedophile and pervert

Ray Wyre  - A self appointed expert in Paedophilia  - who it later transpired was on the Elm House list of visitors - for “whatever reason”

Jim Gamble  - Sometime head of CEOP, and another self appointed expert on Paedophilia, who was notoriously silent and apparently inactive during the decades of abuse of young white girls in Oldham, Rochdale, Bradford, Oxford, but who went to Thailand to buy a young girl - ALLEGEDLY to see if it was possible.  


Gordon Brown - then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was instrumental in covering up the details of the Hamilton / Dunblane massacre. His motives for this are unknown, but there are serious rumours on the internet about his own past activities and proclivities, for which he has neither issued a denial nor sued.

Cherie Blair - wife of Tony Blair, then PM, widely known as “Miranda”, and jokingly referred to by his own Head of Chambers as “the nearest star to Uranus”. Believed by some to have been fined for homosexual indecency many years ago, under the name Charles Lynton (his middle two names)


Philip Green - noted for his corrupt and greedy theft of many hundreds of millions from BHS, before selling the totally destroyed company for £1 to another fraudster, and for a long time refusing to assist the many hundreds of defrauded members of the BHS pension scheme

Brian Kennedy - the double glazing millionaire, represented by lawyer

Edward Smethurst - who had been publicly criticised in a trial by a judge for his lack of candour



HaysMcIntyre - Accountants for the “Fund: who on due consideration and after the publication of a damning revelation of the very simple and obvious methods involved in defrauding the “Fund” and their apparent total lack of any professional application of “Due Diligence” - - - (Cortina de Humo) and some percipient questions in an Open Letter - resigned without presenting even an interim final account

Michael Linnett - who was then, as a retired Accountant and director, forced to take over financial responsibility for the “Fund” but resigned within three months. He died recently - (before he could be questioned about his knowledge of what details he had found which caused him to resign)


Mishcon de Reya - who specialise in preventing the extradition for proper trial of people whose alleged actions are beyond comprehension by civilised people

Carter-Ruck - who represent indefensible people in their attempts to keep disgusting secrets hidden, often by threatening to inflict financial misery on those who attempt to speak or discover the truth. The list of clients subsequently found “guilty” of the very things C-R had alleged it was libelous to state - is too long to include here.



Father Jose Pacheco - who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann in the days after Madeleine vanished but later claimed that he had been the victim of some form of deception. He gave them the keys to his church but left the parish soon afterwards. He has said it was an extremely unpleasant situation and the McCann family only ever brought him problems. He later added that the McCanns had “ruined his life”

Sandy Cameron - brother in law who helped deep clean the carpet in the boot of the hired car prior to the search with cadaver and blood dogs - which nevertheless alerted to the car and key fob

Philomena McCann - sister, who took a leading role in the preparation of the “Dossier of Death” which led ultimately to the death of Brenda Leyland, and was probably involved in the Pool Photo conspiracy

Tony Rickwood - husband of Philomena q.v. specialist in astronomy and creator of perverted images of young women drowning in mud or quicksand, who probably had a leading role in the Pool Photo conspiracy



Tracey Kandohla - ‘journalist’ for The Sun, whose articles have been mendacious, ludicrous, or simply demonstrated a total lack of knowledge of the facts of the case, or of the legal niceties that surround it. More recent articles have been left with the Comments open and apparently unmoderated, allowing the full extent of the public disbelief and antagonism towards the McCanns’ story to be demonstrated

Various Shills - on Twitter and Facebook. Many actively support the convicted child murderers Leonor Cipriano and Joao Cipriano

Including

Nigel Nessling - outspoken McCann supporter, who narrowly avoided imprisonment on being found guilty of possession of over 40,000 indecent images of children

Michael Shrimpton - outspoken McCann supporter who claimed that Madeleine had been stolen by a paedophile ring, and was then himself found guilty of possession of pornographic images of children


Clarence Mitchell - The official spokesman for the McCanns contacted

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor - who had been on the point of being prosecuted for failing to report priest Fr. Hill to the police for indecent assaults on children, but who died before action could be taken - to arrange a visit to Rome to meet

Pope Benedict XVI - who as Cardinal Ratzinger and then as Pope, was involved with and then became the head of an outrageous systematic and long term cover-up of child sexual abuse by hundreds of thousands of homosexual pederast priests - much of it covered up personally by him both as Cardinal in Germany and then as Pope




We make no further comment

Chapter 28: The 'Pool Photo' refuses to go away






The Pool Photo is of crucial importance. Of that there can be little doubt.


To put the matter simply –


IF it was taken on Thursday 3^rd May 2007 - it is capable of showing that Madeleine was alive and well at lunchtime that day


IF it was not, - then the implications go far beyond a simple misunderstanding.
The fact that it was presented by Mitchell on behalf of the McCanns as having been taken at a particular time on a particular date, and the fact that Kate unequivocally repeated this in her autobiography has great bearing on almost every aspect of the case. It goes directly to the veracity of the McCanns and the involvement of Mitchell – amongst many others.


In previous essays the issue of the weather was set out, and some contemporary photos and weather reports were appended in support of the thesis.


This failed to impress some, who argue that the photos themselves are not sufficient to prove the negative, namely that the photo could not have been taken at lunchtime on 3/5/7. Proving a negative is notoriously difficult, but not impossible. The legal process deals with this by insisting on an overwhelming weight of evidence.


What follows therefore is another more detailed examination of the weather conditions, with yet more evidence introduced in the form of weather reports from several stations, many more contemporary photos, and a recapitulation of the pertinent parts of statements and comments.


No apology is given for the length of this essay, nor for the volume of the evidence included.


For ease of understanding, and for reasons of clarity I am pasting edited pieces about the formation of clouds taken from various places on the internet. All can be searched through “google”.


Many of the photos may be accessed on Flickr, using the search engine on that site.

Some were accessed from ‘google images’, others are screen shots from the videos of the World Windsurfing competition in Portimão held between 29/4/7 and 3/5/7, and four are from the author’s personal collection.

I have included only a few in the main text, in thumbnail format, to illustrate the various points. The rest are included in an appendix after the reference section.

The weather reports are all available on the internet, and the exact references are given to allow anyone who has a genuine interest to do their own research. A small fee was payable for one set.

After I have set out the main thesis I shall try to raise and answer the objections I am already aware of, or can think of, but as always if strong contrary evidence can be adduced, I am prepared to be shown to be in error.


I shall first discuss Clouds, then Weather reports in general terms, then I shall look at specific reports before looking in detail at the photos and analysing what they can tell us.


After this I shall look again at what people said in their statements, and at pertinent extracts from Kate McCann’s autobiography, before discussing a personal diary kept by a resident of PdL.



A cloud is defined as ‘a visible aggregate of minute droplets of water or particles of ice or a mixture of both floating in the free air’. Each droplet has a diameter of about a hundredth of a millimetre and each cubic metre of air will contain 100 million droplets.
Clouds form when the invisible water vapour in the air condenses into visible water droplets or ice crystals. For this to happen, the parcel of air must be saturated, i.e. unable to hold all the water it contains in vapour form, so it starts to condense into a liquid or solid form. There are two ways by which saturation is reached.
(a) By increasing the water content in the air, e.g. through evaporation, to a point where the air can hold no more. The steam from a boiling kettle is a simple example. As it rises it reaches air which is not saturated, and so disappears from human view
(b) By cooling the air so that it reaches its dew point – this is the temperature at which condensation occurs, and is unable to ‘hold’ any more water. There is a maximum amount of water vapour the air, at a given temperature, can hold. In general, the warmer the air, the more water vapour it can hold. Therefore, reducing its temperature decreases its ability to hold water vapour.
Method (b) is the usual way that clouds are produced, and it is associated with air rising in the lower part of the atmosphere. As the air rises it expands due to the reduction in atmospheric pressure, and the expansion causes the air to cool. Generally speaking, for each 100 metres the air rises, it will cool by 1 °C. The rate of cooling will vary depending on the water content, or humidity, of the air.
Therefore, the vertical ascent of air will reduce its ability to hold water vapour, so that condensation occurs.
Put simply, clouds are simply air containing moisture, which condenses so it can be seen.


This can also be seen in mountainous areas where clouds form over the highest peaks and ridges, and although the clouds appear to ‘move’ they warm up as they lose altitude and the moisture is lost to human view. The English expression “burning off” is sometimes used to describe this phenomenon.


These photos are taken of the Sierra de Grazalema near Ronda in southern Spain. The high peak shown is 1654 m. (5,400 ft.) the village lying at 800 m. (2650 ft.)
The photos are taken towards the west, and the prevailing wind is a westerly i.e. from the west. It has picked up moisture as it crosses the Atlantic, and this ridge is the first high one it crosses. Grazalema has the reputation of being one of the wettest places in Spain




The “burning off” effect may be seen here as the cloud passed through the pass “Puerto de las Palomas”. (In this photo the wind is travelling from left to right)





These and more photos may be found at Appendix A - CLOUDS



Most weather reports are recorded automatically by Meteorological stations, situated at intervals around a country.

These weather stations measure a large variety of different meteorological parameters, including air temperature, atmospheric pressure, rainfall, wind speed and direction, humidity, cloud height, visibility, and sunshine.

This map shows the distribution of the weather stations in Portugal of which current data and forecasts with pinpoint precision are available. In general, the weather stations measure air temperature and humidity (2 meters above ground), wind speed and wind direction (10 meters above ground), as well as sunshine duration, amount of precipitation and air pressure



The nearest ones to Praia da Luz are at Faro airport to the east of Praia da Luz, and at Sagres at the far western point of the Algarve. Their position relative to PdL may be seen here


The distance Sagres – PdL is 22 km.


The distance Faro – PdL is 66 km.


The distance from Sagres to Faro is 86 km.








A similar pattern is observed in the UK.




The distance Camborne – Yeovilton = 150 km


The distance Hurn – Eastbourne = 100 km






In what follows I shall concentrate on two dates.
The first is Thursday 3^rd May 2007
The date on which Mitchell said on the McCann’s behalf the Pool Photo had been taken.
The date which Kate herself repeats in her book ‘madeleine’ that the photo was taken.
The date which is embedded in the EXIF Metadata on the photo as released to the world’s press on 24^th May 2007


The second is Sunday 29^th April 2007.
I shall explain why.


The family arrived in PdL on Saturday 28^th April, and it was not until mid to late afternoon, after checking in and being taken to their apartment, then re-arranging furniture and unpacking, that they were able to visit their part of the resort to explore.
It is fairly clear that the three photos of the children in the play area on the lawn and with the playhouse were taken then.
p. 69 ‘madeleine’ - The weather was pleasant enough, although there was a cool breeze.


In fact there were large ‘fluffy’ cumulus clouds, which are seen on the photos of the children.





On Sunday 29^th April the weather was, on any test, beautiful. There was no cloud, the sun shone for 13 hours at Faro – the Meteorological Station just along the coast, and photos from third parties posted on Flickr are clear evidence of this


On Monday 30^th April the weather ‘closed in’ and it was dull and cold for the next few days. It rained on Wednesday 2^nd May, as the group record.
I do not therefore concentrate on the days 30^th April to 2^nd May, though for the sake of completeness several dated photos may be found in Appendix D


But on one of the days between Saturday 28^th April and Friday 4^th May, the Pool Photo was taken.
The question is obvious.





Weather stations record meteorological date in coded form. It is standardised through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) which allows it to be understood throughout most of the world.


An example looks like this






Two layers of cloud are then described









There is another common entry, which is important for this discussion
CAVOK Definition : Provided the visibility is >= 10 km, AND the height of the lowest cloud (any amount) is >=5000 ft (or highest minimum sector altitude) AND there are no cumulonimbus clouds (CB, any height) within sight, AND there is no significant weather (see list below), then the visibility and cloud part of the standard METAR is replaced by CAVOK (say "cav-oh-kay": 'Ceiling And Visibility OK').



Here we shall confine ourselves to looking at the period 1230 to 1530 on each day












Q: What does the METAR data tell us?

A: At lunchtime on Sunday 29th April the sky was clear - CAVOK
At lunchtime on Thursday 3rd May the sky was overcast - with 2 levels of cloud


The tutorial on the interpretation of METAR data may be found by activating the reference, and at Appendix B


The full set of METAR data from which the above have been extracted may be found by activating the references given, and at Appendix C1 and C2





Some weather stations record the total sunshine on a daily basis
Both Sagres and Faro do so.


The charts and details may be found in Appendix C and by consulting the references given








They show that
In Faro, on 28^th and 29^th April 12.6 hours of sun were recorded
On 30^th April, 1^st May and 2^nd May NO sunshine was recorded
On Thursday 3^rd May only 0.9 hours (54 minutes) of sun were recorded over the entire day






In Sagres, on 28^th and 29^th April 12.6 hours of sun were recorded
On 30^th April, 1^st May and 2^nd May diminishing amounts of sunshine were recorded
On Thursday 3^rd May only 8 hours of sun were recorded over the entire day



Q: What does the Sunshine data tell us?




A: It confirms what we already know from the raw METAR data

For most of Sunday 29^th April the sky was clear - CAVOK

For most of Thursday 3^rd May the sky was overcast


Observation: The sunshine recorded in Sagres is exactly as expected. The weather station is on the furthest west point of the Algarve, and the wind during that period was a fairly consistent WSW. As we have already discussed, cloud does not usually form until the air begins to rise over the land, and so we would predict that Sagres would have clear skies. The next section examining the photos will make this more clear



The website Flickr invites people to upload photos, and large numbers of people do so. Most if not all have the date and the type of camera and other details attached
The site has a good internal search engine, and is thus a useful if unintended resource where weather conditions are an issue.


There is the obvious caveat – that people do not take many photos on dull days, and secondly that even on a cloudy day where the sun appears only occasionally, unless the event itself is the focus of attention, they may wait until such a moment.


On a dull or overcast day however, there is no such choice.


A few photos in thumbnail size will suffice. The originals and many more are to be found in Appendix D, and the relevant url is shown in the reference section

Sunday 29^th April


Thursday 3^rd May







Between 29^th April and 5^th May 2007 the World Windsurfing Championship was held in Portimão, Algarve, some 17 km from PdL.



The website has a wealth of photos and video of the whole event, and brief references to wind speed and sea state with wave height in the daily Press release.


It is also instructive since the archive shows photos taken not only from the land out to sea, but also from the official launches back towards the coast


These photos were taken on the same day at the World Windsurfing event.


Photos taken from the sea show thick cloud over the land.
Those taken from the land show clear sky over the sea.
The wind was blowing at an angle from the sea towards the land, (WSW)
So we can observe how the saturated air is forced to rise and how the clouds form over the land.


This is incidentally how mariners across the ages knew they were approaching land


But even if we have a photo taken outdoors which does not show the sky, we may deduce what the weather must have been. To make this more clear, consider these.

Here a photo taken on land is seen, showing a lack of sharp shadows, from which we may reasonably deduce significant cloud cover, even though we cannot directly see it




From this photo however we can reasonably deduce clear sky, again without being able directly to see it





The first photo is dated 3/5/7. The second 29/4/7


Knowing how clouds form and disperse as the air reaches the coast, we can therefore look back at the three photos at the start of this section, and deduce that in the third, although there appears to be only 6/8 cloud cover, this is out at sea, and therefore over the land must have been considerably more. The cloud is, to use the common English expression ”breaking up”.
This solves another of the apparent objections raised by this issue.


The METAR data at Faro reports one layer of cloud at 1/8 – 2/8 cover, and a higher one at 3/8 – 4/8 cover. Faro airport is close to the coast, only 2,200m to the control tower.






The cloud cover report is of the entire visible sky, in this case horizon in the south to the mountains in the north.


Full cloud cover over the land and clear sky over the sea gives 4/8 cover even if the lower 2/8 layer is ignored.


In Appendix 3 many more photos from the windsurfing event may be viewed, including not only those taken towards the sea, those taken from the sea towards the land, but some taken on the land.



Q: What do the Photos tell us?




A: They confirm what we already know from the METAR and the Sunshine data

For most of Sunday 29^th April the sky over land and sea was clear - CAVOK

For most of Thursday 3^rd May the sky over the land was overcast







Let us look at what witnesses said about the weather.


Firstly the Tapas 7


These are clipped from the full statements.
References for the full statements may be found in App F
* * * * *
Kate McCann has told the world that the Last Photo was taken at 14:29 on Thursday 3rd May 2007. At that time there was heavy cloud, overcast and an ambient temperature of only 17ºC or 18º C (62.5ºF - 64.5ºF)


By 9pm that evening the temperature had dropped one or two degrees, to 16ºC, a temperature which prompted Jane Tanner to complain about the cold and to make quite an issue of collecting one of her partner’s thick fleeces during her visit to their apartment.


Kate McCann describes the day of their arrival, Saturday 28^th April, thus
p. 69 “The weather was pleasant enough, although there was a cool breeze.”


There is no mention of the weather on Sunday 29^th April.


She goes on to say of Tuesday 1^st May
p. 84 “The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain.


Strangely, Kate McCann also describes the weather at the time and date she states she took the Pool Photo
p. 94 “The weather was a little on the cool side and I remember thinking I should have brought a cardigan for her,


Referring to the evening of Thursday 3^rd May Kate McCann is very clear that outside, the weather was cold.
p. 104 “It was so cold . . .”


The remaining quotes refer to the evening of Thursday 3^rd May


Jane Tanner is insistent in her rogatory interview
JT: . . . and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet, and it was quite a cold night in Portugal in May it's not actually that warm, and I'd got a big jumper on, and I can remember thinking oh that parent is not a particularly good parent, they've not wrapped them up.
- - -
and yet again


4078 “So you went on the wrong day.”

Reply “Yeah, I think err so it wasn’t, that’s one reason why we didn’t open the shutters to open the window or anything in that room, it wasn’t actually really hot at all, it was actually quite cloudy in the days and at night it was actually quite chilly.”


The remaining Tapas group are also clear that 15ºC is cold.

Russell O’Brien : The nights were quite chilly
Matthew Oldfield : in the evenings it was very cold,
Rachel Oldfield : it was really cold in the evenings
David Payne : it was quite cold some nights and you know perhaps nearly too cold to be sat outside
Fiona Payne : it was still very cold
Diane Webster : when they were brought up to our apartment and they would have to
come out into the cold

Here they are describing their experience of a temperature of 15ºC or 14ºC
This is only one or two degrees less than that recorded at lunchtime on 3rd May



Q: What do these accounts and statements tell us?




A: They confirm what we already know from the METAR and the Sunshine data

From 30^th April to 3^rd May a weather front passed over Portugal, bringing cold and cloudy conditions, only moving away late on Thursday 3^rd May

Weather conditions may not only be seen in or deduced from photographs and METAR data. Many people for personal or professional reasons keep diaries in which they record weather, and many have recollections, particularly if asked soon after the event, or if given access to photos they have taken


A local PdL resident and retired RAF Navigator, who continued into his retirement his practice of observing weather and recording it in his diary said

[NOTE: This has been heavily edited to concentrate on the weather related items]

Saturday, April 28 2007. Clear skies with warm temperatures for time of year enabled a full entry in the golf competition at the nearby Boavista Resort. From 1 ’til 4pm, warm dry conditions. Clear skies at night resulted in cooler conditions by dawn the following day.

Sunday, April 29 2007. Another fine day (warm once the Sun got up) but some evidence of weather on the change by evening. No threat of frost for the following day due to cloud cover that night.

Monday, April 30 2007. Cloudy day, but dry and average temperatures.

Tuesday, May 1 2007. Cooler cloudier weather,

Wednesday, May 2 2007. Cool, cloudy with sunny spells and moderate winds

Thursday, 3 May 2007 Weather continues cool and cloudy with sunny intervals, but not pool dipping weather. Noticed first evidence of weather change, as by 7.15 pm cloud was clearing from the North. Just after 11pm night sky clear with full moon. I arrived at my apartment about 11:45pm. It was a clear dry moonlit, and it was good to reflect that better weather had now set in.

Friday 4 May, 2007 I was awakened at c.0750 on a fine clear morning,

Saturday 5 May, 2007. Weather continues fine and sunny.


He was then asked to view a series of photos taken from Flickr - shown in Appendix D


He replied
All show the same pattern, of the clear skies on 28 and 29, then turning to heavy overcast and beginning to open up on 3/5/7 in the evening.


Q: What does this account tell us?




A: It confirms what we already know from the METAR and the Sunshine data, and from the photos, and from the first hand witness statements

For most of Sunday 29^th April the sky over land and sea was clear - CAVOK

During the week a weather front moved across Portugal bringing cold, cloudy, and rainy weather

For most of Thursday 3^rd May the sky was overcast and the day was cold

From late evening of Thursday 3^rd and on Friday 4^th May the weather improved



Q: What does all this tell us?

A: Does all this tell us that Thursday 3rd May 2007 was largely overcast, cold and windy, but Sunday 29th April 2007 was clear, and warm. Does it tell us that on the first full day of the holiday the McCann family acted normally, as would any other family of five, the children dressed in their new holiday clothes, wearing their new sun hats, exploring, having their photo taken, dipping their feet into the pool, and generally enjoying the sensation of being on a family holiday ?


It may do.
But there are two important objections to all of this


1 Gerry McCann is on record as saying the evening of 3^rd May was HOT
Concerning the bed where his daughter was on the night she disappeared, he says that she slept uncovered, as usual when it was hot, with the bedclothes folded down'. Police statement 10 May


2 Mitchell, acting for the McCanns, and subsequently Kate McCann in her autobiography, have united in saying that the photo was taken on Thursday 3^rd May


Those 3 people clearly reject the Meteorological Office records, ignore the many photos on Flickr, dismiss the evidence of official photos of the World Windsurfing Championships, reject the statements, turn a blind eye to the diaries, and insist that the photo was taken at lunchtime on Thursday 3^rd May 2007











Q: The charts show there was 4/8 cloud cover. Only half the sky is covered, so the sun would have shone through the other half.


A1: Clouds are not static. They move more or less quickly across the sky. Everyone knows how the sun ‘comes out’ and then ‘goes back in’ to use the standard English expressions. The Pool Photo shows bright sun, but also, crucially, shows Gerry with a sheen of perspiration on his forehead, and everyone wearing light clothing.
If the Pool Photo had been taken during a brief appearance of the sun through a gap in the clouds, we might have to explain why everyone was suitable dressed for that exact moment, and not for a generally overcast and cool day. Even Kate says so -
p. 95 “The weather was a little on the cool side


At Faro airport only 54 minutes of sunshine were recorded for the entire day



A2: There were two levels of cloud. The higher altitude one was in the range 3-4/8 cover, the lower one in the range 1-2/8. These move at different speeds, and in slightly different directions depending on the wind direction at each altitude. Thus some of the time there would have been 6/8 cloud cover. Only when the two levels coincided would there have been only 4/8 cover. It is submitted that although this might have been enough to allow the pool photo to have been taken in one of the short intervals, it would not have caused, or allowed Gerry and the children to dress in light clothing, don sunglasses, sun hats, nor to persuade Gerry to wear sunglasses and develop a sheen of sweat on his forehead.
The highest temperature recorded on 3/5/7 was 19º C (66º F) some 2 hours after solar zenith. At 1429 it was 18º C (64º F), with a Force 3-4 wind off the sea.


A3: The figure of 4/8 cover is recorded by the Meteorological station at Faro. Faro is close to the coast. As we have seen, cloud forms as air comes in from the sea, and rises over the land. The land can then have total cloud cover and the sea be entirely cloud free. The report will then show 4/8 cloud cover. This is clearly illustrated in the windsurfing photos.
The weather report from Faro records only 0.9 hours of sunshine on 3/5/7





Was this photo
.




taken on this day ?




or on this day ?


















CLOUDS

https://www.thoughtco.com/types-of-clouds-recognize-in-the-sky-4025569


METAR


https://www.wunderground.com/metarFAQ.asp#sky


http://www.centrometeo.pt/en/weather/weather-stations.html


http://weatherfaqs.org.uk/book/export/html/197


https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/LPFR/2007/5/3/DailyHistory.html?req_city=&req_state=&req_statename=&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=


https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/LPFR/2007/4/29/DailyHistory.html?req_city=&req_state=&req_statename=&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=


https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/LPFR/2007/5/3/WeeklyHistory.html


https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/making-a-forecast/first-steps/observations/weather-stations


https://www.windfinder.com/#12/37.0958/-8.6648


http://dpds.weatheronline.co.uk/historical_data/weather_stations_download/#forward


PHOTOS
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=relevance&advanced=1&text=ALGARVE&min_taken_date=1178143200&max_taken_date=1178315999

http://www.formulawindsurfing.org/event/112

GENERAL
https://www.cm-portimao.pt/


EXTRACTS
From the Hard Back edition
“madeleine” Kate McCann, 2011, Bantam Press. Random House
Version 1.0 Epub ISBN 9781446437605
ISBNs 9780593067918 (hb)
9780593067925 (tpb)






A CLOUDS


B METAR Tutorial


C METAR report Faro
METAR report Sagres


C1 pdf METAR REPORT FARO 29/4/5
C2 pdf METAR REPORT FARO 3/5/7


D FLICKR Photos


E WINDSURFING photos Portimão


F STATEMENTS


Personal collection, ‘google images’

Chapter 29: Fake News

Enlarge this imageReduce this image Click to see fullsize


UNTRUTH

When a normal person does it, it is called a Lie
When a child does it, it is called a Fib
When a person does it in court, it is called Perjury
When a politician does it, it is called Spin
When a journalist does it, it is called Fake News

But is there a difference ?

And why do we not like a Lie, teach a child to forgo a Fib, punish Perjury, but suck up Spin, and just shrug our shoulders and give up on Fake News ?

WIKI gives a reasonable definition of Fake news. [1]
Fake news is a neologism often used to refer to fabricated news. This type of news, found in traditional news, or fake news websites, has no basis in fact, but is presented as being factually accurate.

Claire Wardle of First Draft News identifies seven types of fake news

1. satire or parody ("no intention to cause harm but has potential to fool")
   
   
2. false connection ("when headlines, visuals or captions don't support the content")
   
   
3. misleading content ("misleading use of information to frame an issue or an individual")
   
   
4. false context ("when genuine content is shared with false contextual information")
   
   
5. imposter content ("when genuine sources are impersonated" with false, made-up sources)
   
   
6. manipulated content ("when genuine information or imagery is manipulated to deceive", as with a "doctored" photo)
   
   
7. fabricated content ("new content is 100% false, designed to deceive and do harm”)
   
   

Those who have followed the Madeleine McCann case quickly became hypersensitive to the stream of Fake news and indeed outright lies put out by Team McCann through the compliant media. It quickly became clear, for example, that anything said by the spokesman Clarence Mitchell was likely to be the reverse of the objective and verifiable truth. Lists of his falsehoods have circulated for years.

And although at 11 years after the event, the stream of invented sightings has diminished, and the attention seems to have turned in a different direction, there remains a body of unconditional supporters of the McCanns who will hear nothing said against them, and who refuse to address issues raised by the available evidence.

Recently, and right on cue, the main offenders published two stories. The first about the impending decision of the ECHR in the case brought by the McCanns against the State of Portugal. The second about various aspects of the “Fund” and the six-monthly application for further funding for Operation Grange to continue.

Both appeared in the tabloid press, and were copied freely between and among them.
Both were so riddled with mistakes, falsehoods and downright lies that they are hardly worthy of comment, except to observe that the clear intention of both was somehow to present the McCanns as permanent victims of a cruel and inhuman system.

I append the references to both articles, and will confine myself to short extracts.

Daily Mail, online. [2]
Kate and Gerry McCann are returning to court to fight against the ex-detective who claimed they were responsible for Madeleine's death. No they are not. The ECHR does not take evidence from individuals, it considers documents and Legal arguments.

If they lose the case the pair will be forced to pay Goncalo Amaral £750,000, after he made a bid to sue them for compensation. No they will not. And no he did not.

The couple will face Amaral in the European Court, as public money which was funding the search for Madeleine is about to dry up. No they will not. The case is McCanns v Portugal, They have to show that Portuguese law and its Constitution is contrary to Human Rights. Their case against Dr Amaral was lost a long time ago. And in any event none of the parties ‘go’ anywhere.

A hearing is expected this year after Amaral decided to sue the McCanns when their libel case was overturned. No he did not.

The Sun, online [3]
The McCanns are embroiled in a row with Goncalo Amaral. No they are not. They took him to court, won at First Instance and then lost on Appeal and on final Appeal to the Supreme Court. That part of the case is finished, over, terminated, ‘res judicata’.

The legal action is aimed at overturning a Portuguese Supreme Court ruling that detective Goncalo Amaral — who wrote a book about the case claiming Madeleine died in Portugal and her parents covered it up — did not defame the McCanns. No it isn’t. It is about something else entirely.

If the couple lose the European Court of Human Rights case they face having to pay Amaral £430,000 in damages, plus costs, which could wipe out most of the remaining money. No they won’t. They do not have to pay Dr Amaral anything in Damages. He was the respondent in the original action. They sued HIM. And lost. So they have to pay full costs of all the actions.

As we see, if we ignore the inevitable padding in the articles, the only attempts at presentation of ‘facts’ are simply inaccurate, or wrong. Given that the authors have all the resources of their own legal departments and researchers, proof readers and sub-editors, these examples of False News can be classed as downright lies.

And furthermore, lies told with a specific intent, which makes them more sinister.

The manipulation of the public’s credulity by the Press may however be coming to a close.
The internet allows people to do their own ‘research’, and to cross check the facts against many other sources.
But the traditional dead-tree press continue to blunder on in the way they always have, secure in the delusion that they will be believed.

Increasingly they seem to be using a desperate form of self-justification to add an air of authority as in “I have been reporting on this case for 10 years and I can say . . . .” or “I was first on the scene . . . ” with the phrase “. . and therefore know more than you do” implied


One notable example is the free newspaper circulating in southern Spain - ”The Olive Press”.
The proprietor, who was once a decent investigative journalist, wrote the obligatory 10 year anniversary article, which also appears on the on-line version. [4]

In the article he repeats the following “Facts”.

“When I arrived at about 11.45am I was firstly able to walk into the apartment, where I introduced myself to the McCanns and told them I would do everything I could to help.
The only reporter on the scene till late that evening – apart from Sky News reporter Kate Burley, who happened to be on holiday there – I spent time grilling neighbours,”

Note: In the initial piece he referred to a KATE Burley, but he amended that to ‘Kay Burley’ after the Comments Section pointed out his mistake. But he has failed to amend the name to that of the journalist who WAS there. Ms Burley was in the UK at the time. Timed and dated video evidence of this fact exists and was pointed out to the author. The identify of the reporter who was there is known, and has been pointed out, but despite this, he has done nothing to correct his potentially serious allegation.

And then he introduces a very familiar “Straw Man” fallacious argument.
“These are just some of the reasons why I am convinced the McCanns did not kill their daughter.”
(This is also technically an Argumentum ad lapidem, a statement made forcibly, but without any relevant facts adduced, or a species of Proof by Repeated Assertion. The ‘facts’ he does adduce are entirely irrelevant to his conclusion, including as they do the number of people in the group, their professional status, and the fact that he personally cannot see how ‘it’ could have been achieved.)

He recounts one of the more egregious leads for which he was responsible
“. . . I inadvertently found myself interviewing a former nightclub bouncer in Huelva, who claimed he knew who snatched Maddie.
A huge Angolan chap, he told me she had been taken on order and was now, most l likely, in America.
We double checked his credentials, ran it past Maddie’s family and published a carefully worded and, I believe, sensitive piece, which then of course got picked up by the Sun to be splashed on its front page. Not so sensitively.” [5]

And he finishes with a nice journalistic oratorical flourish
“I doubt the case will ever be solved, but I am certain the parents were not involved.
And nor, should I add, was I.“

[ I think “And nor, I should add, was I”, is stylistically better; the personal pronouns separated slightly more for balance, but the iambic-anapestic-iambic is satisfying]

So how much of this is objectively true, how much is “Spin”, how much “Fake News”, and how much deliberate lying.

It is difficult to know where to start, but his criticism of The Sun is as good a place as any.

The facts are that he was writing exclusively for The SUN and other papers for many months. Even though he had his own newspaper which was in its early stages of development, he did not publish a single article about the case there until September or October. Some articles in the Sun appeared under his name alone, others jointly with Lazzeri, some with Emily Nash, some with others.

The Sun make no pretence that he is on their team. [6]
MOMENT HOL MUM'S WORLD FELL TO PIECES
Sun team: John Scott, Guy Patrick, Antonella Lazzeri, Alastair Taylor, John Coles, Gary O'Shea, Emma Cox, David Goodwin, Tom Worden, Jon Clarke and Doug Seeburg.

Which begs an important question.
Why did he ask me to refrain from making the link between him and News International in his Comments columns all those years ago ? I have refrained, but now, 11 years on, I feel able to reveal this apparently insignificant fact.

But let us go back, once again right to the beginning. Keep our eye on the squirrel.
He tells us he walked into the apartment, and spoke to the McCanns, and then spent time “grilling neighbours”.
He does NOT tell us and never has told us, about the state of the apartment, of the windows, of the shutters, of the curtains, or of the doors.
He does NOT tell us about the conversation he had with the McCanns, about their physical or emotional state, nor the story they told.
He does not tell us if he re-traced the walk from the Tapas bar to the apartment, or paced it out, or timed it, or indeed of anything he actually did.

Since he was there (and there is no reason to suspect that he was not) he will have seen that the shutters were NOT damaged in any way. He will - must - have observed this by mid-day.

But he clearly did not relay this first-hand information back to his employers. For several days many media outlets in the UK, both in print and television news, were repeating the totally false and frankly mendacious claim that the shutters had been forced or broken, jemmied or smashed.

Why did he not ?

It was left to John Hill, the manager of the Ocean Club to make that statement. Strangely, after his announcement he was quietly sidelined by the media and never again asked to comment. Not one reporter, investigative or otherwise, has published an in-depth interview with him about what he saw and what he found. Not one.

Why not ?

The question that springs up is not Why were they all doing this ?, but rather WHO was controlling this information flow, to ensure that the LIE about the shutters was repeated sufficiently often and for sufficiently long to enter the mendacious narrative ?

And WHO was paying for this mendacity ?

A Portuguese investigative journalist, (a real one) Paulo Reis, did some investigation of his own. Specifically he investigated the way in which ex-pat and British journalists were behaving, by going incognito into their midst. It is a fascinating or deeply worrying description, depending on your view of the role of the Media in modern society.

I quote a few short extracts. The entire article may be found in the references, [7]
. . . I approached the crowd of onlookers, tried to be close to the British journalists, listening what they were talking about. As it happens with most British coming to Portugal (and don’t take me wrong, I don’t want to be offensive) they believe “natives” could not understand English, so they talked. And talked a lot.

The comments of John Hill were published and broadcasted by the British Media only in the first couple of days after Maddie disappeared. Then, as people used to see in Soviet Union, something happened to Mr. John Hill: he just vanished from the newspapers pages and TV reports, like the rivals or supposed enemies of Stalin were erased from official pictures.

I collected a lot of information, during those three times I stayed “incognito” at Praia da Luz. I had the opportunity to find how the system set up by Alex Woolfall, from Bell Pottinger, worked, “managing” information released by PJ to the McCann couple and "feeding" it to be published and broadcasted (after some“adaptations”…) by British Media.


So let us look again at the two main claims for Friday 4th May 2007.
“When I arrived at about 11.45am I was firstly able to walk into the apartment, where I introduced myself to the McCanns and told them I would do everything I could to help.

There is no doubt about what he is saying. No doubt about the time, day, date or place. No doubt about the people. It is a straightforward and unequivocal statement of ‘fact’.

The PJ had taken photos of the scene during the night and early hours of the morning, and then, as is normal practice, sealed the scene, and left it under the control and supervision of the GNR. Their statements are clear, the practice is so normal as hardly to merit further consideration. [8]
Even Kate in her autobiography confirms this, though she puts a different interpretation on their presence [9].
p.81 I couldn’t see anyone about by this time, except for a couple of GNR police cars in the road outside and a handful of officers hanging around. None of them appeared to be doing very much.
And at 9 am
p.85. The GNR patrol was still in evidence, although again, there didn’t seem to be much sense of urgency

Around 10 am the McCanns were taken to Portimão to give statements. They did not return until 8.30 pm.

How can we be sure ?

Because the McCanns’ statements are timed and dated; the PJ officers’ statements covering the McCanns’ statements are timed and dated and confirm this; the Tapas 7 confirm it in their statements; AND Kate spells it out in great detail.

p. 88 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. Fiona and Dianne took Sean and Amelie to their club along with the other children. While our world was falling apart, the best way of trying to keep theirs together seemed to be to stick with what they were used to.

Gerry and I travelled in one police car with the others following in a second vehicle. It was an awful journey. It took twenty, twenty-five minutes, but it felt much longer.

And then

p. 92 We were completely unprepared for what we found when we drove back into Praia da Luz some time after 8.30pm.

Conclusion : - The McCanns were in Portimão, NOT in the apartment. And the apartment was sealed and under the control of the GNR until the arrival of the Forensic team.

The apartment was examined later that day in detail by Forensic scientists.

How do we know ?

Because it is normal practice; because their statements tell us what they did; because the list of things they did and the exhibits they collected is available for anyone to read; AND because Kate tells us in her autobiography that she watched the proceedings on the television in the police station in Portimão

p. 86. A forensic team also arrived from Lisbon that Friday. Having moved out of apartment 5A, we weren’t aware of exactly when, but presumably it was some time in the morning.

Her use of the Perfect Participle “having moved out”, carries in English the clear indication that this was an action which had been completed, and the context tells us this happened some time before the morning.

But the Author tells us he walked into the apartment and spoke to the McCanns . . .
As someone once said . . .

He then says something very strange - for an investigative journalist.

And this may be the clue, the brain leak, the hidden confession . . .

He says
“I introduced myself to the McCanns and told them I would do everything I could to help.”

He does not say he asked them for details; that he quickly rehearsed the story with them; that he had a look at the window and the shutters - (which even while he was there were being described across the English speaking news media as smashed, broken, forced and jemmied); he does not say he did any of the things an investigative journalist might reasonably be supposed to have done.

He told them he would do everything he could to HELP.
What part of an investigative journalist’s role is it to HELP the principal suspects in a case ?

But was that in fact his brief ? Has he just told the truth ?
Has he inadvertently revealed the link between News International and Team McCann ?
And does his admission that with the Angolan bouncer story he “ran it past Maddie’s family”. also give the game away ?

* * * * * * *
So in the space of one short piece of parrot-cage, cat-litter, free-paper ’journalism’ we have

Four classical fallacies. (Straw man, Argumentum ad hominem (abusive), Argumentum ad Lapidem and Proof by Repeated Assertion)
One demonstrably false story about a named person placed at the locus delicti - potentially a very serious allegation
Two further demonstrably false stories about his visit to the scene and about his speaking to the principle players in the Missing Person enquiry
One long story of extremely dubious content clearly designed to be repeated in the English gutter press.

But not much else.

The author had had 10 years to do the research, to cross check, to compare and contrast, to read the statements of the principal parties and others, to write out time lines, to think about alternative scenarios, and so on.

Instead of which he tells us he does “not believe the McCanns killed their daughter” !

Where then to place this ?

Can we say he is LYING ?
Tricky, for if he genuinely believes his own fantasy after 10 years then that is a species of delusion, and he is not culpable in the usual sense.

Can we say it is a FIB?
Not really. He is a self-professed investigative journalist who years ago did some good and perspicacious work. He is no longer a silly child.

Can we say it is PERJURY ?
Certainly not. He has never sworn or even averred or insisted that what he has said is the truth. (He is a journalist, and like Government spokesmen, they do not give evidence under oath). He has however said it, and written it in permanent and electronic form, and clearly expects it to be taken at face value and believed.

Can we say it is SPIN ?
We could, but that is normally reserved for politicians and their spokes-people. In any event this is not slight distortion of background truth. This is blatant invention.

Can we say it is FAKE NEWS ?
More difficult. We might have to delve into the intention behind writing the piece. It seems to fit three of Claire Wardle’s categories, but doesn’t sit easily there.

Or do we think it fits into another category ? That of a long and detailed conspiracy to deceive, in which the Author may be merely a innocent pawn, himself deceived into churning out nonsense stories for money without perhaps understanding the “Bigger Picture”, or understanding how so many small players were being manipulated, nor why or by whom.

I do not know.
I do not know why he wrote what he did, nor why he used the manner or tone in which he wrote it.
Nor do I know why having been given documentary proof of several glaring errors, he did not correct the article, or take it down.

These are indeed strange times.
Over the years we have grown to despise, revile and reject anything written by Lazzeri, or Kandohla, or said by Mitchell.

But his tragedy is this -

His credibility and personal veracity have been damaged
His credibility as a journalist is seriously damaged
His credibility as an investigative journalist was lost long ago
The credibility of his newspaper has gone
He can no longer rely on anyone’s believing anything written by him, either before or since.

In mitigation we can suggest that he is an old fashioned wordsmith, trained in a pre-internet age, and believing that by putting his words on paper and on-line they somehow acquire ‘gravitas’. The reality is different.
He is not alone. Team McCann had clearly also not seen it coming, and had not realised that so much of the documentary evidence would be released into the public domain, or subject to the detailed scrutiny it has had over the past decade.

We no longer live in the Age of Credulity and Gullibility
Journalists may not like it, but we no longer do.

And behind all this is the fear that we may all be being manipulated by the Press, under the control of an Orwellian MiniTrue
Let us hope it is more Lewis Carrol. (Alice Through the Looking Glass)
Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said, 'one can't believe impossible things.’
'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.



REFS:

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news

2 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6178661/Public-fund-Madeline-McCann-WIPED-upcoming-court-case.html

3 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7319265/madeleine-mccann-donations-dried-up/

4 http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2017/05/11/madeleine-mccann-olive-press-editor-talks-first-journalist-scene-10th-anniversary-disappearance/

5 https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/379292/madeleine-mccann-is-in-america-and-i-know-who-took-her/
This is the Sun article in question.
Madeleine McCann is in America – and I know who took her
From EMILY NASH and JON CLARKE in Huelva, Spain
18th February 2011, 12:00 am Updated: 4th April 2016, 8:00 pm

AN INVESTIGATOR has told cops Madeleine McCann was taken to the US — and he has named two key suspects.
Marcelino Italiano, 36, said she had been snatched by an Algarve-based
paedophile ring.
Angolan-born Italiano said the gang of influential and dangerous perverts had
hunted children in the Algarve before smuggling them out of Portugal.
And he told how he had to flee for his life when his investigations threatened
to unmask them. . . .

The facts, if anyone is interested, are that Huelva is just over an hour’s drive from Faro along the coast into Spain. There is no border control as both countries are within the Schengen zone. The English expression “flee for his life” tends to imply something slightly more than this.

And if anyone cares to ‘double check his credentials’ they will discover very easily that Italiano lived and worked in Huelva, and had done so for some time, being named as one of the main players in the local basketball team. His height of 6’4” must have been of great benefit, as they were promoted in their first season. He also clearly made no attempt to hide his identity or whereabouts.

6 http://newsoutlines.blogspot.com/2007/05/shutters-had-been-jemmied-maddie-was_05.html
Shutters had been jemmied.. Maddie was gone
John Askill and Julie Moult in Praia da Luz, Portugal, and James Clench in London
5 May 2007
The Sun
MOMENT HOL MUM'S WORLD FELL TO PIECES

Sun team: John Scott, Guy Patrick, Antonella Lazzeri, Alastair Taylor, John Coles, Gary O'Shea, Emma Cox, David Goodwin, Tom Worden, Jon Clarke and Doug Seeburg.

7 https://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/search?q=undercover&max-results=20&by-date=true
Thursday, 10 May 2018
Why I went undercover to Praia da Luz

8 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm#p15p3862
After the site had been isolated, he proceeded to make an inspection, together with the inspection and photographic report carried out by Deputy Specialist Joao Barreiras.
* * *
He then states that upon leaving the apartment was locked, leaving the space preserved for the GNR elements that were stationed next to the apartment.

9 ‘madeleine’, Kate McCann, 2011, Bantam Press


APPENDIX

Ref 7
https://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/search?q=undercover&max-results=20&by-date=true

Paulo Reis, Thursday, 10 May 2018

Why I went undercover to Praia da Luz

In 2007, I wrote in my blog “Madeleine McCann Disappearance” that I went to Praia da Luz once. That is not truth. But this not exactly a lie. I went once, as a journalist. I was there three other times, acting not as a journalist, but playing the “role” of another “Portuguese native”, curious like all the other inhabitants of the small village about what was going on with Madeleine McCann’s police investigation.

Before going there, those three times, I took some precautions. I shaved my hair just like a skinhead (I had it medium to long-sized), cut my moustache and, to help the “disguise”, at the time I already had to use glasses. It’s amazing how much these little details can change your appearance. I didn’t want to be recognized by other colleagues, journalist that knew me before.

I had something in my favor. In 1986, I went to Macau and stayed there until 1997. Came back to Portugal, worked on a national weekly newspaper “O Independente”, between 1989 and 2004. I had editorial responsibilities, so spend most of my time in the office, not in the street, reporting and getting in touch with other journalists. Between 2004 and 2008, I worked as a freelance journalist.

Many of the colleagues that knew me before 1986 had a successful career and are, actually, working at top jobs, in newspapers, radios and TV. The actual editor of “Correio da Manhã”, the leading daily newspaper in Portugal, Octávio Ribeiro, around 1984/85, was just a young man, friend of a fiend of mine, also journalist and, at the time, I think he wasn’t planning a career in journalism. My good friend António Ribeiro Ferreira, who I know since 1981 as we started as journalists at the same time, in the same newspaper, was until recently editor of a daily newspaper, the “i”. Nuno Tiago Pinto, who was a trainee at “O Independente”, now is deputy-editor of “Sábado”, a weekly news magazine. They just stay in the office, don't go out for reporting.

PLAYING A GAME OF CAT AND MOUSE

While I was at Praia da Luz, I kept a closed eye on Portuguese journalists that were there, reporting. They had the natural tendency of bundling together, exchanging tips and information, so it was easy to spot them. During those three stays at Praia da Luz, I detected only two journalists that knew me: Rui Gustavo, from the weekly “Expresso” and Francisco Leong, a photographer from Agence France Press.

I was sleeping in a tent with capacity only for one person, at a camping park, a few miles from Praia da Luz and I always parked my Honda CB 500 far from the place where action was going on, near the Ocean Club resort. I approached the area carefully, trying to spot those two friends and, in case of a “positive identification”, I just change my path and went to a coffee-shop near by, waiting until they left the area.

When there was no risk to meet them, I approached the crowd of onlookers, tried to be close to the British journalists, listening what they were talking about. As it happens with most British coming to Portugal (and don’t take me wrong, I don’t want to be offensive) they believe “natives” could not understand English, so they talked. And talked a lot.

After lunch, I spend time at the terrace of supermarket Batista, very close to Ocean Park and the only place where you could buy all British newspapers. But I never bought a single one, always choose one or two Portuguese newspaper and spend a long time reading them. Many British journalists spend their free time in that sunny terrace. They had laptops, mobile connection to Internet, fresh beer and some snacks. They sat down in groups of three or four and, once again, they talked among them with the same lack of basic precautions, convinced that the few “natives” sitting there English illiterates.

At the end of the afternoon and after dinner time, I used to made a round up through a few bars were retired British expatriates met, for a couple of beers and a small chat. Late at night, I had the routine of going to the two only places that were open until dawn. There was a big disco, but I don’t remember the name, and a bar, I think it was known as the “Carlos Bar” – but I’m not absolutely sure.

There, I played the role of a joyful “native” who had a couple of beers more that he should, but always in a good and happy mood, choosing carefully my “targets” (groups of British journalists), making toasts with them, trying to make “contact”, and speaking in a rather primitive and basic English.

THE REASONS WHY I DID IT

Some people may question the ethics of this behaviour, from the point of view of the Deontological Code of Portuguese Journalists, “spying” on his own colleagues. May be this a matter for discussion and debate and there will be, of course different views. I did what I did because, since the beginning of this case, when I was in Lisbon, sleeping 5/6 hours and spending the remaining of the day (and night) zapping through Sky News, BBC, ITV, checking dozens of British website newspapers and online news sites, I had the feeling that there was something strange, in the way UK Media was reporting the case.

I remember one of the first details that called my attention: the alleged broken shutters, and the Press reports “quoting” that “Gerry and Kate reportedly believed someone had ‘jemmied open’ the shutters to get into (Madeleine) her bedroom”.

A direct testimony of Kate McCann was more clear: at 10.00pm she checked the children and “she becomes alarmed when she reaches out to the children's bedroom door and it blows shut. Inside the room, the window is open and the shutter is up. The twins are sleeping but Madeleine's bed is empty.” More details came from Gerry McCann. He told Polícia Judiciária “that, when he was first alerted to the disappearance, he had lowered the shutter, then had gone outside and discovered that it could be raised only from the outside”. Against this, the police said the shutter could not be raised from the outside without being forced, but there was no sign of forced entry; they also said forcing the shutter open would have caused a lot of noise.

"Trish Cameron and Philomena McCann, Gerry’s sisters, Jill Renwick, a family friend and Jon Corner, Madeleine’s godparent were important key players in the McCann’s campaign of manipulation and distortion, since the early hours. Despite the clear and blunt denials of John Hill, the Ocean resort manager, Portuguese police and witnesses, they insisted that the shutters of apartment 5A were “jemmied” or “broken” and – small but interesting detail – the door, which had been locked, was open.”

The comments of John Hill were published and broadcasted by the British Media only in the first couple of days after Maddie disappeared. Than, as people was used to see in Soviet Union, something happened to Mr. John Hill: he just vanished from the newspapers pages and TV reports, like the rivals or supposed enemies of Stalin were erased from official pictures.

I collected a lot of information, during those three times I stayed “incognito” at Praia da Luz. I had the opportunity to find how the system set up by Alex Woolfall, from Bell Pottinger, worked, “managing” information released by PJ to the McCann couple and "feeding" it to be published and broadcasted (after some“adaptations”…) by British Media. It will be the subject, soon, of another detailed post in my blog.

I must tell one of the most curious stories of this case. Around September 2007, after the McCann were made “arguidos”, his British lawyers from Carter-Ruck asked for meetings with the editorial board of several UK Media organisations. One of the newspapers that got the request was a little bit uncomfortable, expecting something bad, from that meeting. So, minutes before, the team of lawyers from the newspaper came in and waited in another room, ready for a confrontation with Carter-Ruck lawyers, as they were expecting some kind of legal threat that could take them to court.

But the newspaper’s lawyers spend around 30 minutes waiting for nothing. All that the Carter-Ruck lawyers wanted to explain to the editorial board of that newspaper (and they did the same with other Media organizations) was that, according to the Portuguese Law, if there was no body found,the McCann never could be accused of nothing…

That, is not truth. Recently, a group pf criminals kidnapped a Portuguese businessman, to demand a ransom. They killed him and dissolved his body in a tank with sulfuric acid, leaving no trace, not even a small piece that could be used for a DNA analysis. But they were arrested, went on trial and sentenced, because their phones were wiretapped and PJ collected other strong evidence, enough to convince the court send them to prison for 25 years.

Chapter 30: Forget the Facts - Focus on the Fallacies



In Chapter 17 we started to consider some of the philosophical issues concerned with this case.


We looked at whether absence of evidence could become evidence of absence ( it can !) and we touched on Logic and fallacious arguments


What I want to do now is look at it purely from the point of view of Formal Logic.
We know, know, that there is no forensic evidence of an abduction on Thursday 3rd May 2007
So let us look at the logic of the arguments that have been put forward in the absence of that evidence.




There seem to be three phases, each involving different fallacies.
I will try to pursue them in chronological order




1 Argument by assertion.
Of the night in question, 3rd May 2007 Kate writes “I’d done that, and I knew, I knew, that Madeleine had been abducted.”
The addition of the second ‘I knew’, and putting it in italic is clearly designed to emphasise and therefore to persuade.


This is a classical fallacy known as the Argument by assertion.
If you have no evidence, simply state something. If necessary shout, and as we saw in Chapter 17 in the Lewis Carrol extract - What I tell you three times is true ( and other less amusing and more sinister examples)
If in doubt, Keep repeating it.
It is then sometimes referred to as the Argument by repeated assertion.
This does not reinforce the argument. In some cases it may make it weaker in the minds of perceptive listeners, as the lack of any supporting evidence is exposed.


In fact Kate does this as well in her book. In one paragraph she says “Refusing to acknowledge what I already knew, . . . mentally ticking boxes that I knew, deep down, were already ticked.” In two short paragraphs she uses the word four times, without adducing a single piece of relevant evidence to support the contention.


Gradually this fallacy can begin to metamorphose into the Argumentum ad baculum - the Argument with the club, as the repetition becomes more violent and aggressive, and develops into legal proceedings or in hounding a person to their death. I discuss this later.




It can also become the Argumentum ad lapidem - the argument by kicking a stone to prove its existence.
Even Dr Johnson used / misused these forms. “I know our will is free. And there’s an end on’t!’




2 Affirming the consequent. This is a form of non sequitur (it does not follow) argument, and was used from the start by the McCanns


The correct form of the argument is this. It is called the modus ponens, and is logically sound




It is usually put in the form of a syllogism, formed by the combination of a general statement (the major premise) and a specific statement (the minor premise), from which the conclusion is deduced

If a child is abducted, it disappears
General statement, antecedent -> consequent
Madeleine has been abducted
Specific statement, confirming the antecedent
Therefore she has disappeared.
Conclusion following logically

But affirming the consequent turns it round; it places the consequent (the consequence = ‘disappears’) before the antecedent (abducted) and this makes it logically unsound, a fallacious argument

If a child is abducted, it disappears
General statement
Madeleine has disappeared
Specific statement, confirms the consequent
Therefore she has been abducted.
Conclusion is not logical

To continue with this argument would require evidence of abduction, but this cannot be deduced from the second line.

This can look similar to the fallacy of the undistributed middle, where the minor premise talks about Some, but not All, leading to an illogical conclusion, but it is in fact something different.

This example mixes both
3 The Red Herring They then move to a fallacious argument, that even Kate in her book refers to, by name.
The McCanns invoke several ‘red herring’ arguments to wriggle out of their original statement that the window was open, the curtains were wide open, and the shutters were pulled up when she entered the room. These range from “the intruder was in the room whilst I was there,” to “someone did a dummy run the night before”, and even to “ left the shutters open as a red herring” whilst leaving by the patio door and down the stairs right past where Gerry was standing . . . (I’m not making this up !)


The Red Herring is a reference to a stinky fish dragged across a trail being followed by hounds in order to divert them by leaving a stronger scent.


In fact the main Red Herring which was pulled across the trail of the PJ was the insistence by 9 professional people that everything happened on the evening of Thursday 3rd May 2007 between 9:10pm and 9:50pm. (see also Appeal to authority, post.)

It was wholly successful.

The PJ, and almost everyone else concentrated on that day and date, those times, and the description of the situation in the apartment, and tried to make everything fit within them.

In fact even the alleged “evidential facts” do not fit.


But the Red Herring was sufficiently pungent to keep most of the Truth Hounds on the false trail for a long time.
Get back on the real trail and follow the squirrel - not the herring, and another much more productive line of enquiry shows itself.




4 The next fallacious argument they use is the Argumentum ad nauseam. The fallacy of Argument by constant repetition.

For this they quickly sought professional help. Bell Pottinger who were paid £0.5m, Hanover who were paid some unspecified amount, several gullible or paid tabloid journalists, and a series of spokesmen, culminating with the egregious Clarence Mitchell who went round the world repeating the official story ad nauseam, were employed specifically to promulgate this fallacy.


Their job was to repeat the word “abduction” as many times as possible, and to allow no other possibility to be promulgated

5 Intertwined in all this is another fallacy, Shifting the burden of proof

If you state something to be true, then you have the burden of proof, and it is not up to people who doubt you to provide any evidence against what you have said, until you yourself provide evidence of its truth.

Gerry does this outside the Court in Portugal. “where is. . . where is . . . Where is the child, we’re looking for that evidence, what other explanation can explain why she’s not here , . . .” [3] at 7:15




Simple answer – MANY – but it is not our responsibility to provide them, until you show us the evidence you have of abduction.

In fact the reporter presses the point “Are there any other explanations . . .?”
But Gerry shuts him down, turns away with “OK, any other questions.”

(See also false dilemma, post.)

After the initial stages we moved into TV interviews, articles in the press, visits to foreign countries, press articles and other things, and a new set of Logical fallacies came to the fore.


6 At this stage the Argumentum ad baculum - the argument with a big stick, became much more serious.
The famous or infamous – depending on your status as litigant – libel lawyers Carter-Ruck specialise in this and are acknowledged to be best in the world at what they do.

Never once did they allow their case to be sullied with evidence, or statements given under oath, or to be tested in open court by qualified forensic practitioners.

What they do is more devious.

They threaten their victims with penury, with impoverishment, by quoting exorbitant fees and costs, all of which will have to be paid if one word or phrase can be shown to be defamatory . . . and by so doing are able to get grudging and coerced agreement for signed undertakings, and qualified admissions. They then claim this as victory for their clients.

It is NOT.


None of it speaks to the truth or otherwise of what has been said.

It is therefore a fallacious argument.

The only time the truth has been even partially tested, the McCanns lost. And the Supreme Court of Portugal made the unprecedented statement that their status as suspects was still not settled.

The Argumentum ad baculum was then used to deadly effect against a random internet poster, Brenda Leyland, who after being hounded by Sky News and Martin Brunt over an entire day, took her own life. The ‘truth’ or otherwise of the contents of the ‘Dossier of Death’ may be judged by the fact that neither the Metropolitan Police, nor Leicestershire Police found sufficient in it to take any action at all. [vide Chapter 13]


7 The next fallacious argument used is the Argumentum ad numeram, the bandwagon argument, which is a species of Appeal to the people.




In Germany at a press conference they were asked whether they were involved in the disappearance.
Kate replies “To be honest I don’t actually think that is the case, I think that’s a small number of people who criticise us”. [4]. 0:27
Whether that statement is correct or not is immaterial. The issue is whether they were, or were not involved. The numbers of people who believe it or do not is entirely irrelevant to the truth of the matter.


8 They then moved to the Appeal to Authority.
This is an interesting one.
We are used to accepting the word of experts with knowledge outside our own personal sphere.


We might for example be impressed by a keynote speech on the Aetiology of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation if it came from an experienced consultant cardiologist.
We might be equally impressed by a description of the protocols and legal procedures necessary to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights if that came from a Queens Council


But perhaps not if these were the other way round.


The appeal to authority becomes fallacious if the authority itself is irrelevant or non-existent.


We saw that in the court in Portugal where one witness, Pike, held himself out to be a psychologist. His evidence was undermined when he did have to tell them that he held no such qualification.

Similarly the retired Detective Inspector Edgar gave evidence which was similarly undermined when he admitted that not only had he not read the book in question, but that neither had he been given, nor had he read, all the relevant documents.

Their evidence may in fact have been accurate, but their proven lack of authority condemned it.

The fallacy is overused. A man whose authority depends on his historical skill in playing Association football and of selling potato crisps is invited to give his views on the ‘political and socio-economic implications of Britain’s leaving the European Union’.
A woman with a décolletage whose size can vary with the seasons and a name which is similarly flexible, is invited to give her views, not about décolletage, but about matters unrelated to any of her known or supposed expertise.


9 This fallacy has a close relative, the Appeal to vague authority
Here the authority itself is presented as relevant, and may indeed be so, but the identity is so vague as to leave the statement as fallacious.
“Many scientists believe that the Universe is beginning to shrink”. Well, possibly, but if they are micro-biologists their views may not be as authoritative as those of, say, Astrophysicists.


Kate used this “So on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal. . . .
. . . the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed ‘well within the bounds of reasonable parenting’. “ [p. 124]


We do not know the identity of the alleged barrister, nor whether she or he was a specialist in Family Law, nor of her or his experience, nor whether s/he has a list of relevant authorities and precedents up the sleeve of the gown . . . All we have is Kate’s statement that this was said.


10 As we move further on, we encounter the Argumentum ad hominem (abusive).
Anyone commenting on any aspect of the case was dismissed as a “troll”. The McCanns even had boxes into which they put correspondence they did not agree with, labelled ‘Nasty’, ‘Nutty’, and ‘Psychics Visions Dreams’
This vituperation continues to this day on the internet, with some people, suspected to be in the pay of the McCann team scanning the fora and blog sites and putting on-line vile abuse and threats of physical violence against anyone critical of the official story.
[See argumentum ad baculum, supra.]


11 The False dilemma is a favourite fallacious argument used by people in a tight corner
Gerry used it outside the court room in Portugal, where it was also a species of Shifting the burden of proof
His words “where is. . . where is . . . Where is the child, we’re looking for that evidence, what other explanation can explain why she’s not here , . . .” [3] at 7:15. not only try to shift the burden, but to suggest that there is no other valid alternative to the theory being proposed.


12 Every schoolboy knows . . .
Here a statement is made in such a way that there is a suggestion, which may be explicit or implicit, that anyone who does not agree is ignorant or stupid, or both.

It is used more frequently that we notice
“Everyone knows there is no link between smoking and lung cancer”. (Said for many decades)
“Only a fool would argue that speed kills, Look at Formula 1”. (Still used !)

And here we saw Gerry
GM: We’ve looked at evidence of cadaver dogs, and they are incredibly unreliable.
Q: Unreliable ?
GM: Cadaver dogs. Yes [5] at 4:39

The clear implication being that only a fool would disagree.

The truth might be that only a fool would refuse to read the detailed evidence of their incredible reliability and almost total infallibility.




We then entered a third phase. That of consideration of the McCanns themselves and the implications or their being prosecuted or convicted of a crime or offence in Portugal or England


Whilst these may be valid as arguments in themselves, they are fallacious when they are said to speak to the guilt or innocence of any concerned


13 Argumentum ad misericordiam. The Appeal to pity - think of their suffering in a Portuguese or English prison, think of the twins, and the breakup of the family, of the loss of their professional reputations, of the impact on their friends. Who would look after the house...?
Very clearly this says nothing at all about guilt or innocence, but it diverts neatly from that inconvenient issue.
14 This overlaps with the Argumentum ad sentimus. Emotional appeal,

Pity us, cry with us, light candles, hold vigils, pray during services, make programmes with tear-jerking poems about dead children for Radio 4, drop broad hints about mental strain, and even suggest incipient mental illness when convenient. (But obviously be in a position to deny it vehemently when it is not convenient, such as when it is suggested that mental illness might have been the reason behind an assault...)



15 Appeal to ignorance
We see this fallacy from various people. Some in the press have used it, as have some retired senior Police officers (all of whom ought to know better.)

They all amount to the same thing each time. A bald statement after a re-statement of usually irrelevant details, usually taking the form . . .

“That is why I can’t believe they killed their daughter . . .” or

“I can’t believe they were involved in the disappearance of their daughter . . ."





We are clearly supposed to follow this, relying on the Appeal to authority, but it is fallacious.
The fact that YOU cannot believe it is frankly of no interest, and immaterial to the argument. The question is DID THEY, or DID THEY NOT


16 The Genetic fallacy. This is normally used to destroy an argument, but here it is being used to positive effect. They are Doctors, THEREFORE they are not guilty.




There would rightly be outrage if anyone were to invoke it the other way round, and make loud noises about Dr. Harold Shipman, Dr Crippen, Dr Bodkin Adams, and others through history. [6]




17 The Slippery Slope. This can appear to be persuasive, and is clearly used to stop prosecutions of famous persons, with those cases labelled “Not in the public interest”
The argument runs –







Books on the subject and references


1 “How to win every argument: The use and abuse of Logic”. Madsen Pirie, Continuum International Publishing Group, (Available from amazon.co.uk)


2 Mastering Logical Fallacies”, Michael Witney, Zephyros Press, (Available from Amazon.co.uk)


3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k5Q7QZNfFA At 7:15


4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ3ForLXJT0 At 0:27


5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ULxqfGTVU&t=321s At 4:39


6 https://www.ranker.com/list/serial-killers-who-were-doctors/ranker-crime

Chapter 31: 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]

In the previous Chapter “Fake News” I looked at an article by Jon Clarke, the owner and publisher of a free newspaper in southern Spain “The Olive Press”.
I showed how that article, published in 2017, was seriously divergent from, and often contrary to facts as reported by other people. Notably, and potentially seriously, it directly contradicted much of what Kate McCann herself had written in her autobiography “madeleine”. But there the matter rested. It was discussed on several Fora, but was largely dismissed as “the usual nonsense”.

In late March 2019 I went into a supermarket in southern Spain, purchased a bottle of wine and wrapped it in one of the free tabloid papers helpfully supplied at the check-out for this purpose.
On this occasion it was “The Olive Press”. Vol.13 Issue 314 to be precise.

On page 3 is an article on the recent Netflix documentary about missing Madeleine Beth McCann, saying “The Olive Press” played a “starring role” [sic] and entitled “Hoping for Answers”.
The article is not attributed and is written in the third person, but is clearly by Jon Clarke.
As the publisher and editor of the paper he is ultimately responsible for its content.

In it I am identified by name, occupation and location, and then subjected to the routine, gratuitous ad-hominen insults and abuse sadly so typical of what we have come to expect of those who uncritically support the ‘official’ story put out by Team McCann and their acolytes and apologists.

In that article, 7 column inches are devoted to Clarke and the Netflix documentary, whilst 3.5 column inches are devoted to maligning and defaming me. 293 words - v - 140 words
One third of the entire article is devoted to entirely gratuitous abuse.

Gratuitous in that it does not address the central point of the article, which is to emphasise the importance of Clarke and “The Olive Press” in the Netflix programmes.
Gratuitous in that yet again it sets up and then knocks down the straw-man argument about “proving that the McCanns did not kill Madeline’ which it is unlikely anyone actually believes.

I am a long since retired police officer as he accurately states, from a previous millennium and perhaps from a more robust generation. I am hardened to abuse of the sort we come to expect from drunks, drug users, criminals and tabloid journalists.

But there is more. He goes on to make four distinct statements about me.
It is in the public domain, published in 100,000 copies, with huge numbers of readers both on-line and via Facebook and Android apps - his figures, not mine - and so I give a quote

“The former Nottinghamshire copper has long trolled that the parents were guilty and even produced a libellous pamphlet on why they did it. . . .
. . [he] once tried to claim that Olive Press editor Clarke could not have been in Praia da Luz on the morning after Maddie’s disappearance.
In a disgusting blog post he also somehow suggested that Clarke may have been in some way involved.”

Strong stuff. So perhaps a measured and proportionate response is not altogether unexpected.

Let us pick it apart. Let us be clinically detached, ignore the sneering and abusive tone, forget the libel, and stick to the facts of what is being said. Keep our eye on the squirrel.

•       “Libellous pamphlet”
No pamphlet in this case has ever been adjudged to be libellous. Clarke is fully aware of this

•       [he] . . . even produced . . a pamphlet . . .
I have never produced any pamphlet, libellous or otherwise. Clarke knows this

•       once tried to claim that Clarke could not have been in Praia da Luz . . .
This is not true. Clarke knows this is not true

•       he … suggested that Clarke may have been in some way involved
This is not true. Clarke knows this is not true

Here we have four distinct and discrete untruths. Jon Clarke knows that each one is untrue.

We can be absolutely sure of this because in each case he has previously published the ’real, true’ facts in other places including his own newspaper. He has previously published the identity of the person who did produce a leaflet and engage in ‘robust discussion‘. And it was not me. So these are not mistakes, errors, typos, mis-information, general editorial sloppiness, nor any of the other excuses normally trotted out on these occasions.
 It logically follows that Jon Clarke, Publisher and Editor of “The Olive Press”, is a liar
and that his newspaper “The Olive Press” deliberately and by design publishes lies.


That might have been the end of the matter. As a person of reasonable fortitude I could have simply accepted that within the fortnight the cat litter trays, the parrot cages and the rubbish bins would have been cleaned and emptied, and that the lies would have disappeared with them – notwithstanding in the modern world they remain forever floating in the aether cloud of the internet.

But I suspected that I was dealing with something else; that I was dealing with organised and concerted mendacity. It is in the first part of the article, in which Clarke’s appearance in the Netflix documentary is featured, that we find very significant differences between what is being said now, and what was said in 2017, only two years ago, authored by the same Jon Clarke.

We need to examine extracts from these three versions together

2017 article in “The Olive Press”                                                                                            [5]

      “But for a couple of loving parents to murder their daughter, bury and cover all traces in an hour while on holiday is stretching it just a bit too far.
      But this didn’t stop the Portuguese police from charging them… “
      “When I arrived at about 11.45am I was firstly able to walk into the apartment, where I introduced myself to the McCanns and told them I would do everything I could to help.
      “The only reporter on the scene till late that evening – apart from Sky News reporter Kate Burley, who happened to be on holiday there – I spent time grilling neighbours, . . ”
      “Incredibly, we had to wait till late afternoon before a couple of sniffer dogs had arrived, which was amateur to say the least, given that Maddie had been reported missing a full 18 hours earlier.

2019 article in “The Olive Press”                                                                                             [4]

      “The Olive Press Editor, 50, was the first journalist on the scene in Praia da Luz the day after police began their disastrous attempt to find the toddler.
      “ . . he takes the crew around the resort, and reveals his shock at how laid back the police operation was and how he met the McCanns in those early hours.
      “Initially there was just a small bit of tape in front of the apartment, and then a bit at the side where the patio doors were,” he revealed in the film.
      “It wouldn’t have been difficult to walk in and have a look round. It certainly wasn’t Fort Knox,” he added.

2019 transcript from Netflix documentary                                                                            [7]

      “This is it, this is it.”
      “This is now what was the Mark Warner complex, the Ocean Club, this one here 5a
      “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”.

      “That was really unfortunately all I could get out of them at that point, so there really wasn’t much opportunity, sadly, to talk to the family about what had happened the night before.

      “Initially there was maybe just a small bit of tape here in front of the apartment, and a little bit at the side where the patio doors were.”
      “And then there was a note on the steps leading up, saying ‘Don’t go past this point’.

      It went up, and I looked in and the door was open and I think I tried to speak.
I didn’t, . . . I didn’t want to push my way through the door or into the apartment which obviously would have been a crime scene, so it wouldn’t have been appropriate to do that, but I got the impression it wouldn’t have been difficult to do that at all, to sort of walk in and take a look around, you know it certainly wasn’t Fort Knox.”

Readers will already realise that some of this is contradictory. In 2017 he says he walked into the apartment and spoke to the McCanns there. In 2019 he says he spoke to the McCanns as they left, and then did not enter the apartment. So let us deconstruct these “versions of the truth”

We find a series of direct statements
          He arrived about 11:45am
          He was the only reporter till late that evening
          He was the first journalist on the scene
          Kate [Kay] Burley was there
          He walked into the apartment
          He did not walk into the apartment
          He met the McCanns in the apartment
          He met the McCanns as they were leaving
          He introduced himself, and told them he would do everything to help
          He introduced himself, and they said ‘Hi’, and may have said ‘thanks for coming’
          There were no dogs until late afternoon
          The Portuguese police charged the McCanns

What is truly astonishing about this whole series of statements is not merely that some contradict others. It is that there is documentary evidence available in the public domain in the form of professionally recorded contemporaneous Video, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that every one of those statements is untrue.
And Clarke, a professional journalist who has access to the internet and to search engines as we all do, must be fully aware that his lies can be, and will be exposed.
And yet he persists, and refuses to correct or apologise.

          He arrived about 11:45am

In her autobiography Kate covers the departure from the complex with the PJ for the initial statements. The statements are timed with Gerry McCann’s beginning at 1115, Tanner and Oldfield at 1130. Portimão police station is about 32 km from the apartment, and google.maps estimates the time to drive at around 32 min.
Allowing time for organising rooms, paper, interviewers and interpreters and other domestic matters this would indicate a departure time of around 1015 - 1030. This accords with Kate’s book, where she says “it was about 10am by the time a couple of PJ officers turned up”.

What Clarke has failed to notice or factor into his story is the one hour time difference between Spain, where he lives, and Portugal. This was pointed out in the ‘blog’ comments on the 2017 article, but he did not seem to grasp the importance of the detail.

This puts Clarke in PdL around 1045 local time or shortly before. In time to see the McCanns, Payne, Tanner and Oldfield leaving with the PJ in fact. And there is clear video evidence of this.

          He was the only reporter on the scene until late that evening

This is one of Clarke’s most bizarre statements. It seems totally pointless to print such an egregious lie about such an apparently unimportant issue.
The area was ‘swarming’ with reporters and camera crews. A group of 6 reporters including Clarke congregated in the car park outside apartment 5H waiting for them to leave. Clarke is seen on film speaking to one reporter, a woman, and standing within a yard of Len Port, a British journalist based just along the coast who had been there since 0830

          He was the first journalist on the scene . . .

This lie is repeated, even in 2019 when Clarke knew that the Netflix film would include video from 2007 showing this was simply untrue, and despite having access to Port’s book. He could have used the construction “among the first” but again chooses to print another untruth. It is unclear why. Len Port arrived about 0830, and has not only written about this, but was filmed by one of the camera crews. Port does not claim to have been the first – probably because he has no evidence that this was so, possibly because it is entirely irrelevant.

          Kate [Kay] Burley was there

In the 2017 article he names Kate Burley. Commentators on Clarke’s blog site pointed out the mistake in the name, and he altered the on-line version to KAY Burley. It was then pointed out that video exists of Ms Burley presenting the news in the UK that day, and that the person in question was actually a weather presenter, who was identified and named. He has never corrected the untruth, or apologised.

          He walked into the apartment

“When I arrived at about 11.45am I was firstly able to walk into the apartment, where I introduced myself to the McCanns”

In fact the place had been sealed off the previous evening, the McCanns who had been in another apartment overnight – the Payne’s, 5H – either ‘keeping vigil’ (Kate), or sleeping (Gerry) moved their remaining possessions early that morning into their new apartment, 5G, and shortly after 1000 were on their way to Portimao with the PJ
During the morning and afternoon the forensic people were in the apartment, there were dog handlers outside, and the place was crawling with reporters and film crews

          He did not walk into the apartment

In the Netflix documentary Clarke has now changed his story. He will have been aware that Netflix had access to the contemporaneous video footage, and was planning to include some clips. Those include footage of the tape and the warning notice he refers to.

“I didn’t want to push my way through the door or into the apartment which obviously would have been a crime scene, so it wouldn’t have been appropriate to do that, but I got the impression it wouldn’t have been difficult to do that at all, to sort of walk in and take a look around, “

His use of the negative of the conditional perfect tense - “wouldn’t have been difficult” - is a clear admission that he did not enter. He also excuses himself from so doing by rightly stating that it would have been inappropriate because it was a crime scene – or at least a missing person scene – and because it was taped off.

          He met the McCanns in the apartment

But the McCanns were not there. They had spent the night in the Payne’s apartment, and then the entire day in Portimão. They arrived back in PdL around 2030 and went straight to 5G, their newly allocated apartment. Food was provided and they did not go out again until 2200 to give the short press conference by torchlight.

          He met the McCanns as they were leaving

This is more intriguing. For this you should view the relevant video clip above, which can be slowed, and ‘clicked’ frame by frame. Full details are given in the Appendices. A series of annotated stills from the video can be seen at Appendix B.

Clarke is seen standing in the car park among the group of six journalists. He then leaves toward the camera, shaking hands with one of the 5 GNR police officers. As he moves out of shot to the left, Gerry McCann is seen in the distance leaving the stairwell, and walking into the car park on the right of shot.
From this point the camera follows the McCanns, Oldfield and Tanner as they walk with a PJ officer in a leather jacket to the waiting cars. They are joined by Payne, and are seeing getting into the cars and driving away.
Clarke is seen emerging from a row of marked police vehicles on the right of shot, striding into the middle of the road close to Len Port, and taking a photo. At no point is he close to the McCanns. Seconds before the car pulls away Payne is seen winding down the front passenger window and says something indistinct.
So unless Clarke shouted at the open window as the car begins to drive away it is unlikely that this polite exchange could have taken place as described. 
“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”.

          He told them he would do everything to help

It is unclear what part of a journalists professional duty it is to “help”. It suggests that the official story is already known. I shall return to this later

          He introduced himself, and they said ‘Hi’, and may have said ‘thanks for coming’

This is a very different story, and implies something far shorter and less formal than the previous version.

          There were no dogs until late afternoon

Here Clarke uses the words. “Incredibly, we had to wait till late afternoon. . .”
It is certainly incredible. It is unbelievable. We do not believe it.
For the simple reason that it is not true. It is another palpable lie.

 Len Port describes dogs searching during the early hours of the morning -
“As I moved around the village on foot there was at least one obvious manifestation of police activity. Police officers with search dogs on leads were vigorously combing the vicinity of the apartments, the area around the village church, on down towards the seashore and along the full length of the long curving beach. It was all being done in silence.”

In the few video clips referred to it is possible to identify no fewer than four dogs with their handlers. Two are black, one is black and white, and the fourth is a large golden Labrador. And these are only those filmed in the immediate vicinity of the apartment. Len Port is clearly describing yet more further afield.

To ensure that this was correct I contacted a Portuguese journalist who has followed this case
I referred to sentences taken from Clarke’s 2017 article
“From the word go, they did not take this crime seriously. “
“Incredibly, we had to wait till late afternoon before a couple of sniffer dogs had arrived, which was amateur to say the least, given that Maddie had been reported missing a full 18 hours earlier.”

I received the following email [edited with grammar and spelling corrected]

Around 2.00 am, May 4th, there were already more than a dozen GNR officers at Praia da Luz. The lieutenant-colonel in charge of Algarve area also was there, around 3.00 am. He called off-duty officers and brought others from at least 6 precincts in the Algarve. There were also 2 K2 [dog] units, from Portimão.
Around 4.00 am, the GNR commander called headquarters in Lisbon and asked them to send more K2 units, dogs more specialised in searching for missing persons. Those 3 units left Lisbon around 4.30 am and arrived at Praia da Luz around 8.00, starting immediately the searches.
In the early hours of the morning of May 4th, there were more than 20 GNR officers at the place, all access to the building was cordoned off, nobody could get closer than 20 meters, so everything that Clarke says is just a lie…

Even more incredibly, the dog van and handlers were in the car park only feet from where Clarke walked as he left the scene. One camera crew was there taking film of the dogs and of the shutters, and was itself filmed doing so by a second film crew. It is inconceivable that Clarke did not notice, and so the inevitable conclusion is that for some reason he is choosing yet again to lie.

          The Portuguese police charged the McCanns
“But this didn’t stop the Portuguese police from charging them… “

It is difficult to know in which category of mendacity to place this, or whether to try to excuse it on the grounds of crass stupidity. But Clarke is not a stupid man. He is reasonably well educated and his craft depends on the use of the English language. He lives in a country with a Continental legal system ultimately based in Roman Law, and will be, or should be aware of the different roles adopted by GNR police, PJ, and of the role of the Public Prosecutor.

The McCanns have never been charged with anything. There is insufficient evidence to do so.
For many people that is the “causus belli”.

It is unlikely that Clarke has misinterpreted ‘arguido’ status as “charging them”. Most people by now understand the meaning of that term as ‘formal suspect’, equivalent to being ‘interviewed under caution’ despite the McCanns trying to deny that interpretation on oath at Leveson.

It may be instructive to compare Clarke’s mendacious style and somewhat Cavalier approach to truth, facts and evidence with what another British journalist, Len Port, who lives a short distance along the coast in Portugal, says in his book 'People in a Place Apart’

Ch. 24. THE MADELEINE MYSTERY 
[Extract.] On arrival in the village before 8.30am on Friday 4th May 2007, I expected to see some urgent activity. A young British girl, Madeleine McCann, had gone missing the previous night. At first I saw no movement at all. The village was silent and still. While driving around, I came across a single police vehicle parked on the roadside at a junction of minor roads towards the back of the village. I parked directly behind it. A few uniformed police officers were standing outside a block of holiday apartments. The only other people in sight were two women in conversation close to a corner ground floor apartment, 5A.                                                                                                         [11]

Port then walked round the village, and was filmed by one of the many camera crews who were also beginning to arrive during the morning.
This is a still from one such video, showing Port by the pool to the south of the McCanns’ apartment. The heavy plastic tarpaulin screens of the notorious Tapas bar are clearly visible in front of him behind the yellow umbrellas.
If we look at the shadows of Port and of the palm tree and then replicate them on a N-S image from Google Maps, we observe that the image was recorded in the early morning, as stated.


Later in the chapter Port says
“As I moved around the village on foot there was at least one obvious manifestation of police activity. Police officers with search dogs on leads were vigorously combing the vicinity of the apartments, the area around the village church, on down towards the seashore and along the full length of the long curving beach. It was all being done in silence.”
“The tranquility outside apartment 5A gradually changed. As the morning and afternoon wore on, the number of people arriving on the scene steadily increased. Curious passers-by mingled with reporters, photographers, TV cameramen and staff manning outside broadcast vans. A mixture of Portuguese, British and other nationalities, we all stood around asking each other questions and wondering what had happened to the little girl.”

Paulo Reis makes trenchant observations about this phenomenon of journalists and reporters ‘feeding off each other’ in his blog article.                                                                                              [14]

How much more of this can we take ?

These untruths are in a different league from the normal Team McCann and Mitchell mendacity.
We have become inured to the McCann tactic of simple reversal of statements when the objective facts prove inconvenient

* The curtains were wide open - v - they were tight closed
* The abductor got in through broken shutters - v - did not enter through the window
* Gerry entered through the locked front door - v - through the unlocked patio door
* They had no wristwatches - v - they checked the time by their watches
* We never lied to anyone - v - we told a lie about Gerry having a stomach complaint

The McCanns are stuck with those lies for all time. They will be endlessly repeated whenever any claim is made that the McCanns are telling the truth. They can never escape them.
The late Antony Sharples, writing as John Blacksmith, discussed this in “The Foundation Lie”  [13]

But Clarke’s untruths are of a different order of magnitude.

To redeem himself and to try to recover some scintilla of professional credibility Clarke has to admit that it didn’t happen AT ALL.
He has to admit that he simply made it up; to state openly, that as an‘Investigative Journalist’, or indeed a journalist of any hue, and the publisher of a newspaper and on-line outlet, he simply invented a story; invented a meeting, invented dialogue, and twisted the available facts to fit some unknown agenda.

It is no longer open to him to say, “Well it did, but just not quite in that way”

He either DID go into apartment 5A on arrival, or he did NOT

He either DID speak to the McCanns in the apartment shortly after he arrived in PdL on 4/5/7, or he did NOT

There either WERE police dogs present or there were NOT

The McCanns were either CHARGED or they were NOT

And these lies are now preserved on video, to be viewed by millions, exposed over and over again, for all time. He is stuck with it for all eternity.

Even if he had no ultimate editorial control the sequence must be:
- Netflix consult him about events
- Clarke inflates his own role about being first on the scene and first to speak to the McCanns
- Netflix write the screenplay to incorporate what Clarke said in the 2017 article
- Clarke is an important and integral part of the filming and editorial team
- Netflix put that part of the interview as voice-over to the video clip for emphasis
- "The Olive Press" then trumpets itself as playing a 'starring role' in the documentary


In the film he has – or they have – now completely changed the order of events from –
2017 - went in and THEN spoke to the McCanns in the apartment. 
“When I arrived at about 11.45am I was firstly able to walk into the apartment, where I introduced myself to the McCanns”.

to a complete reversal – 
2019 - spoke to the McCanns as they were leaving (the film implying this was outdoors) and THEN went to the apartment
“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”.

Only then does he go to the gate and the stairs with the tape
And we see the notice indicating that even he as reporter should not enter
He waves to indicate something out of shot
And says : "It went up, and I looked in and the door was open, and I think I tried to speak.”
The words “It went up, . . .” are, curiously, a voice-over to a clip from 2007 of the stairs, the tape and the notice with an unidentified woman in shot, left, who is clearly holding a microphone, clearly a news reader and speaking directly to camera probably LIVE.
And his use of the construction "It went up," leads us to understand "The prohibition / the cordon / the exclusion zone went up, . . .
which makes his reluctance or failure to go into the apartment even more understandable and acceptable.

By saying he “tried to speak” he is also, of course, clearly admitting that there were already people IN the apartment to be spoken to. We know these were police and Forensic officers. As does he.
Which may be why he only “tried to speak” as his Portuguese may not be as fluent as his Spanish, and perhaps why he did not want to risk a confrontation and possible arrest, as he explains -

I didn’t . . . I didn’t want to push my way through the door or into the apartment which obviously would have been a crime scene, so it wouldn’t have been appropriate to do that,

[Just as an aside, the repeated “I didn’t . . [pause] . . I didn’t . . .” is potentially an interesting insight into the possible mental turmoil he may have been feeling as he repeated this version of a story he knew to be untrue and which he feared might one day be exposed]

The fact remains that the McCanns are in the shot – in an unbroken ‘real time’ sequence – from the car park, along the road, and getting into the car, and at no time does anyone approach them close enough to have a conversation. Tanner keeps behind the group, and Oldfield is seen using his body and arm as a physical shield the entire time. The sequence is unbroken until the first car is seen driving off and the camera pans to take in the entire convoy. The only ‘window of opportunity’ is when Paynes opens the passenger window, a sequence of rather less than 6 seconds, before the vehicle moves away.

Viewers must draw their own conclusions about whether Clarke really 
“ . . . 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”.

We note his use of the deliberately vague “I think they may . . .” Is this his escape route ?

If so it is a very long way from the 2017 version. 
“When I arrived at about 11.45am I was firstly able to walk into the apartment, where I introduced myself to the McCanns and told them I would do everything I could to help.”

Does Clarke have an escape route from that ?
Or can we now accurately describe the 2017 version as a Lie, on the simple grounds that

- not that this is just sloppy writing about poorly remembered events –
- not that this is mere tabloid trash journalism –
- not that this is nothing more sinister than trying to sell a few more copies with ludicrous attention grabbing “Freddie-Starr-ate-my-hamster” headlines –
- not that this is innocent mistake or inadvertent misunderstanding –

but that this is a quite deliberate, studied, careful and calculated series of untruths.
Falsehoods published to a very particular end.

And if so, would this make Clarke a calculated liar, or perhaps, since he is very free with the accusation of “conspiracy theorist”, is he himself merely a highly paid pawn in something much bigger, of which perhaps even he knows nothing ?

Cui Bono ? Who benefits ?

What was the point of lying about me ? What did it benefit anyone ?
What was the point of lying by claiming to be the only, or even the first journalist at the scene ?
What was the point of lying by saying he went into the apartment ?
What was the point of lying by saying that he spoke to the McCanns, there and then ?
What was the point of lying by saying there were no dogs; by saying that Kate (or Kay) Burley was there; of claiming that a road crew was still digging up the street “literally right outside the apartment“ ?

Why did he not write articles based on the truth? It can be just as critical, just as sneering, just as disparaging. I am no journalist, but it is not difficult to do.                                           [APP C]


What led or has caused Clarke to publish this entire series of egregious, false and defamatory statements in his own newspaper “The Olive Press” over many years, to say nothing of the ludicrous ‘new leads’ that were then so eagerly picked up by “The Sun” and others ? [Olive Press passim.]


Jon Clarke and “The Olive Press” are no strangers to criticism of their antics.

In 2013 FAPE, the Federación de Associationes 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.                                                                               [APP E]

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”

The facts are that “The Olive Press” latched on to a young British girl who lived with her parents in a small village in southern Spain. It was her misfortune to be called Madeleine. Her photo was published, against the specific wishes of her parents, the family home was clearly identified, and inevitably hordes of tourists descended to take photos. The article bore the sub-title "Has Olive Press solved the connection of the Axarquia with the disappeared Madeleine McCann?”

The answer was of course “No” which rendered the article otiose, irrelevant, and even more reprehensible.

Spurious ‘facts’ were invented about the parent’s employment and supposed travel to Thailand,

The journalist in question was contacted by the parents and exonerated herself saying that it was not her decision to publish the article in that way, but that of the editor Jon Clarke.

The incident in question had occurred over two years before publication.

Even more revealing is the fact that Clarke and “The Olive Press” had not contacted Operation Grange, nor apparently the Portuguese PJ with their ‘revelation’, and in reply to the complaint by the girl’s father it appears merely sent the draft of another article about their daughter, saying that in view of the complaint they had decided not to publish it.

The panel also noted “the report published in "The Olive Press" dominated its news items and pretends to be "investigative journalism" although this was cursory and elementary”

She was merely one of many victims of ludicrous and lurid Olive Press stories.

A paedophile took Madeleine McCann, not her parents - (by which we assume that what Clarke means was not that a paedophile had intended to take her parents . . . ! ?
I saw Maddie in a supermarket on the Costa del Sol
Ex-soldier claims he saw Madeleine McCann by a Nerja swimming pool
Spanish Maddie mystery solved
I saw Madeleine McCann playing outside Costa del Sol beach restaurant
Could Maddie be alive and well in Nerja?
Gypsy link to Maddie

Article 13 of the FAPE Code is very clear
Art. 13. The commitment to the search for truth will always lead the journalist to publish only facts of which he knows the origin, without falsifying documents or omitting essential information, as well as not publishing false, misleading or distorted information.
In consequence:
a) A journalist must substantiate the information published, which includes the duty to check the sources and to give the opportunity to the affected person to offer their own version of the facts.
b) Journalists are warned that the spread of false, misleading or distorted material, will result in an obligation to correct the error with all speed and with the same typographic and / or audiovisual display used for its dissemination. Likewise, they will publish an apology when appropriate.                                 [APP E]


What is the force which drives a journalist who has been paid in the past by News International, to publish over a long period a series of stories clearly designed to defame and traduce the officers and the organisation of the Polícia Judiciária (PJ), and the officers and the organisation of the Guarda Nacional Republicana (GNR), not to mention the British Police and specialists including a dog handler and the many journalists and camera crews who attended the scene in the first days.

What is the motive behind insisting that the investigation was anything but the best that could reasonably be done under difficult circumstances, particularly given the misleading and contradictory information supplied to them by ‘witnesses’ ?

As a wider issue, what or who caused the British Press to turn from initial professional detachment to an all-out assault on anyone who dared question the ‘official’ story put out by the McCanns and their large team of advisors and sponsors ? An assault which manifestly continues to this day.
 
A Portuguese journalist, Paulo Reis, has interested himself in this latter aspect, writing first on his blog site about three undercover visits he paid to PdL to observe the manipulation of other journalists  - particularly British - and recording their ‘methods’ of obtaining information, and more recently authoring a book, “A Guerra os McCann”. ('The McCann's War') which is currently on sale, with the English translation in final proof reading.

In it he is able to identify the exact date from which the British Press changed from normal professional detachment to a concerted and mendacious attack on the Portuguese, their lifestyle, their Police and their legal system.

We remember that the McCanns notoriously paid Lord Bell of Bell-Pottinger half a million pounds –we suppose out of the “fund” to keep their story on the front pages of the papers for a year, whilst simultaneously complaining to Leveson about ‘Press Intrusion’.

Which then raises the question - was Clarke himself an innocent dupe ?

And here we are forced back to the so-called “conspiracy theory” that much of what the British press have published from very early has been on a concerted attempt to deflect from proper consideration and analysis of the available evidence.

How many ‘pieces of silver’ are the Press and journalists paid to keep this up ?
Who is controlling it, and why ?


Post scriptum
Everything I have said is based on materials freely available to anyone who cares about the truth.
I have no special skills, no sources of information nor access to documents or photos and videos not in the public domain.
Everything here is available to every journalist and every police officer and every member of the general public – everywhere.
I have tried to provide extensive references, and in the Appendices are series of photos, made up of screen shots taken from the video footages from Friday 4th May 2007, so that readers may draw their own conclusions.
If I have made mistakes, they are entirely mine, and I will correct and apologise.





Is this all just silly nit-picking over a short article in a free Tabloid supermarket paper ?

My integrity has been impugned and I feel entitled to respond proportionately, by addressing the cohort of people who follow this case and who read the evidence and opinions about it.

Clarke is a journalist and publisher. His craft is the use of the English Language. He is an educated man. He speaks standard received English, using normal grammar and syntax
without any noticeable regional or national dialect forms.

When he writes “I did this, then, there” we can suppose he reasonably intends us to believe it.
If we then find we can not, serious questions are raised.
Amongst the serious educated British ex-pat population round Ronda the word most often used about The Olive Press was “embarrassing”. To move the paper from that to “consistently mendacious, unreliable and abusive” is a serious step.
The paper’s reputation may take some time to recover.

Post-Post Scriptum
Whether Netflix will be impressed to discover that they have been so cynically manipulated to put out across the world this series of untruths is not yet known. Only time will tell.

New chapter published today 13 May 2019

Chapter 32: ON LIES AND CONSPIRACIES



In his recent book Paulo Reis lays bare the development of the campaign by the British Press against the PJ and Dr Amaral. Jon Clarke and “The Olive Press” were at the forefront of this.

Here I try to trace the origin of one of the more persistent Conspiracy Theories.
I start by examining three apparently unconnected circumstances, and will try to show how they overlap and how these coincidences can so easily be interpreted as being something different.

Having established that “The Olive Press” is somewhat relaxed about the truth, cavalier with ‘facts’ but very free with invective and personal and public abuse of those who do not accept every word of what they say, let us turn to one of the more interesting of the conspiracy theories.

I want to go through this carefully so that errors can be identified.

We start with Clarke

Jon Clarke has said, twice, that he was phoned about 0715 on Friday 4/5/7, and that he left his home about 30 minutes later. He is very precise about this time, and repeated it in the Netflix voice-over emphasising “and it was 7 or 7:30”

2017 – I RECEIVED the call at 7.15am . . . I was on the road half an hour later

That puts him on the road at 0745 Spanish time (technically CEST = CET+1 since we are in ‘summer’ time)

The distance from his home to Praia da Luz calculated from google maps is 404 km

It is 5 km from his home to the main road, along single track rural lanes and narrow roads with blind corners.

Sunrise was at 0715, civil dawn at 0645.

What follows is included so that anyone with the inclination can look at google maps, or google earth, and follow this for themselves. It is even possible using “street view” to travel the entire route and see it from a driver’s point of view. . Any errors can then be identified.

We join the main A-374 and the next 150k is on a two lane mountain road winding up gorges and through passes in the mountains of Andalucia, west onto the A-357 and then turning north onto the A-384 and the beginnings of the rolling central meseta at Puerto Serrato. The speed limit is 90 kph, but for much of the route this is simply not possible. In many places it is restricted for safety to less than this, and in many stretches overtaking is prohibited, or simply too dangerous.

From there it is less winding, more open, but still only two lane, and still within the national speed limit of 90 kph.

As we approach the Sevilla ring road there is a series of junctions where the limit is as low as 40
The approach to Sevilla and the ring road are officially motorway, but are heavily used and frequently congested. There are many junctions, and the short stretch to the bridge has 4 of the top 24 Sevilla congestion areas.
Clarke would have hit the ring road about 90 minutes after leaving home, so on his timing around 0915. Roughly the peak of the ‘rush hour’.

We skirt Sevilla to the south and west on the A-4 and the SE-30 on the high level bridge over the Ship Canal, with a rigidly enforced speed limit of 60 kph. In reality traffic usually passes much more slowly than this
After crossing another bridge over the Guadalquivir and negotiating a series of tricky junctions and filters which cause all traffic to slow even further, we head out west on the A-49 motorway up a
long slope out of the valley, past IKEA, and towards Huelva. Then after another 125 km. across the bridge forming the border with Portugal, also restricted to 70 kph, it is renumbered as the A-22.

The “Border” is nothing more than a collection point for motorway tolls for ‘foreign’ vehicles, - if they can be bothered to pull off the motorway and stop. There is no physical barrier, as both Spain and Portugal are within the Schengen area, and have been since 1995. Under the treaty the border may only be reinstated, “for a short period where there is a serious threat to that state's public policy or internal security”.
Approaching Lagos and PdL we leave the motorway, the roads again become smaller, and the speed limits drop. From the border to PdL is given as 137 km, a further hour and quarter, 


Google.maps gives an estimated total driving time of 4 hrs 20 minutes including the part I have not shown from his house to the main road. Allowing for ‘flexibility’ with speed limits, and the inevitable comfort stop we are still left with an arrival time of around 1200.
Clarke states he arrived at 1145. But we must charitably assume he means Spanish time (Central European Summer Time = GMT+2, or CET+1).
Portugal is on British Summer time, (Western European Summer Time = GMT+1) so the time he reports arriving would have been 1045 -1100 local time.

NB. It should be noted that this is the ONLY route. There is no short cut across country, for the simple reason that there are no roads crossing the Doñana wetland Natural park to the south of Sevilla. (See map supra) If you want to go to Portugal or Huelva from the south there is simply no choice but to take this route. The ring road bridge is the most southerly crossing point for road traffic. This may easily be confirmed by glancing at google maps.

So to repeat, Clarke’s own timing puts him in PdL around 1045-1100 local time


But let us approach this issue from the other end.

Kate McCann reports the PJ officers arriving to take them to Portimão about 1000. The use of this phrase and its context clearly indicates their leaving some time ‘shortly after’ 1000.

The extract is instructive.

“It was about 10am by the time a couple of PJ officers turned up. . . .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.”

The implication is clear. Kate is expecting us to believe that this is the first time they had realised they would need to go to a police station or make statements, and that until that point no thought had been given by anyone within the group to the logistics, nor to Child-care arrangements. How long the “some discussion” took is not explained.

Whether any of this is even credible is another matter entirely.

The McCanns and Tapas friends were taken the 30 minutes to Portimão and GM’s statement is recorded as starting at 1115

When we factor in organisation time at the police station, parking, re-grouping, finding suitable rooms, drinks, writing and recording materials, interpreters, introductions, preparation, briefings – all of which must be translated into Portuguese – and then all the other ancillary tasks, as we must, it is apparent that they must have left PdL some time before 1030. Probably as early as 1015
Which is what Kate indicates.

It is clear from the video evidence, however, that by that point –1015 – Clarke was already deeply embedded at the scene. He had found the location, found somewhere to park, picked up his camera and note pad, had obviously introduced and identified himself to at least one senior GNR officer – with whom he shakes hands later – had determined the McCann’s location, had spoken to the other reporters at the scene – he is seen comparing notes with one young female – and is then shown striding away to the left out of the car park area a little time before the McCanns and the Tapas friends begin to emerge in the background on the right to make their way to the cars waiting some distance up the road.

Consideration of all of this leads to a suggestion that the entire sequence of events as reported by Clarke should be pushed back. Certainly by at least half an hour. possibly considerably more.

Even more realistically, given that his car at the time was a robust and functional family vehicle, not a fast sports model, and that as a responsible and fiercely protective family man he does not take unnecessary risks with his own or his family’s safety, and given that in his own words he did not know what the full story was or even if the child would be found before his arrival, indicating clearly that there was for him no overwhelming sense of urgency, we should perhaps push this back yet more. From Netflix –

“I don't think they said whether it was a girl or boy. I don't even think I had the age. I didn't have any idea who the family were. I fully expected to arrive there and for this child to have turned up and for it to have dissolved into a non-story." ( transcript)

This pushes the phone call to 0600 - 0615 (Spanish Time), Clarke leaving at 0645 (SpT), arriving at 1100 - 1130 (SpT) which is 1000 - 1030 Portuguese time.

0600 Spanish time is 0500 British time. The British press offices were therefore well aware by 0430 - 0500 of the incident and of the course of action to be taken.

I shall return to this later.

But then we note a strange thing.

Among the many journalists and reporters on the scene not one seems to have done any investigating.
Not one seems to have reported that – contrary to the news bulletins coming at regular intervals from the UK – the shutters were NOT damaged, forced, smashed or jemmied.
Not one at that early stage seems to have reported the lack of visibly from the Tapas bar through the opaque plastic screening, across the pool, over the wall and through the untended vegetation to the patio door of the apartment
Not one seems to have paced it out
Not one reports how long it took to walk, or jog, or to sprint
Not one reports doing the same journey round to the front door opening into the car park
Not one reports investigating the shutters, even during the weeks after the initial frenzy had died down, nor of asking a police officer to demonstrate or supervise whilst it was done.
Not one is filmed actually doing it – testing the hypothesis with physical experiment and recording the results. As I was.
And unless we are very much mistaken, not one reports a long and detailed interview with the McCanns or any of the Tapas group. There may be, and probably are, good reasons for that, since the PJ had tried to prevent press involvement, and the publicity team was in full control.

It is that apparent total lack of any investigation which led one commentator in sheer exasperation to say words to the effect “Were you even THERE ? ? ?”

Instead, as Paulo Reis observed during his undercover visits, the journalists seemed to have done little more than sit around in bars talking to each other in their respective languages, and waiting for the official briefings so obligingly provided by the McCanns’ Publicity team. In English.

So where do conspiracy theories come from. Where are they conceived and born, and who raises them.

Let us take a few simple examples.

Gerry McCann first said in his first signed police statement that – “. . . the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked,
A mere 6 days later he changed this to “Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock,”

Ok. So he lied.

We could all easily say - So what if he did go in though the front door, or the patio door, or climbed through the kitchen window - Madeleine is missing, and that is what matters.

We should not care which way he went in, we should care that Madeleine is not longer there.

But we do care that he lied, because the lie forces us to ask – Why did he even say that ?

Not What did he say ? but Why did he say it ?

The lie diverts us. It was apparently pointless, it added nothing, but he still felt the need to do it.
And that fact – the fact of the lie – suddenly assumes a greater importance than the underlying fact that Madeleine is missing.

And so it goes on. Mitchell very quickly built up a reputation for himself for lying, to the extent that it almost became possible to predict that the exact opposite of anything he said would one day turn out to be the objective truth.

His ludicrous assertion about no watches or mobile phones, stated long after we had been told of split-second accuracy of times – checked by watches – served only to demolish any credibility he might once have supposed he had.

But what or whom did it serve ? Who cares whether they had phones or watches. If you are going to check a child it is unlikely that you would click open a mobile phone to check the time, or even glance at a wristwatch. Normal people don’t do that. If pushed for accuracy, honest witnesses will time visits between one course at dinner and another, or by reference to TV programmes or external events.

It didn’t matter. It wasn’t important – until Mitchell made it so.

A long time ago a character in a drama was given the words, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”. The McCann case has been full of too much protest from the very start.

Lying is poisonous. It acts like a slow venom, dissolving the liar from the inside, until only the husk of what had once been a decent human remains.

Or to mix metaphors it spreads like a malignancy eroding the strength of a person’s character.

Once Jon Clarke had been caught out telling one blatant and provable lie, it became clear that even that one article was riddled with them, and that they have now spread their poisonous tentacles into the Netflix programme and beyond.

And then we can go back and look at other things written by him on other subjects, and begin to discover more examples of deliberate falsehoods, or an attention to detail so lax that it must allow us to suppose ‘facts’ have simply been invented.

The malignancy is at work. Or, like the larvae of the parasitic ichneumon wasp which lays eggs in its victims, he is being consumed from the inside, until ultimately only a shell will remain.

Tanner recognised this too late, and tried to counter it, but ended by insisting, feebly and pathetically “I am telling the truth, you know”. 


We are not talking here about the Lie - simple.
          Did you eat the last chocolate biscuit ? - No

Everyone can understand that one, and why it is said. To an extent we can also begin to forgive the person using it. They have only two choices. Deny, or admit.
English law does not add extra punishment to a person who pleaded Not Guilty to punish the lie, though discount is often given for telling the truth. It is tacitly accepted that many guilty people will lie about their guilt.

Here though we can observe the construction of something larger, a structure, a scaffolding frame, designed to support or prop up the central lie.

JUST suppose, purely for the sake of argument of course, that the following was NOT true in the conventional meaning of the word.


The core proposition is that Madeleine was
-  abducted
   -       from Apartment 5A
   -       between 9:30pm and 10 pm
   -       on Thursday 3rd May 2007

Points to prove - as they say in legal circles - or things to be established in support of the above proposition are
1         She was alive on 3/5/7
2         She was in the apartment
3         She was there at 9:30
4         Someone got in
5         Someone got out
6         She was abducted

Taking these in turn we see that each has had some ‘evidence’ attached to it. An attempt has been made to strengthen and reinforce each of these with struts or supports.

1.        She was alive on 3/5/7. For this we call in aid the Pool photo, which uniquely, although it is not visible on the image itself, has a time and date embedded in it. And so that everyone shall recognise the importance of the photo in establishing the exact date, the existence of the EXIF Metadata will be emphasised, totally unnecessarily, by a spokesman, and the image – with the Metadata – will be released for publication.

2.        She was in the apartment. It is clearly not sufficient for the parents alone to give this testimony, and so for this we will call on a third party to testify to a visit and to seeing her

3.        She was there at 9:30pm. A parent’s word alone would not be sufficient, so again we need to ask a third party to testify to this.

4.        Someone got in. For this we can rely on family and friends, and thereafter a compliant press to spread the story of broken, forced, smashed and jemmied shutters. The parents can talk about the window and the curtains being wide open, and can aver that the shutters can be opened from outside.

5.        Someone got out. We can rely on people supposing that an intruder would have had the same range of entry points at his / her / their disposal. We do not need to elaborate. This can be left deliberately vague for people to form their own opinions, if it ever occurs to them.

6.        She was abducted. Ideally someone will have seen someone carrying someone away, but in a perfect scenario will only report it much later, after any chance of immediate pursuit has long passed. We will call on a third party to do this.


And there we have it.
A scenario proposed, and each of the major points covered by ‘evidence’.
An open and shut case, surely, and all the Police of Two Nations have to do is solve it.


7.         But we also recognise that with this scenario there is the possibility that we may be accused of Child Neglect. So we have to cover this aspect. Again we can call on Third parties to testify to a regular checking scheme, and feel confident this will be accepted.


A big problem then arises when each one of these crucial ‘supports’ is examined forensically.

One by one each has been demolished, or so badly damaged that it is no longer capable of supporting the core lie. Like cutting the cables of a suspension bridge, or knocking out props in a coalmine, for a time nothing much appears to happen. We see no change.


But gradually there will be some visible movement, followed by a sudden total collapse.

To take them in order

1.         The Pool photo has been examined. It does not appear to provide the necessary proof

2.         The third party visit to the apartment is riddled with contradictions, and does not appear to provide the necessary proof

3.         This third party clearly realised that he would be severely compromised by being the ‘last person to see her alive’ and reneged on his promise, changing his story at the last minute to say definitively that he had NOT seen her, and dropping that awesome responsibility back on the father. His testimony does not therefore provide the necessary proof

4.         The “broken, forced, smashed and jemmied shutters” were proved to be an untruth within a few hours. Video evidence is clear for all to see. The window is visibly too small. The story about the curtains has been changed from wide open, to tight closed. It was demonstrated that the shutters cannot be opened sufficiently from outside to achieve the intended goal. This entire thread of testimony does not appear to provide the necessary proof.

5.         Placing the father with JW outside the apartment rules out one possible exit. The untouched front door, and the size and accessibility of the window seem to rule out the other possibilities. There is nothing which appears to provide the necessary proof.

6.         The ‘sighting of an abductor’ remained in the public domain for a long time, despite scepticism, until it was comprehensively and finally dismissed by the Operation set up to examine the conduct of the case. This therefore does not provide the necessary proof.

7.         The regular checking scheme was examined with considerable attention to detail, and attempts were made on paper to re-create it. It was realised that its preparation was lacking in fine detail. The Tapas group refused to submit themselves to a reconstructive demonstration of their claims. Extensive analysis has failed to produce a coherent timetable. It does not appear to provide the necessary proof.

And that seems to be that.

Every one of the supports, the struts, the cables or the props supporting the central proposition has been removed. In some cases there was physical evidence. Not just that there was no evidence for it, but that there was clear evidence against it.
In others it was people who failed to provide the essential support, or wavered at the crucial moment.


Or to put it another way


There is no amount of invective, of legal process, of ad hominem or profane internet abuse which can put this back together again.

Let us try to pull these threads together

From the start we were treated to several stories which “just didn’t sound right”. From that point doubts began to creep in. They still fell short of proof of falsehood, but on the credibility spectrum were definitely towards the end marked just possible rather than the one marked very probable.
When research failed to support the stories this was exacerbated and they were deemed even less possible than before.

Suddenly we are able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond a peradventure, that one or more of the stories were very simply LIES.
From there, the natural reaction is to go back to everything else that particular person or group has said, and to apply that standard of veracity to previous statements.
This is of course, as readers will immediately recognise, a fallacious argument. A species of the Genetic fallacy –
Just because a person has lied on one or more previous occasions does not automatically mean that he is lying on this occasion.

Sometimes however we come across someone who is so used to lying that it is apparently second nature. Someone whose moral compass was washed overboard long ago. Someone for whom lying, and then the use of aggression to conceal this fact appears to be second nature.

But it is still necessary to test each of the previous statements independently. Previous convictions are not admissible as proof.
On this occasion we can do it.

Clarke lied about being the only journalist at the scene until late afternoon, he lied about there being no dogs, he lied about entering the apartment and speaking to the McCanns . . . And about much more

The McCanns lied about their point of entry, about the window and the curtains, about the shutters . . . And about much more

Mitchell lied about the absence of watches or mobile phones . . . And about much more.

The British Tabloid Press lied, and continues to lie, about sightings and suspects. It invents “information” supposedly leaked from the Metropolitan Police. It has, from very early on, acted in a concerted way to denigrate the Portuguese authorities . . . And much more.

And all of this is clearly to one end.

To take the focus of attention away from the parents and friends

Conspiracy ?

It is when we add all of the previous together,
when we add the early involvement of News Corp, owners of the Sun and SKY TV
when we observe that for many months Clarke was in the pay of The Sun,
when we consider the clear evidence of coordination of the attack by the British Press on the PJ, the Portuguese authorities in general, against Dr Amaral, and against even the Portuguese Diplomatic service . . .
When we add all of this together it is surely tempting to identify a greater “power’; a Great Architect pulling all these strings.
And our imaginations can run riot.

Then, as we think about this and look back, we find other interesting points.
Clarke has come up with two totally distinct explanations of his behaviour.
In one, he says he went straight into the Apartment, spoke to the McCanns there, and “promised he would do all he could to help.”

In another version “I don't think they said whether it was a girl or boy. I don't even think I had the age. I didn't have any idea who the family were. I fully expected to arrive there and for this child to have turned up and for it to have dissolved into a non-story." After which he says he merely introduced himself as a journalist, and they said “Hi”.

Which is correct ? He did know who they were and offered to help, or he did not know who they were and they said “Hi”.
The first version is from his 2017 article. The second is from a transcript of the Netflix programme.

A conspiracy theorist might suggest that Clarke was sent to PdL specifically to “help”, as he claimed he said, and that the subsequent attempt to change the story has been done with the realisation that his previous untruth might reveal the existence of the conspiracy.

At the moment is it impossible to be certain.


What are the possible responses if you have lied, and realize you are about to be exposed ?
You can hold your hands up and admit it, attempting to mitigate by blaming
           typing errors,
           “mis-speaking” – a favourite of politicians, since it is totally meaningless
           being “tired and emotional” – another politicians’ favourite
           poor briefing
           confusion
           or a whole thesaurus of other emollient words
OR, you can Attack.
And this attack must prevent the facts ever from emerging or being tested. It should never address the central issue, ideally never referring to the stated facts at all. It is frequently associated with ad hominem abuse, and with other arguments based on the fallacies of relevance, such as abusive analogy, or dicto simpliciter. The fallacy of loaded words often passes unnoticed.

We remember that some of the fiercest attack as the best form of defence is conducted by Libel Lawyers. It is axiomatic that the substantive case must never be allowed to go before a court. To do so is to allow exposure of the facts.
Cases within memory illustrate the perils of this only too clearly. In Archer -v- Daily Star Archer was awarded £ 0.5m, only then to be imprisoned for 4 years for perjury, and forced to repay not only the £ 0.5m but a further £ 1.3m in costs and interest.
Aitken –v- Guardian and Granada collapsed when the facts became known. He was jailed for 18 months, and bankrupted by the incident.
So the facts must never be exposed, never be tested. Firms like Carter-Ruck, and Schillings are the experts in work of this kind. A previous iteration of one web-site laid out the way in which the substantive issue is neatly converted into a procedural one, which is almost impossible to answer.

And looking back to the Conspiracy theory, what have we seen ?
Ad hominem abuse, gross and profane language on the internet, the publication of vituperation in local newspapers, harassment by a News Corp outlet of a pensioner resulting in her untimely death, threats of bankruptcy against another pensioner, and much more.

A fully paid-up Conspiracy Theorist might with justification conclude that it was possible to judge the wickedness of the lie or the level of guilt by the viciousness of the attack.

 
Very recently someone with a more poetic command of English than I wrote a short piece, of which this is the gist.

A little girl is missing
Her parents lie
Their friends lie
A reporter lies

12 years later the little girl is still missing
Her parents are still lying
Their friends are still lying
The reporter is still lying, and now adding new ones.
Someone else once said

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?


I have appended a list of References and Sources.

All are in the public domain

REFERENCES AND SOURCES

1         A Guerra os McCann, (The McCann’s War), Paulo Reis, 2019, Guerra & Paz

2         Paulo Reis, undercover in PdL
https://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-i-went-undercover-to-praia-da-luz.html

3         The Olive Press, 2017,
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2017/05/11/madeleine-mccann-olive-press-editor-talks-first-journalist-scene-10th-anniversary-disappearance/

4         The Olive Press, 2019,
[url=https://www.theolivepress.es/print-edition/" \l]https://www.theolivepress.es/print-edition/#fb0=3[/url]

5         Netflix,
To access the Netflix documentary go to
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=netflix
           and enter 'The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann’


6         Google maps and ‘street view’

7         'madeleine’, by Kate McCann, 2011, Bantam Press.

8         Video evidence at
https://www.youtube.com.watch?v=DRe3g25ma4o

9         McCann’s and Tapas 7 friends’ police statements at
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS

10        ‘Hamlet’, W Shakespeare, Act 3 Sc. 2

11         Pool Photo,
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/gestalt-3AsTheKTPHorg.jpg

12         The Bible, Mark 8:36


https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-32-on-lies-and-conspiracies.html

To post comments, please use this thread: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t16362-chapter-32-on-lies-and-conspiracies

Chapter 33: 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.
The creche sheet - Jellyfish - for Friday 4/5/7 shows Amelie, Sean and Lily signed in by Diane W at 1010
So IF Kates' reported arrival of the PJ, and the discussions about what to do with the children took place at all, they MUST have been significantly before 1000, or DW would not have had time to round the children up, walk them round the pool and sign them in at 1010.

They were still 2 years old. Difficult to 'herd' at the best of times, and with the PJ and GNR and dogs and vans and traffic and reporters milling around, must have been a nightmare.
[ had they already come to an agreement that the children would not be photographed . . .?]

from KM’s book.
“It was about 10am by the time a couple of PJ officers turned up. . . .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.”

The implication is clear. Kate is expecting us to believe that this is the first time they had realised they would need to go to a police station or make statements, and that until that point no thought had been given by anyone within the group to the logistics, nor to Child-care arrangements. How long the “some discussion” took is not explained.
Whether any of this is even credible is another matter entirely.

The three possible routes for DW and the children are shown here
5G, down stairs, through car park right, right again, right again though pool reception, to Tapas bar crèche = 160m
5G, down stairs, short cut through apartment 5C or D, out of garden, left onto footpath, right onto road, right again though pool reception, to Tapas bar crèche = 130m
5G, down stairs, through car park left, left again along footpath, right, then right though pool reception, to Tapas bar crèche = 200m

So for about 10am, we may now perhaps force it as far as a bit BEFORE 10 am
Which gets them out of 5H very soon after 1000, into the car, and off to the PJ in Portimão, to do all the necessary things
before settling down and hitting the record button on the tape machine with GM at 1115
WHICH in turn puts Jon Clarke in PdL and at the scene at the very latest by 1000, and given his relaxed body language with the group of reporters and the GNR Inspector, possibly even earlier.
Which in turn pushes his Phone call from the UK even more firmly to 0600 Spanish summer time = 0500 BST



In his 2017 article Jon Clarke wrote
“The only reporter on the scene till late that evening – apart from Sky News reporter Kate Burley, who happened to be on holiday there – I spent time grilling neighbours, before noticing that a road crew was still digging up the street to lay sewage pipes literally right outside the apartment. The trench was nearly two metres deep and three men continued to shuffle around inside it.
Nobody had stopped them.’

Until recently most thinking people had passed quickly over the first few of the five distinct and separate lies in that one sentence, and then just assumed that describing a trench as “literally right outside the apartment” was simple hyperbole, just journalistic exaggeration, overstatement, embellishment, magnification, and “puffery’ which could be cheerfully ignored.

But then in 2019 came the Netflix production, prepared and filmed largely in 2018.

In it Clarke lies yet again. As we have seen earlier his ludicrous assertion that he was the only, or the first, journalist on the scene was simply untrue. His contention that there were no dogs, that the police were not treating the issue seriously, and so much else of what he wrote and said is simply a catalogue of lies.

Now he goes even further.
Now he stands immediately outside Apartment 5A on Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins, just south of the junction with Rua Dr. Agostino da Silva, a few metres from the infamous Tannerman location.

Now he faces south, down the hill towards the Pool reception and the Baptista supermarket.

Now direct to camera he says
“There was a big trench here, from about here going down . . . leading down from here,
all the way down the road about this wide, and six foot deep.
And there was two or three guys working in the trench . .
And you think . . . could she have fallen down there.“

‘here’ is said three times, There is absolutely no doubt about the location.
He is standing on an exact spot and pointing.
When he says “literally right outside the apartment” he intends us to believe him.
He desperately wants us to believe him. He demands that we believe him.
He expects the word “literally” to be taken literally.

That piece to camera in the 2019 Netflix video is in tight close up, so the background is out of focus. Nevertheless it is easy to see where Clarke was when this was filmed.

Usefully the Netflix production also uses multiple video clips and photos from May 2007.

We start where Clarke comes into left frame. We see the overhanging hedge and the dark red bougainvillea beyond. The break in the building line is a clear focal point.

(Reference is Netflix, E1, S1, at 14:07)

But the problem is – ALL THIS IS UNTRUE
Clarke knows it is untrue
Clarke knows it will be checked
Clarke knows he will be exposed as a serial liar
Clarke knows that video and photos exist from 2007 which prove he is lying.
Clarke knows that anyone watching Netflix can immediately see that he is lying.
But still he goes ahead.

A glance at “google maps –> Street view” will clarify the situation. These shots are dated September 2018
The red bougainvillea has been pruned hard back by September 2018, but is still obvious
The following stills are from Netflix E1:S1, and originate in video taken on 4th and 5th May 2007.
At 19:20
At 21:48
At 48:38
At 10:20

Clarke had the option of simply not saying it, or perhaps of making it a passing throwaway remark,
but chose, quite deliberately, to Lie

To coin a neologism – “if you find yourself in a trench, stop digging”

Is Clarke somehow committed to fantasy, to untruth, to pure invention, or as we now must term it – to LYING ?

These are stills taken from the very same Netflix production.
They are not from any outside source. They are contained in that same 50 minute film.
Everyone seeing the film may confirm their provenance, and come to a fuller understanding of the egregious extent of Clarke’s continuing mendacity.

Roadworks in Praia da Luz

There WERE of course road works in Praia da Luz. It would be remarkable if there had not been.
They were obviously the subject of diligent investigation by the PJ during their enquiries.
The foreman was interviewed and his statement is easily accessible in the PJ files, by using the search engine.
ANYONE can do this. (I have appended the full statement and link to save people the trouble.)
I have also prepared a composite map to show the three streets named.
The nearest point is slightly under 300 m. from Apartment 5A

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLOS_PEREIRA.htm
Witness Statement
Carlos Manuel Figueiredo Pereira
Date: 2007/05/31
Occupation: Civil Engineer

He comes to the process as a witness, he works for the municipal chamber of Lagos since 1988 as a civil engineer.
With specific reference to the Urban and Environmental re-qualification works carried out in the town of Luz, namely in Rua Direita, the witness clarifies the following:

During 2006 a public tender was issued with the aim of adjudicating the firm offering the best conditions and guarantees.
This tender was won by the company Canana & Filhos Ltda and the date for starting work was established as April of the current year (2007).

During the first days/weeks of April in Rua Direita together with Largo da Republica, the different necessary infrastructures were created such as : networks for domestic drains, water supply, public lighting and telephones. These actions took place over the course of about 30 days, following others that had been implemented along Rua Helena Nascimiento Baptista.

With regard to the month of May, and after the first days of the month, work was begun at Rua Direita, aiming at the installation of water pipes, telephones and public lighting. The technical space excavated which guaranteed the application of three types of infrastructure previously mentioned, had the following average dimensions : 1,20 metres deep by 0,90 metres long, it being certain during the excavation work that they were almost immediately covered with sand and earth.

When asked how the daily checking was done, with regard to security measures and the quality of the work carried out, the witness said there was nothing abnormal to point out, it was a work that had been carried out calmly and without any incidents.
And for those who will wish to argue that it is credible that Madeleine wandered off, and fell into uncovered road works, unnoticed by anyone that evening, and unremarked during the overnight searches, or the following days by the GDR, the PJ, dogs, horses and half the holidaying population, this is most direct route.
And this then leaves us with another serious issue

Why did not the Netflix editorial staff see what everyone else can ?

One of the few possible answers is –
That the Netflix production was part of the much larger campaign which exists for one purpose, and involves a great many people.
Everything they do, everything they say, write, tweet or post is done to one end –

To divert attention from the inconvenient fact that there is no evidence of Abduction
          No evidence of a time Window
                    No evidence of Entry
                              No evidence of Presence
                                        No evidence of Exit

And that after 12 years, or 4,400 days . . . of the police of 2 Nations, of various experts in their respective fields, of commentators, apologists, acolytes, ‘private detectives’ of varying morality and expertise, members of their many legal teams, and all the others . . .
not one has been able to suggest even a superficially plausible Abduction scenario.

Not one.       Ever

To conclude – for the moment –

We may wonder how this makes Jon Clarke’s wife and children feel, knowing that their husband and father is a serial liar.

Knowing they cannot trust anything he says nor anything he writes

Knowing that he will stoop to lying about the disappearance and probable death of a little child.

We wonder how his friends feel, knowing that he is so easily caught out when he does lie.

We wonder how employees at “The Olive Press” feel knowing they have to sift anything he says

We wonder how his advertisers will feel, knowing they are associated with mendacity of this enormity, (and perhaps realising that they have to believe his circulation figures.)


I have no answers.
But someone does.

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/07/chapter-33-jon-clarke-entrenched-lies.html
---------

For comments, please see this thread: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t16396-chapter-33-jon-clarke-entrenched-lies

Chapter 35: Mirage


This chapter is something of a diversion.
In it I shall examine how we can think or believe we see something, when in fact the objective and scientifically provable truth of the matter is that we either did not, or that we saw something else.

We were not ‘lying’ or being dishonest when we told what we saw. We saw something and our mind forced us to interpret it in a particular way.

We can only fit what we see into categories we already know and understand. Before the discovery of Oxygen the phenomenon of burning could not be interpreted as oxidation, and so Phlogiston was a rational but ultimately flawed attempt at explanation.

Medical treatment is the most obvious case of rapidly changing knowledge, exposing millennia of previous professionally agreed diagnosis and treatment as nothing better than ignorant superstition. Even ‘modern medicine’ is being exposed in a similar way. The last frontal lobotomy was performed as late as 1967, and the leading Medical journal in the UK is The Lancet, betraying its origins in the bloodletting prevalent as a treatment and recommended in medical texts up to 1923, but now condemned as ignorant and misguided barbarism. Every new treatment implicitly criticises the previous one. We no longer prescribe Insulin Shock Therapy for schizophrenia, cocaine for toothache, cigarettes to “ease the chest”, or Bed Rest for “hysterical women”.

Through history this has always been the case. Historical observations can be reviewed and interpreted in the light of modern scientific knowledge, and we must be humble enough to recognise that our current observations and explanations will in turn inevitably be interpreted differently in the future. Archaeologists are recognizing this and in some places are deliberately leaving significant parts of sites untouched for future generations to explore.

Continental Drift started as an interesting theory, ridiculed by Sir David Attenborough’s own Cambridge professor, which evolved into Plate Tectonics and remained at the level of highly probable theory until someone sent a submarine down to the mid-Atlantic ridge and actually filmed it happening. And Sir David had the last laugh – but only for the time being.

Read more here:  http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-35-mirage_1.html

Chapter 36



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.


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”

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.“ 
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

At the origin of the curve is -
 
Investigative journalists do not simply report what they see or are told. They go deeper and further. They ask questions, they research, they compare and contrast the stories; they check and double-check their facts. They challenge everything they are told, seek proper references for every statement they make. They look at events from different points of view, before coming to a synthesis.
They have their minds open to new evidence, and are always ready to reassess, re-write; to correct and to apologise for inadvertent error.
Independent, courageous, honest and decent investigative journalists spend enormous amounts of time and effort to reveal the truth.

In the US the term ‘muckraker’ is sometimes used of investigative journalists, usually pejoratively by those who are the victims of the revelations of the truth about corruption. The term, in fact derived from Bunyan, became popular in the Progressive era between 1880 and 1920.

Perhaps the best known in the UK is the late Paul Foot, after whom a prize is named. He exposed the corruption of architect John Poulson; was instrumental in overturning the verdicts of the Birmingham 6; and campaigned against the miscarriage of justice in the conviction of al-Magrahi for the Lockerbie bombing. He won awards including Journalist of the Year (twice), Campaigning Journalist of the Year, The George Orwell Award and many others. He was among the founders of Private Eye.

Investigative journalists Robert Winnett and Christopher Hope on the staff of The Daily Telegraph exposed the MPs’ expenses scandal in 2008, which indirectly brought down a government.

As a result a new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority was established, but as The Guardian observes:
     “Now, anyone can check how much their MP gets, and what they are spending it on – petrol costs, hotels, rent, and so on. MPs are no longer claiming money for birdhouses, or to have their moats cleaned out. That’s mainly because of IPSA’s new rules, but partly it is thanks to the fear of being caught out by the press.” [my emphases] 

It was Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, two young reporters on The Washington Post staff, who by their tenacity and boldness in the Watergate saga brought down a President.

Private Eye tried long and hard to expose Saville and Smith as disgusting perverts, only to find both were protected by the Establishment and libel lawyers.
Their current editor, Ian Hislop, is referred to as the most sued man in history.
Others might place him among the bravest journalists of the modern age.

Truly investigative journalists will sometimes go so far as to put their lives at risk.

Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana, was assassinated when it became clear she was going to expose governmental corruption. Despite intimidation and threats, libel suits, and arrest on two occasions she continued with her investigations into Maltese politicians and their links with the Panama Papers scandal. 
And today her work is being continued by Juliette Garside, an investigative journalist for The Guardian. 

The murder, dismemberment and disposal of the body of the Saudi Arabian journalist in the Consulate in Turkey is another such example.
Jamal Khashoggi was a Saudi dissident, a journalist for The Washington Post, and former general manager and editor-in-chief of the Al-Arab News Channel. Khashoggi wrote in his last, posthumously published column, that he was of the opinion that "What the Arab world needs most is free expression”. It is thought he was getting ‘too close’ to members of the Saudi royal family
Unusually, a Saudi court sentenced five defendants to death; sentenced three defendants to prison terms, and acquitted three others. Coincidentally the Crown Prince deemed responsible by the CIA for ordering the murder was not included. 

To counter this and ensure that the assassination or murder, imprisonment or silencing of an investigative journalist shall never succeed, a group known as Forbidden Stories has formed.
The comments from around the world from the general public are telling:
     “Even if Forbidden Stories rescues just a handful of investigations that fall into a sort of limbo each time a journalist is jailed or killed, it will already be a great victory for citizens.”

The people understand the vital importance of decency, honesty and truth, and yearn for the freedom from tyranny supported by good, bold, and honest journalism.


******************************

At the other end of the curve is the deliberate and malign control of the media in general by rich and powerful people, and eventually total control by the State. This is easier than we might think.

The UK's national newspapers and Media outlets are mainly owned and therefore controlled by just six people, or companies controlled by them.
We remember with a sense of increasing nausea Labour MP Robert Maxwell, who was owner of The Mirror until his death. His media empire is now largely Reach plc
Reach plc                                                           Mirror, Express, Star, Record, People
Richard Murdoch,                                            News Int. / Corp., Times, Sun, News of the World, Sky, Fox,
Barclay Brothers,                                             Telegraph, Spectator, Scotsman
Jonathan Harmsworth (Lord Rothermere). (DMGT). Mail, ‘i’, Metro,
Guardian group                                                 Guardian, Observer.
Nikkei                                                                  FT
It is clear that parties and governments select media outlets to “put across their message” in the way they wish it to be seen.
On 11 April 1992 The Sun blazed across its headlines "It's The Sun Wot Won It" [sic], making no pretence that it was taking personal responsibility for the election result which saw John Major (Tory) defeat Neil Kinnock (Labour), and become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

The Sun is part of the media empire owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch. An Australian.


******


Next up the graph is:  

Journalists report what they see, hear, or are told. They often do so uncritically, perhaps lacking the time, the inclination, critical faculties, or the intelligence to probe more deeply.
The danger is that a small misinterpretation of fact combined with that same lack of research may allow unintentional error to proliferate.

Journalists operate under a loose professional code and have their own professional bodies, but these are largely toothless, in that they can only advise and reprimand, and have no ultimate coercive power.

An example is the judgment from the journalists’ professional body in Spain against Jon Clarke, the owner and editor of The Olive Press. It amounts to little more than fine words, and there is no evidence of any change in behaviour since it was handed down. Indeed the demonstration of their lack of ‘teeth’ seems perversely to have emboldened him.


******


At some point that lack of research can be added to sometimes accurate facts which can then focus on irrelevant peripheral detail.

Here we enter the zone of

In the UK the term “The Gutter Press” is used for Tabloid red top papers which thrive on scandal, rumour, and sensationalism. They concentrate on stories about crime and sex, the lives of celebrities – however defined – and put a sensationalist twist or ‘spin’ on anything they report.

One of their favourite tactics is to find an entirely spurious link to another story.

A particularly nasty example was The Sun publishing an article about an English cricket player, but including full details of the murder of half-siblings on the far side of the world some 31 years before. The distress this caused to the surviving relatives can only be imagined.
On that occasion other parts of the press openly criticised the decision to publish partly, but only partly, because of the damage it did to the standing of the profession as a whole.

Another frequent tactic was to seek out a distant relative, who may have once been, or been the partner of, a Police officer. This became so ridiculed that now, mercifully, it is seen more rarely.

In the US it is known as Yellow Journalism, with its emphasis on treating news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism.
Interestingly the term is also in use in Spain, (amarillismo), and was specifically used in the judgment by the professional body FAPE against Jon Clarke and the Olive Press.

******
More recently, and particularly noticeable with the expansion of the internet we have a new phenomenon, known by the neologism

Material is simply ‘copied and pasted’ from other sources, usually unnamed, never checked or referenced. It is simply “Churned”. Very rarely is the copy edited or re-written, so the same spelling errors, sloppy grammar and syntax, poor punctuation, factual inaccuracies and even photo images can be tracked across the web.

The danger here lies with the way in which the error or misinterpretation referred to above under Journalism, and Gutter Journalism, not to mention outright falsehood, can be spread so quickly, and as in the parlour game of Chinese Whispers, gets altered, edited, amended and added to.
A recent example, again involving the egregious Olive Press, was the ludicrous development of the story of The Rock in the Road.

This relatively harmless story about a rock on a road, accompanied by a perfectly adequate photo, was ‘developed’ with increasingly hyperbolic language, and then after some days and out of the blue irrelevant, wholly absurd and scientifically impossible weights and measurements were added.
There in turn were ‘churned’, further developed and manipulated until the result was a bold statement, again by The Reliably Mendacious Olive Press, that the ‘weight’ was 5 tonnes.
A simple calculation showed that the rock, which took two weeks to remove, would have been less dense than balsa wood.

*************************************************************


So far we have considered reporting which has not usually attempted deliberately to mislead, even though it may inadvertently have done so.
So to move to the next item is a big step.



This is the point on this progression at which someone, some organisation or entity, acts deliberately to suppress a fact or facts, an opinion or a point of view. It is the point at which a decision is made that they alone shall be allowed to know the truth, but that no one else shall.

We should not confuse this with the wholly respectable ‘Précis, or Editing’, which may seem to be achieving the same ends, selecting some things and cutting out others to achieve a finished product.

A commentator put the difference neatly -
     Editing is soliciting, selecting and polishing the best material you can get for your publication.
     Censorship is when you use your position of power – any power – to shut people up and/or to control the information that other people can access. 

Editing is seen as a benign activity. Helpful, and respectable.
Censorship – as malign and controlling

*****

And now, somewhere beyond the mid-point of the curve we come to

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION [!] libel lawyers are at a critical point on the Truth – Mendacity spectrum,
but well beyond the tipping point on the Danger scale
Lawyers in general perform a vital function. They give voice to the voiceless, they speak for the inarticulate, they interpret the rules for those who are unable to do so.
In an accusatorial system it is vital that anyone accused should be represented by one as educated and articulate as the accuser. It is also vital that this representative should not judge. That is not the lawyer’s function, which is to give the best advice given the strength of the opposing argument and the details of the evidence – so far as they know them.

Libel Lawyers however operate on a different plane.
The tort of Defamation (slander and libel) is concerned with reputation, not necessarily with objective facts.
The facts are immaterial, what matters is whether “the statement serves to undermine the reputation in the eyes of right thinking members of society generally, by exposing the victim to hatred, contempt or ridicule.“
However if I may quote
     Truth provides a full defence to an action of defamation. It requires the defendant to show that that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true. Therefore the onus is on the defendant.

The danger is apparent. If the matter goes to trial and the defendant is allowed to rehearse the ‘facts’ in open court, and they can not be adequately refuted, then not only might the case fail, but the plaintiff may become liable for civil suit or criminal prosecution for the acts alleged.
The two notorious cases of Archer and Aitken who were both allowed to give evidence during their proceedings, and who both subsequently went to prison for perjury make the point.

For this reason Libel Lawyers keep their clients away from court proceedings, and specialise in procedural tactics to achieve this.
The most feared and arguably the best Libel Lawyers in the world, Carter-Ruck, boasted openly about this strategy, and in a previous iteration of their web-site gave details of how they had used it in a string of cases. (It has since been altered, or ‘edited’.) But what is still clear is how many cases are never allowed near a court.

It is for this reason, the deliberate and calculated concealment of the truth and of the facts, that I place them so high on the chart.

A list of the people who have been successfully represented by the three major firms in the UK includes murderous dictators, predatory sexual perverts, companies which cause immense and irreparable harm to the environment and to people. One notorious case under the guise of the recently invented “super-injunction” involved an attempt to stifle the reporting of Parliament itself. All this may prompt right-thinking people to wonder whether Libel lawyers should not be somewhat further along the Danger axis.


******
Full article here: http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-36-press-freedom-good-bad-and.html

Chapter 37: A short re-cap





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




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:

– The shutters and curtains, the visibility of the apartment, and the alleged sighting of Tannerman are clearly intended to make us believe in an abduction.

– The pool photo, the tennis balls photo and the unforgivable waterslide fabrication are clearly designed to convince us that Madeleine was alive and well from Sunday onwards.

Jon Clarke’s contributions are less easy to divine, since he has produced three different and contradictory versions of going to the apartment and of speaking to the parents. His disgraceful insistence on a deep but non-existent trench is clearly designed to convince the gullible that there might have been an alternative explanation for the disappearance.

All fail.

We can, reluctantly, understand why the parents might lie, and why they might invent elaborate stories. We can, almost, begin to understand why their friends, the Tapas 7, might offer a degree of support. But from that point it gets murky.

Is it as simple as “follow the money”? Journalists are paid for what they write, and their success is judged by the numbers of copies sold. We remember Martin Brunt of Sky News, who had a reverse Damascene conversion, moving from professional detachment and skepticism to being an active proselyte and persecutor of non-believers.

Jon Clarke professes to having been neutral on his way to PdL, but also undergoes a conversion despite being in a position to see for himself the falsity of much of what he was being told. He continues to repeat falsehoods, and adds many of his own, even though videos of the scene expose his mendacity.

But then we learn that he too was ultimately on the payroll of News Corp (now News International), the company which owns Sky News, employs Brunt, and pays Kandohla and Lazzeri.

Let me take each of the nine points in turn. I shall try to explain them briefly and then give the references so that people may either refresh their memories, or look more closely at what is being suggested.


1. The shutters were not broken, forced, smashed or jemmied 
    (See Chapter 1) 

This was almost the first detail to be put into the public domain.


Apologists have tried to argue that there is no evidence that the McCanns said these things. This is not quite correct. The McCanns phoned various members of their close family and friends during the night of 3rd and 4th May, and they in turn dutifully contacted media outlets on the 4th and gave verbatim reports of what had been said.

The fact that these reports were going out on live TV and radio news at the same time that viewers could also see live footage of a hapless forensic scientist trying to find a single fingerprint on shutters, which were clearly intact and unmarked, seems to have escaped notice by people determined to believe everything they were told.


2. The curtains did not “whoosh” 
    (See Chapters 3, 12)

This extraordinary story was a later invention by Kate McCann.

In the parents’ original statements, and the second one by Gerry, there is no mention of curtains “whooshing”, nor of the door “slamming”. In fact both parents are very specific that the window and shutters were wide open and the curtains were also drawn back, fully OPEN.

It was some years later, both in the autobiography and then in various TV interviews, that Kate develops this into the curtains being tightly CLOSED, and 'whooshing' into the room when blown by a sudden powerful gust of wind, complete with histrionic excess involving dramatic gestures with open and outstretched arms. On two occasions this draws a look of astonishment and incredulity from Gerry, who had of course in his police statements originally said the curtains were wide open.

The story is disproved by simply accessing the wind records for the night in question.


3. The apartment could not be watched from the tapas bar 
     (See Chapter 4)


 It was said in the initial reports that there was a clear line of sight from the tapas restaurant to the apartment, and it was implied that this of itself ruled out any suggestion of negligence in the child-care arrangements.
When the facts began to emerge a different situation emerged.

It was night. What lighting there was came from low-power lamps on posts. The tapas restaurant is around 65m in a straight line from the patio doors, across the pool, and over a high wall. There was at that time a thick overgrown hedge which stuck up over this wall. In any event the children were in the “front” room at the opposite end of the apartment overlooking the car park. There was a thick translucent plastic screen enclosing the tapas bar area which distorts images, reflects the light from the lamps, and is difficult to see through clearly.

And . . . on their own “admissions” when asked to sketch their positions round the circular table, the McCanns BOTH place themselves as having their backs to this screening.


4. The pool photo could not have been taken at lunch time on Thursday 3/5/7 
     (See Chapters 12, 14, 15 28, 28A)

The pool photo, widely referred to as the “Last Photo”, was presented to the world three weeks after the night in question, after a visit to the UK by Gerry, his return to PdL with Clarence Mitchell, and the arrival of his sister Philomena, the wife of a keen astronomer and skilled manipulator of digital images.
So far as is known it was not first handed to the PJ, but went straight to a press agency from where it was sent across the world.

Embedded in the digital photo is the metadata, also called EXIF, the detailed record of the camera settings and of the date and time of the creation and subsequent alteration of the image.

There was considerable debate about this image, which was said to have been taken during the luncheon interval on Thursday 3rd May.

Analysis of weather reports, sunshine records, travellers’ photos posted on various sites, and a host of other independent sources shows that this photo cannot have been created at that time on that date.

It allows us to speculate, with some certainty, that it was taken on the Sunday 29th April, and to imagine the possible sequence of events which led to the metadata’s being altered.


5. The tennis balls photo was not taken by Kate after mini-tennis
     (See Chapters 21, 22)

The tennis balls photo represent a strange anomaly in the midst of so many other anomalies.
 It is said to have been taken by two different people on any of three different days.
What is plain however is that despite what Kate insists in her autobiography, it was not taken on the McCann’s camera, and examination of the evidence available within the picture leads to a belief that it does not depict what it is supposed to.

Whether it has been tampered with is still debated. The original has never be put in the public domain, and the quality of what has been released in its various forms is so poor that further analysis is barely possible.


6.  The waterslide did not even exist 
     (See Chapter 20)
 
This story illustrates the depths to which journalists and journalism will sink in order to create a story out of nothing. It is a clear fabrication from start to finish. Every part of the story is invented. Not only does it not ‘hang together’ internally, with clear contradictions and impossibilities included in its own text, it is apparent to anyone who has bothered to look at the photos and video of the resort that is it full of downright lies. There is no waterslide. There was no waterslide.

Nevertheless it was published, and for some reason has never been denied, corrected or disavowed by the McCanns nor by their teams of advisors and acolytes.


7. The deep trench was not immediately outside the apartment
     (See Chapter 33)

Although the story about the trench in the road emerged a long time ago it had been consigned to the folder marked “journalistic puff”, and dismissed as irrelevant exaggeration or nonsense.
The actual trench and indeed all the roadworks in the village had of course been identified on the first day by the GNP and the PJ, and the statements from the supervisor, and the detail of the searches carried out are in the PJ files released on DVD when the investigation was shelved. They are available to anyone who cares to read them.

Chapter 38
 
 
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.
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. 
 
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
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
We might by this time have expected a retraction and explanation for the previous sets of falsehoods, and their replacement with the definitive account of Clarke’s actions on the first day, and then during the weeks that followed.
Our hope for honesty and decency from Clarke is however dashed once again.
The full text and the reference is appended, so I summarise. (I underline for emphasis some salient points)
Here we learn
Journalist Jon Clarke was one of the firston the scene in Praia da Luz, Portugal, when Maddie went missing from a holiday resort in May 2007, while her parents ate in a nearby restaurant.
Jon recalls the call he received from a British newspaper on the morning of 4 May 2007, asking him to report on a missing child.
He says, “I remember thinking that by the time I got there, she’d have turned up. Praia da Luz was a sleepy little village and hardly anyone was around when I arrived later that morning. But I was shocked when I saw the McCanns’ apartment – there was no security and just a flimsy piece of police tape covering the side gate.”
A few hours after arriving, Jon met Kate and Gerry. He says, “They were polite, and even thanked me for reporting on the case. They were clearly devastated. The press conference outside their apartment later that day only confirmed my feelings. I think almost every person there shed a tear. As a journalist, you try not to get too emotional about a story, but my own daughter had just turned two, so it was hard not to get upset.
It is very clear and very precise.  It is also in direct speech. In Quotes, if that means anything in modern journalism
He now claims
• to have been one of the first [journalists] on the scene
• to have met the McCanns a few hours after arriving
• to have had his feelings confirmed at the press conference later that day
 So although he is now clearly admitting in print that being THE FIRST journalist, or THE ONLY Journalist until late afternoon were lies, for which small mercy we may be thankful, his inclusion in the video footage among a group of at least six, and the presence of multiple fully equipped camera crews leads one to suppose that for him ‘among the first’does not imply a podium place.
But look at the weasel words that he met the McCanns “a few hours after arriving”.
Now his proven lies about entering the apartment speaking to the McCanns there, and/or of having spoken to them ‘as they left’ are by implication admitted for what they were.  Lies.
Their replacement with ‘a few hours after arriving’ seems sufficiently anodyne as to try persuade some that there might be admission of previous error and an explanation of the truth.
Let us dissect it further.
In this context “met Kate and Gerry” can only mean ‘for the first time’.
What do we know, from Kate’s autobiography, from the times on Police statements, from TV footage, and from other sources.
 Well, this.
The McCanns left the Payne’s apartment shortly before 10am under close police protection, were driven to Portimão for long interviews and statements, and did not return to PdL until around 8.30pm. 
On arrival they went straight to their new apartment which contained members of the family and friends looking after their remaining children, had some light refreshment, and then prepared a short statement for the benefit of the press, which was read out by Gerry with a torch in the stair-well at 10pm.
And as can be seen on the video recording of that event, the McCanns spoke to no one either before or immediately after the statement, but turned abruptly away,  returned to the apartment, and were not seen again until the following day.
At what point then did Clarke speak to them?
 
Having established that his first two statements are bare-faced lies, it looks ever more apparent that his third may bear the same stamp.
“A few hours later’ must mean in this context an absolute minimum of 10 and a half hours. (9:45am - 8:30pm),  but we can also be fairly sure the Clarke did not speak to them on their return.
Firstly because they were under Police ‘protection’ and escorted throughout.  
But then when Kate herself takes up the story and describes the scene on their return –
"We steppped out of the police car amid clicking, whirring cameras and dazzling lights. . .
Upstairs our new apartment, 4G, was heaving with people. Among them were my mum, dad and Auntie Norah, who had arrived from the UK. . .  It was all such a blur I can’t be absolutely certain who else was there that night, but I think I remember John Hill, Emma Knights and Craig Mayhew from Mark Warner, and Ambassador John Buck, British consul Bill Henderson and Angela Morado, who had accompanied us back from Portimão. There were some new faces, too: Liz Dow, the British consul for Lisbon, British Embassy press officer Andy Bowes and Alex Woolfall, a PR crisis-management specialist from Bell Pottinger in the UK, who had been drafted in by Mark Warner, as had a trauma psychologist from the Centre for Crisis Psychology (CCP) in north Yorkshire, who had now also arrived in Luz.
13 named people.  All crammed into a small apartment, plus an assortment of Tapas 7 who will have been responsible for herding them all together and catering for their needs.
 

 But no mention of Jon Clarke !


From that moment they were under the protection of the Tapas 7 and several family members who had arrived during the day. . . and within a few days were controlled by PR and ‘Spokes-people’.

The press conference is a different matter. That would have been, and clearly was communicated to all interested parties in the usual way. The stage was clearly set with television news cameras and lighting in place before their scripted appearance – which was carefully timed for 10pm GMT, to go live on the News

Bulletins across the world. There is nothing unusual about that. It is how “live” broadcasts are arranged.

And as we all clearly saw, and can see again if we choose to on YouTube, the McCanns appeared in the stairwell, Gerry read the short statement, and they then turned away and disappeared, taking no questions.

They were neither approached nor spoken to by Clarke nor by anyone else.

So now we have to address an even more fundamental question.

Did Clarke speak to the McCanns at all ?    Ever ?  
 
There is no clear evidence of his having done so. There are no attributable quotes, only the suspiciously vague 2019 version – “they said “Hi”, and I think they may have also said“ thanks for coming”.”, which has now hardened into 
“They were polite, and even thanked me for reporting on the case. They were clearly devastated.”
No explanation or details of the evidence which led Kate to know ‘know’ that Madeleine had been abducted, and very specifically by a paedophile.  No quotes to show the anguish they were both allegedly suffering at that moment.  No heart-string-tugging phrases . . . and certainly no long attributable interview, reported in his own newspaper, - which on any test would be been worth a small fortune at that moment in “syndication rights”.
Nothing.
All we are given are at least three different and contradictory versions of his “alleged’ first encounter.
The language he employs may be revealing –
“there wasn’t much opportunity, sadly, to talk to them about what had happened . . .”
But this was written in 2019.
What he notably does NOT add is words to the effect -
“It wasn’t until 5 days later that I managed to get them on their own and hear the whole story . . .”
and that may be important.
Even Martin Brunt, the world famous Sky Crime Correspondent, who spent 10 days in PdL did not manage to speak to the McCanns before he left, so close was the protective barrier erected around the them and the Tapas 7.
“I spent 10 days in Portugal," he says. "I thought there were still angles to the story to explore. But I came back because it was deemed we were spending a lot of money on it when there were other stories to cover." So he'd have liked to stay longer? "Yeah. I hadn't at that stage interviewed the parents.”
Kate is similarly silent in her book.  One might have thought that a friendly English-speaking journalist fully seised of the official story would have been of great value in their press campaign.  (As in fact he tried to become over the next few months.)
Brunt admits that even he did not manage to speak to the McCanns in the 10 days he was there.
Clarke stays silent.
Clarke wrote for the Sun and News International (now Corp) for some 6 months before he published a single article in his own paper.  
Is that astonishing, or does it simply suggest an exclusive – and lucrative – contract.
He continued to write the most lurid and far-fetched articles for The Sun, which were then copied and pasted across the tabloid churnalist world,  the most ludicrous being ‘The Curious Case of the Angolan Bouncer’, over which it is probably better to draw a veil.  The rotting corpse of this story has been dissected at length and the debris sluiced away.   Only the salient points remain pickled in the formaldehyde of the internet in case someone cares to re-examine it.
In the early days his reports featured in the Mail, though it is not possible to say whether this is syndication, churnalism, or a continuation of the original contract.
And from there we have to ask – What was Clarke actually DOING for the two weeks he claims to have been there?
Can we assume that during that time he nipped home the four and a half hour trip each way to see his wife, G*******a,  and his young family?
Did he try to build contacts within the GNR or the PJ?
He now tells us that he walked up and down the beach at least ten times, and looked into deserted buildings, for what possible reason again we are not told.  Given that the GNR dogs and large and diverse search parties had been at the scene since the early hours of the first morning – contrary to what Clarke reports, but clearly evidenced in the contemporaneous news reports which include shots of Clarke himself – and spent the following weeks scouring almost the entire town and waste land surrounding it, it seems a fairly pointless and time-wasting activity for a journalist.
Or did he confine himself to joining the gaggle of reporters in the bars who sat and drank and waited for their official briefing each day before hastily filing their copy, as was so perceptively observed by a real Investigative Journalist, Paulo Reis, who went ‘under cover’ to observe how his fellow journalists continue the slide of their profession into disrepute.
Clarke was on his own account, at least for the initial stage under twocontracts.  Sky and the Mail.  
And this means double pay and double expenses.
NOTA BENE:    I am assured that this is apparently normal and permitted within the arcane rules of the Media, and however dishonest it may seem to us lay people, it must be made clear that it is not.    It is one of the few perks of being free-lance.
What it means is that he was not short of funds.  But the suspicion arises that longer he remained in PdL, the longer this particular financial arrangement would continue.
We can be sure his imagination did not extend to making full enquiries and recording observations, nor of considering the full range of options.
Nowhere have I been able to find any discussion of the not-broken, not-forced, not-jemmied, and not-smashedshutters, though they were clear even on his arrival.  They are shown already liberally covered with “Dragon’s Blood” fingerprint power as he is filmed walking past them.   And this despite this particular story’s appearing on news bulletins across the world for the first few days.


Nowhere have I been able to find an in-depth interview with anyone of interest.
No interview with Hill about the lack of evidence of forced entry nor of abduction for example.
He puts forward no theories, no scenarios, no explanation of how ‘it’ might have been achieved.
What we are given is an endless repetition of the original story, that one fixed in time as at 10:00pm Thursday 3rd May 2007, and never altered since that day, even though the subsequent discovery of evidence and multiple enquiries shows it was neither credible nor even remotely possible.
In that sense became a “mantra”. An article of faith, which if repeated often enough induces in its practitioners a type of semi-hypnotic state in which it becomes part of what may be termed a religion.
A Religion – in the sense that it relies only on Faithand Belief, and not on evidence except that written by the leader of that religion whose writings are or course self-fulfilling.
A Religion – in the further sense that any who dare to question it will be dismissed, reviled, punished, abused, financially penalised, and in some cases put to death or pressured into taking their own lives.
Or is it more like one of the fake pseudo-religious cults, so frequently discovered in the US exploiting the most gullible and intellectually underprivileged, where at the centre is that which all worship.   MONEY
To repeat – Clarke was paid both by the Mail and by The Sun in the early days. Double pay and double expenses.  For the first six months he did not publish a single article in his own paper in Southern Spain
This highly suggestive of lucrative and highly exclusive but legally restrictive contracts.
It is also, when we look at the evidence of how it seems to have worked after that contract came to an end probably in late October, suggestive of the manipulation for money of a ‘useful idiot’  to plant or invent stories which can then be repeated in the national press.
The Media can then always claim to be merely repeating what has been written somewhere else.
It was during this time that Clarke was heavily censured by the Spanish Press Association’s watchdog, FAPE,  but given their lack of coercive powers he simply ignored them, and carried on his regime of vilification, abuse and defamation of any who stood in his way.   See chapter 31.  
And the next big question is WHY.  Why did Clarke do this?   Why does he continue to do it?
This is not a question of being right or wrong. Either or both of us may be wrong.
The question is about why Clarke felt and still feels the compulsion to lie – endlessly – when his lies are so easily exposed, and add little if anything to the topic under discussion.
Let me demonstrate.   Compare the following hypothetical statements :-
“I was the first journalist at the scene and I saw that the shutters were not broken.”
against what he could so easily and honestly have written –
“I joined a group of journalists at the scene and we could all see that the shutters were not broken”
[And of course he says neither, since it is clear that discussion of the shutters is taboo. Haram. Verboten.]
How does the first statement enhance the observation ?
It clearly doesn’t, but it has the incidental side-effect when the lie contained therein is exposed of reducing or totally destroying the credibility of the reporter.
It would be easy to assume that money was involved at the beginning, and that gradually it has become impossible for him to resile from the initial stance for financial and contractual reasons.    But what does it say about all the journalists and reporters and commentators who have sold their souls in the same way?

This does not pre-suppose that one theory or the other is de facto correct. Far from it.
What it implies is that members of a ‘profession’ we have relied on to challenge the establishment, to pick apart statements, to dissect points of view and thereby to maintain our collective freedom had cynically and deliberately decided not to do so.
They have failed us all.    And for that we condemn Clarke and all like him. 
We shall not easily forget this betrayal.
 
As the German connection begins to fade away, and the Staatsanwalt [State Prosecutor] Hr. Wolters has his bluff called and is about to be exposed as having no evidence sufficient to put before a Court of Law, (despite Brunt claiming a couple of months ago that he “believes that perhaps the prosecutor has video evidence of her being killed, or her dead body.”.    Yes, he really said that !) we might remind ourselves what the professional and other people at the scene in the immediate aftermath told the world, either then, or subsequently.
 
 
 
 
Brunt:                                        There is no evidence . . . we were over-sympathetic, lost our objectivity 
Mitchell:                                   Disappearance is a complete mystery
Hill:                                            No evidence of a break in, and no evidence of abduction
DCI Amaral:                              No evidence
DCI Tavares:                              No evidence
DI Paiva:                                    No evidence
Prosecutor Magalhães:          No evidence about the circumstances under which she was removed
Forensic teams:                       No evidence
Search teams:                          No evidence
Tracker dogs:                            No evidence 
BritPol:                                      No evidence
MetPol:                                     No definitive evidence (of anything very much really)
Lee Fountain:                           No evidence. But concentrate on the parents
 
In a previous Chapter  (Ch. 17 Philosophical Problems) I examined this lack of evidence and tested it against the oft-repeated aphorism –   “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
I showed how in this case it very definitely IS evidence.
To precis : Absence of evidence (of abduction) can be evidence of absence (of abduction) if:
1               You would reasonably expect to find evidence, and
2               Qualified investigators conducting a proper search fail to find evidence.
In this case both apply, and we can become ever more confident that it is indeed Evidence of Absence.
To spell it out for those who are hard of understanding :-
The issue is not that there is no evidence that Christian Brückner or Raymond Hewlett, or Robert Murat, or Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer, Peter Gurney, Peter Davy, Daniel Whiddon, Harry Hawke, Uncle Thomas Cobleigh . . .
or indeed anyone else chosen apparently at random “DID IT”– 
The issue is that there is no evidence and anyone “DID IT”.
There is no evidence that ’IT’ was ‘DID’ in the first place.
In that place at that time in that way.
 
What we can be sure of is this –
Madeleine is missing.  This fact was reported around 10pm on Thursday 3rd May 2007
 
And it is worth repeating as often as we can, so that everyone remembers and understands; 
the only people who insist that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile are the principal suspects – the parents – and neither they, nor any of the people who have supported them in this story over the past 13 years are able to point to a single piece of what any rational person would term ‘evidence’, nor to provide a coherent scenario how “IT” might have been performed, or in which “IT” might have been achieved within the parameters so rigidly set by the principal suspects – the parents - themselves.
 
And if that is correct they we may tentatively suggest that Operation Grange and the Bundeskriminalamt –the German FBI / CID, (the BKA) might spend their time more productively hunting Unicorns.

CHAPTER 38

REFERENCES AND ORIGINAL TEXTS.


1

https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2011/11/07/24455/

WHY LIBEL IS NO BIG DEAL IN SPAIN


2

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-29-fake-news.html


3
http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/01/chapter-31-jon-clarke-olive-press-lies.html

JON CLARKE – OLIVE PRESS - LIES AND VIDEOTAPE


4
http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-32-on-lies-and-conspiracies.html


5
https://closeronline.co.uk/real-life/news/madeleine-mccann-german-suspect-jon-clarke/


As a prime suspect in the Madeleine McCann case is announced, Closer speaks to Jon Clarke who has followed the story since the three-year-old went missing...


Journalist Jon Clarke was one of the first on the scene in Praia da Luz, Portugal, when Maddie went missing from a holiday resort in May 2007, while her parents ate in a nearby restaurant. He has been reporting on the case ever since.

Jon recalls the call he received from a British newspaper on the morning of 4 May 2007, asking him to report on a missing child.

He says, “I remember thinking that by the time I got there, she’d have turned up. Praia da Luz was a sleepy little village and hardly anyone was around when I arrived later that morning. But I was shocked when I saw the McCanns’ apartment – there was no security and just a flimsy piece of police tape covering the side gate.”

A few hours after arriving, Jon met Kate and Gerry. He says, “They were polite, and even thanked me for reporting on the case. They were clearly devastated. The press conference outside their apartment later that day only confirmed my feelings. I think almost every person there shed a tear. As a journalist, you try not to get too emotional about a story, but my own daughter had just turned two, so it was hard not to get upset.

“In the days that followed, it was clear this was a story like no other – hundreds of journalists descended on the town and Maddie’s face was everywhere. Everyone was looking for her – I must have walked the length of the beach ten times, combing through the wasteland and looking in abandoned houses.”

Jon stayed in Portugal for two weeks while the case unfolded – until it became clear that Maddie was no longer in Praia da Luz. He says he has since returned countless times to report on the story, and even appeared in a Netflix documentary that aired last year about her disappearance.


6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxHuwT__URc

Press conference 4/5/7 10pm


7
'madeleine’, by Kate McCann, 2011, Bantam Press.   p.93


8
https://web.archive.org/web/20070706231113/http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2725892.ece


Brunt accepts that the way that the story was handled by his and other media organisations was imperfect. "It's the view of a few of us that when we look back over the first two or three weeks of the coverage we were in some ways over-sympathetic. We kind of adopted the tone and the language that the family did. I think we perhaps lost our objectivity a bit, we became a bit too subjective about the story."

The message of hope that was broadcast contradicted what Brunt's police sources had told him from the outset. "Ever since day one, when I spoke to cop contacts and others who had been involved in this kind of story, they said 'Just look at the statistics'. Most children who disappear in these circumstances are victims of paedophiles who plan everything and then panic. The easy option for them is to destroy the only witness to their crime. It was clear to me from very early on that this was going to be the most likely outcome. I think journalists in general tended to shy away from making that point."

Nonetheless, he remains sore that he was pulled off the story before he was ready to come home. "I spent 10 days in Portugal," he says. " I thought there were still angles to the story to explore. But I came back because it was deemed we were spending a lot of money on it when there were other stories to cover." So he'd have liked to stay longer? "Yeah. I hadn't at that stage interviewed the parents.


9
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/379292/madeleine-mccann-is-in-america-and-iknow-

who-took-her/


10
https://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/search?q=undercover&maxresults=

20&by-date=true

Thursday, 10 May 2018       Why I went undercover to Praia da Luz


11
FAPE Resolucion 1013/82


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


12
https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/german-prosecutor-claiming-madeleine-mccann-is-dead-may-have-video-of-the-incident/

Mr Brunt believes that perhaps the prosecutor has video evidence of her being killed, or her dead body.


13
http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-17-some-philosophical-thoughts.html

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-38-lies-damned-lies-and-jon.html

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t16952-petermac-chapter-38-lies-damned-lies-and-jon-clarke#425725