PeterMac's new Chapter for his e-book: 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.

Very interesting chapter.
Imo. I got some odd feelings when I watched Clarke on Netflix.
He was overreacting in a strange way like he made rude comments on how the exterior on PJ's office look's like for example, I can't see how this had something to do with the disappearence.
He was at the scene at 10:45 PT time, did he go there from Spain that evening?
Was it Kay Burley who was on holiday in Pdl?
I thought it was Jo Wheeler? or maybe both were in Pdl?

Sadly this seems to be the norm amongst most of the papers today, not even just the tabloids. Why let the facts and truth get in the way of a ‘good’ story?
Even when people take cases to the complaints authority, they are rarely interested & hide behind equally nonsensical ‘standardised’ replies, in a similar vein to most FOI requests.

NickE wrote:Very interesting chapter.
Imo. I got some odd feelings when I watched Clarke on Netflix.
He was overreacting in a strange way like he made rude comments on how the exterior on PJ's office look's like for example, I can't see how this had something to do with the disappearence.
He was at the scene at 10:45 PT time, did he go there from Spain that evening?
Was it Kay Burley who was on holiday in Pdl?
I thought it was Jo Wheeler? or maybe both were in Pdl?

He says he left home in Spain at 0745, add 4 hrs driving = 1145 (Spanish time) - 1045 Portuguese
Possible.  More likely an earlier start, which then raises questions about when the Brit Press got to know 
because by 1020-1030 he is bedded in with the GNR ( on shaking hands terms with the Lieutenant) and is in the gaggle of 6 reporters all comparing notes and waiting at the bottom of the stairwell.

Kay Burley was presenting the news in the studio on London that day, so NO she was not there

Yes, it was the person you refer to. He was told that on the blog but just stopped answering comments

Have a look at the photos in the Appendices and the YouTube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRe3g25ma4o

A three year old girl is missing.

A lying journalist in a local Spanish rag becomes the darling of a Netflix production.

A three year old girl is missing.

12 years on and the same girl is missing.

The lying journalist in a local Spanish rag is....lying.

PeterMac wrote:

NickE wrote:Very interesting chapter.
Imo. I got some odd feelings when I watched Clarke on Netflix.
He was overreacting in a strange way like he made rude comments on how the exterior on PJ's office look's like for example, I can't see how this had something to do with the disappearence.
He was at the scene at 10:45 PT time, did he go there from Spain that evening?
Was it Kay Burley who was on holiday in Pdl?
I thought it was Jo Wheeler? or maybe both were in Pdl?

He says he left home in Spain at 0745, add 4 hrs driving = 1145 (Spanish time) - 1045 Portuguese
Possible.  More likely an earlier start, which then raises questions about when the Brit Press got to know 
because by 1020-1030 he is bedded in with the GNR ( on shaking hands terms with the Lieutenant) and is in the gaggle of 6 reporters all comparing notes and waiting at the bottom of the stairwell.

Kay Burley was presenting the news in the studio on London that day, so NO she was not there

Yes, it was the person you refer to. He was told that on the blog but just stopped answering comments

Have a look at the photos in the Appendices and the YouTube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRe3g25ma4o

Thank's Peter for the clarification.
He left Spain at ~19:45 for Pdl and this happened to be on May 3rd, it was more than 2 hours before she officially went missing.
Has he given any explanation why he went to Pdl?

NickE wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

NickE wrote:Very interesting chapter.
Imo. I got some odd feelings when I watched Clarke on Netflix.
He was overreacting in a strange way like he made rude comments on how the exterior on PJ's office look's like for example, I can't see how this had something to do with the disappearence.
He was at the scene at 10:45 PT time, did he go there from Spain that evening?
Was it Kay Burley who was on holiday in Pdl?
I thought it was Jo Wheeler? or maybe both were in Pdl?

He says he left home in Spain at 0745, add 4 hrs driving = 1145 (Spanish time) - 1045 Portuguese
Possible.  More likely an earlier start, which then raises questions about when the Brit Press got to know 
because by 1020-1030 he is bedded in with the GNR ( on shaking hands terms with the Lieutenant) and is in the gaggle of 6 reporters all comparing notes and waiting at the bottom of the stairwell.

Kay Burley was presenting the news in the studio on London that day, so NO she was not there

Yes, it was the person you refer to. He was told that on the blog but just stopped answering comments

Have a look at the photos in the Appendices and the YouTube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRe3g25ma4o

Thank's Peter for the clarification.
He left Spain at ~19:45 for Pdl and this happened to be on May 3rd, it was more than 2 hours before she officially went missing.
Has he given any explanation why he went to Pdl?

No, JC said he got the call on May 4th around 07.15 from the Foreign Desk in the UK saying a young child had gone missing and he left soon afterwards.

Jon Clarke: "I got a phone call incredibly early. Normally if a job came in from the national papers in England, I'd get a call at 9:30 or half 8, perhaps, and it was 7 or 7:30 and it was the foreign desk at the Mail. They quickly told me that a girl had gone missing, potentially kidnapped, in the south of Portugal in the Algarve and could I get there as quickly as possible to investigate?
While on the road, interestingly, I got phone calls from both the Mirror And The Sun also asking if I could cover this case, which is quite rare to have, you know, all the papers asking for you to cover it and so I agreed. I said of course I would file for them as well and keep an eye on the story for them. For me, these stories are often, you know, kind of mysterious, you know? Your job is to go and try and unravel what it is.
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."

There are times when ridicule seems to be the best way of making a point

Jon Clarke - “. . . the only reporter on the scene till late afternoon”



“The Olive Press Editor, 50, was the first journalist on the scene in Praia da Luz”
“From the word go, they did not take this crime seriously.”
“I was firstly able to walk into the apartment, where I introduced myself to the McCanns . .”



“The only reporter on the scene till late that evening . . .”



“The only reporter on the scene till late that evening . . .
Incredibly, we had to wait till late afternoon before a couple of sniffer dogs had arrived,”




“the first journalist on the scene . . .”



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



“Incredibly, we had to wait till late afternoon before a couple of sniffer dogs had arrived”



“From the word go, they did not take this crime seriously.”





.

Lest I be accused of not understanding how difficult it is to write an article to include the truth, but to maintain an overall critical tone. . . or to do it in a supportive way

My words, my phrasing, my style, but in accordance with the facts. Is it any less of a story ?

VERSION 1
I was still only half awake when the phone rang. It was the Mail, with a story they wanted me to follow. I recognised the sense of urgency.

I was being phoned at 7.15, to be sent 400 km – 250 miles – into another country, to look for a story about a missing girl who could have been found at any time, and certainly long before I even got close. There was clearly more to this than I had been told, and I was determined to find out what it was. The word the Mail had used was “Abduction”. Clearly a most serious case, and perhaps I may be forgiven if under the circumstances I took speed limits to be ‘purely advisory’

I got there by late morning. There is a time difference between Spain and Portugal which can be disorientating, and the exact time time is not important.

I got there. And that is.

I was only just in time to see a couple I assumed to be the McCanns and some others I assumed to be some of their friends being hastily bundled into a cars and taken away.

Everyone else was filming them so it was an obvious conclusion. It turned out to be right.

I had time for a couple of hurried photos for reference later, but that was all.

I desperately wanted to talk to them, but that had to wait for a few days.

All around was total chaos. Uniform police with radios, plain clothes officers with clip boards, handlers with dogs, camera crews with video equipment and tripods, journalists of all nationalities – all trying to find something, some evidence, some scrap of a ‘hook’ on which to hang a story.

Police were refusing to give details. At that stage we didn’t even know the outline of the story.

Cars and vans were looking for places to park, the Police were ineffectually trying to create some semblance of order out of the chaos . . It was not easy to see who, if anyone, was in charge.

I wasn’t difficult to spot the apartment. It was crawling with police and Forensic science people in their “Oompaloompa” white suits, so I went round to the side entrance, with the little gate and the staircase up to the balcony and the sliding patio door that became such an important part of the story a week later.

It was only protected by a bit of police tape and a hastily printed A4 sheet of paper sellotaped to the handrail making it quite clear that no one was to be permitted access. I do admit I was very tempted to ‘duck the tape’ and try to have a look inside, but the thought of a couple of hours in the cell at the local police station did not appeal.

So I busied myself talking to neighbours and residents, none of whom had been spoken to by Police that stage, and gradually built up a picture of the facts that were then known, and then explored further into the small town towards the beach and the sea. That is where I found the uncovered deep trenches and road works, and the dreadful possibility occurred to me . . .

(Continues in the same vein for several paragraphs . . .)

* * *

Could he have written this ?
Yes

Is it factually correct ?
Yes
Did he ?
No



VERSION 2
I was barely half awake when the phone rang. It was the Mail, with a story they wanted me to follow. I recognised the sense of urgency.

I was being phoned at 7.15, to be sent 400 km – 250 miles – a 4 hour drive – into another country, to look for a story about a little ‘missing’ girl who could obviously have been found at any time, and certainly long before I even got close. There was clearly more to this than I had been told, and as an Investigative Journalist my suspicions were instantly aroused. Perhaps I may be forgiven if at times and under the circumstances I took speed limits to be ‘advisory’

I got there by late morning. Even as I arrived the McCanns and some of their friends were being escorted to unmarked police vehicles and taken away for statements.

I wanted to talk to them, but in the event that was never possible for other reasons I shall explain later. I took a few photos for reference purposes, and then started to look round.

To the amateur or untrained eye it always looks like total chaos. Uniform police with radios, plain clothes officers with clip boards, handlers with dogs – both the general purpose black ones and an obviously specialist Golden Labrador – camera crews with tripods, journalists of all nationalities including an ex-pat Brit who I knew, cars and vans arriving.

But I could see that the GNR Police were dealing with logistics and had the traffic under control. They had designated specific areas for the TV lorries and for private cars, and were keeping the public and reporters well away from the area. I spoke to a couple of them, and then concentrated on trying to find a PJ detective to get some details.

I wasn’t difficult to spot the apartment. It was taped off, and a fingerprint woman was crouched in front of a shuttered window, using the red ‘Dragons Blood’ powder I have seen so many times before. I made a mental note that the shutters were down and seemed in good condition. I don’t know why. I suppose it was my years as an Investigative journalist which made me notice this, as I hadn’t yet heard the story about the shutters being ‘broken, smashed, forced or jemmied’ which became such an important issue later. Put it down to a ‘sixth sense’, or a ‘journalist’s nose’.

There were uniformed police officers outside, and the Forensic science people in their protective white suits, masks and overshoes were going in and out.

I went round to the side entrance, with the little gate and the staircase up to the balcony and looked up at the sliding patio door that became the second important part of the story a week later.

More police tape and a laminated A4 notice in two languages sellotaped to the banister made it quite clear that no one was to be permitted access. The GNR and PJ were clearly in control.

I do admit I was very tempted to ‘duck the tape’ and try to have a look inside. I tried to speak to a couple of officers, but the language barrier between my fluent Spanish and spoken Portuguese is too great.

The lack of information is always frustrating. I know from long experience as an Investigative journalist on the Costa del Sol how difficult it is to find facts. Some time ago I followed the story of an British ex-pat who I exposed as a man wanted for serious crimes in the UK. I like to think I was instrumental in helping bringing him to justice, and my book ‘The Costa Killer’ was a bestseller for a time, but I can vividly remember how frustrating it was not to be able to read the Police files or interview detectives in depth.

So I busied myself talking to neighbours and residents, and gradually built up a picture of the facts that were then known, and comparing notes with the other journalists, someone whom spoke better Portuguese than I do.

It was later that morning when I heard the relatives on TV giving the story about the broken and smashed shutters.

To be absolutely sure, I went back and looked for myself.

They were not.

My professional ‘antennae’ began to twitch.

(Continues in the same vein for several paragraphs . . .)

* *

Could he have written this ?
Yes

Is it factually correct ?
Yes
Did he ?
No

Yes, OP is free, and free on-line.
Advertising is what drives it, and many of the 'articles' are nothing more than single sentences with a headline.

For the first five months he wrote for the SUN, some of it jointly with Lazzeri, some with others, and is credited on many of the articles.   Some have been referred to on this forum.    Google search turns up a directory of them if you can be bothered.

Remember that his own newspaper was in 'fledgling stage' as he says, so he could have scooped the world.  
But money talks.

The first article in the OP was on 28 Oct (from memory), and after that he published stuff which was then "Quoted" in the Sun and sent round the world by N, being syndicated or 'quoted' by the Mail and Express.  It was that way round.   He provided the copy, they copied - if you see what I mean.   The Angolan Bouncer nonsense is the best example.   Someone set it up for him to go to Huelva and interview him.  He didn't just drift over the three hour drive each way – – – on the off-chance.  
Bell Pottinger worked hard for their half a million pieces of silver.
   
The suspicion is that NI provided the story, he published it and it was then 'quoted' so that NI could not be held responsible, and since OP is outside the jurisdiction they were home and dry and could print anything they wanted.   However ludicrous.

I remember on Joanna Morais site, an article about Kate McCann doing a deal with the press.  When you consider that Blairs' head of Media monitoring, Clarence Mitchell was on the grounds in PDL telling journalists " were not reporting on this today" (his own words) and keeping the McCann stories in control at a cost of £75,000 PA, and the McCanns paying £500,000 to Bell Pottinger to keep them in the press, then add the staged walks, photos etc. Just for the media, you begin to wonder how much more has been paid to the media.  Even more so when you look at how McCann PI, Antonio Jiminez Raso was caught bribing people in Morocco to say they had seen Madeleine before calling the journos across for the story.  Then we have the McCanns selling their stories to the press and the serialisation of Kate's novel in the Sun.

It makes you wonder how much more money has changed hands between the McCanns, Mitchell and the press.

Are we to accept that Jon Clarke and his Olive Press are innocent in all this, I find that very hard to swallow.

He MAY be innocent . . . but to do that he has to plead extreme stupidity – to the point of intellectual impairment – or incompetence at a level which would disbar him from any known profession.

He went to PdL and saw "Norrtheeng meester Fawlltee"
He went back again and again, and saw "Norttheeng meester Fawlltee"


This is a man who does not notice 6 journalists he is actually talking to, does not notice squadrons of police, police dogs, dog vans, camera crews, video equipment, cables,  . . .   he simply does not see them.
Because if he did he would not say they were not there, would he !

He did not report on the shutters, the window, the distance from A to B, the time taken to walk, trot or run from B to C
So far as we can tell he never sat down for a meaningful interview with the MccCanns or any of their relatives.
He spent all that time there and did – – –  well what ?

Hardly surprising that one of our senior commentators said – in total exasperation – "Were you even there ?"


I went there, marched up to the window, and yanked up the shutters.  On film.
(But then I am not an investigative journalist, so may perhaps be forgiven for the crime of checking facts)

"Foreign looking", stooping, long hair, strange gait, scruffy clothing, watching the apartment, taking notes and photos, asking questions . . .
Errrm . !

Just add him to today's 13 suspects (Daily Star)



[size=48]Madeleine McCann cops tracing 13 KEY SUSPECTS seen acting suspiciously in Praia da Luz[/size]
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/777333/Madeleine-McCann-latest-news-2019-key-suspects-mystery-praia-da-luz?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daily-star-latest-news+%28Daily+Star+%3A%3A+News+Feed%29

PeterMac wrote:"Foreign looking", stooping, long hair, strange gait, scruffy clothing, watching the apartment, taking notes and photos, asking questions . . .
Errrm . !

Just add him to today's 13 suspects (Daily Star)

Is it only 13 suspects? How many will it be by the end of the week?

The camera never lies

PeterMac wrote:

The camera never lies

I'm concerned about the obvious signage and arrows above the windows and doors.

Jill Havern wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

The camera never lies

I think there's a bit of bougainvillea sprouting up in the the tessellated paving there.

And there is a smell of garlic . . . or is it b*** s*** ?

PeterMac wrote:And there is a smell of garlic . . . or is it b*** s*** ?

Well, he does operate out of a cowshed Peter so I suspect it's the latter

Jill Havern wrote:

PeterMac wrote:And there is a smell of garlic . . . or is it b*** s*** ?

Well, he does operate out of a cowshed Peter so I suspect it's the latter

Its definitely the latter - Garlic thins the blood but lies, deceit and taken everyone for fools when the truth is so obvious just makes the blood boil.

What sort of person aides the coverup of the death of a small child?