Extract from Jon Clarke's new book: 'My Search for Madeleine McCann'

I doubt the enormity of Amazon give a kippers do-da about customer reviews.

This is their policy on the subject..

Customer Reviews

You can submit reviews for items listed on Amazon. We encourage you to share your opinions, both favourable and unfavourable.

Customer Reviews help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

Customer Reviews should give customers genuine product feedback from fellow shoppers. We have a zero tolerance policy for any review designed to mislead or manipulate customers.

We don't allow anyone to write reviews as a form of promotion.

The following are types of reviews that we don't allow and will remove:

A review by someone who has a direct or indirect financial interest in the product.
A review by someone perceived to have a close personal relationship with the product's owner, author or artist.
A review by the product manufacturer, posing as an unbiased shopper.
Multiple negative reviews for the same product from one customer.
A review in exchange for monetary reward.
A review of a game in exchange for bonus in-game credits.
A negative review from a seller on a competitor's product.
A positive review from an artist on a peer's album in exchange for receiving a positive review from them.

You can see all of your reviews by visiting Your Profile.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=G3UA5WC5S5UUKB5G

Amazon got themselves in a bit of a sticky wicket some while ago, accusations were made that they pay for customer reviews to be favourable/unfavourable. Net result of the scandal if I remember rightly, it was third party sellers who were paying for reviews, not Amazon .

Bearing in mind a good proportion of sales on Amazon are through a third party, it amounts to the same thing - surely?

It's called marketing, all large retail companies do it.

If you clicked on the 3 and 4 * reviews it said there weren't any !
Clarke said he didn't mind them, because it showed people had read the book.
But someone managed to put them into Amazon, without actually writing a review at all

The JH review has been whooshed, along with most of the others, leaving only mainly 5* reviews.

Thus and therefore, there is nothing for Amazon to investigate....clever huh?

Silentscope wrote:Amazon have deleted anything that is not a ‘verified purchase’ now. The proof it existed is safe on your own complaint records.

Which they should reply to.

I've just pinged them another email 

This novel has not hit no.1 in the rankings yet, so I take it the stats are correct and have not been tampered with 

Is Clarke blaming negative reviews for the failure of his book? 

   Let me help you Jon. If you told the truth about this case, you may have sold hundreds of thousands of copies and at least made it to the top 100 instead of ranking between 30,000 and 120,000

Forget everything that goes before and concentrate on page 271, the conclusion of the book prior to the bibliography.  It's all you need to know as regards motive and motivation .... 'The Epilogue'.

Appendix 2

We Wish You Luck

During the course of this book I spoke a number of times to Clarence Mitchell, the long-time official spokesman for the McCann family.  I also reached out to interview Gerry and Kate McCann about the new investigation towards the end of 2020, partly out of courtesy and partly as I believed they might have had some key extra insight into the investigation against Brueckner.

Clarence told me it would be 'extremely unlikely' and they only ever did any media interviews around the anniversary of their daughter's disappearance or "if the police specifically asked them".

"They've had a tough time with it over the years, all the media scrutiny for years you can't really blame them  It was 24/7 and never stopped and we had continual enquiries from all round the world, " he explained.  "Even recently they spotted a photographer hiding in the bushes near their home in Rothley who had flown over from America.  The police were called and he was swiftly removed thankfully."

Like me, a former local newspaper reporter from North London (later the BBC), we share a fair bit in common and have always had a good relationship.  He also knows y views on the case and that I have never tried to sensationalise it.  In particular he knows I have only ever been supportive of the McCanns.  'Unlike that electric ferret Sandra, as we call her, who is always changing her tune', he recently joked.
While he is only now an 'unofficial spokesman' as he insists on being known, he said he would happily pass on a letter to the McCanns approaching them for an interview.

It was a full three weeks before he phoned me back with an answer.  'It is thanks, but no thanks,' he said.  'I'm sorry, but they do wish you luck with the book, they just feel they can't get involved.  'They remember you and know they can't stop you investigating and have said if you wish to send any specific information you come across they will happily consider it.  The door is definitely open so please keep us in the loop.'

He added that he 'had a very good feeling' about the suspect.  'Christian Brueckner is the most likely of all.  I certainly haven't seen anyone with the same modus operandi and background.

'The German police seem sure and I really hope they can catch him. It's the most excited I've been for 10 years'.

'My Search for Madeleine' by Jon Clarke

[Excerpt for research and study only.]

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-brand-probe-23159980


Madeleine McCann's parents brand probe into prime suspect as 'beyond bizarre'
Maddie McCann's parents Kate and Gerry McCann are said to have concerns about the probe into prime suspect Christian Brueckner days after the lead prosecutor spoke about alleged evidence.
Beyond Bizarre.  
That won't help sales of Clarke's book, will it !

This thread deals mainly with further documentation of the many lies and money-grubbing activities of one Jon Clarke.

We have lost count of the number of variations of his account of being the 'first journalist on the scene' in Praia da Luz on Friday 4 May, 2007.

We have read about how he made a small fortune out of a film taken at a private party, about which he wove a tale of lies which resulted in the newspaper who published his story being successfully sued for libel.

We have featured an article on CMOMM documenting Jon Clarke's very close involvement in developing one of the most absurd, and obviously false, stories about Madeleine McCann, namely the bogus claim by Marcelinho Italiano that he had information that Madeleine had been snatched by paedophiles and taken to the U.S.

And many more lies of his, etc.

Jon Clarke is the owner and Chief Executive of the Olive Press.

A world famous incident involving another serial liar and money-grabber occurred in possibly the most noteworthy 'Olive Press' of all time, namely in the Garden of Gethsemane.

For 'Gethsemane' simply translates as either 'Olive Press' or 'Oil Press'.

It was here, 988 years ago, that one Judas Iscariot betrayed an innocent man.

After slipping out of the Last Supper, held on the Passover Day, 14th of Nisan, 2 April AD33, Judas sneaked off to the Pharisees, who gave him 30 shekels in advance for information leading to the arrest of Jesus Christ.

About two hours later, Judas betrayed Christ with a kiss. Christ was instantly seized by a posse of Jewish civil armed forces and escorted by Roman soldiers to the mansion of high priest Annas, where the first of six illegal trials of Christ ,all in one night, took place. Later the next day, at 3pm, after three hours of total blackness in the area, and with a major earthquake accompanying the event, He died from crucifixion.

Judas was mortified. He rushed back to the Pharisees and threw his 30 pieces of silver at the Pharisees. He then went out and hung himself on a tree. According to the Apostle Peter, Judas's dead body "fell headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out". The field in which he fell was immediately known as 'The Field of Blood'.

If you should read this, Jon Clarke, tell us the truth now, and instead of attacking people like PeterMac and Goncalo Amaral who have carefully researched the evidence, and want justice for, and the truth.about what really happened to, Madeleine McCann, heartily repent of your sins, and receive complete forgiveness from Christ.

ETA: I noticed that in many photos of Jon Clarke, he had very long hair for a man.

In 1 Corinthians 11 vv 14-15, the Apostle Paul wrote the following to the people of Corinth::      

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her..."    

Tony wrote:We have lost count of the number of variations of his account of being the 'first journalist on the scene' in Praia da Luz on Friday 4 May, 2007.

Any number of journalists have claimed to have been first on location to cover the story, only in general they say 'I was one of the first' rather than 'I was the first' - a latter corrections by Mr Clarke I believe.

For the record, the Portuguese journalist Sandra Felgueiras was one.

It runs in their veins.

I think that may be the text the Jehovah's Witnesses use to forbid their men from having beards or moustaches.
Which text they invoke to prevent their women from wearing trousers is not clear.

Either way, if you do, you will be slaughtered by the all merciful God and his living Son at Armageddon, when all but the 5 million JWs will be save - and the rest of mankind 'created in His image", (all 7.5 Billion of us) exterminated in a mass genocide not seen since the flood, and their eyes will be pecked out by crows.

"We're going to need some more crows !"

By this austere doctrine - can women have beards and/or moustaches?

Yes.

EXCLUSIVE: This is no comedy – Madeleine McCann prime suspect has no right to call a new book on the case ‘a comic’

ByStaff Reporter-4 Oct, 2021 @ 21:300


THE author of a new book on Madeleine McCann has hit back at claims by the current prime suspect that it is ‘no better than a comic’.

Olive Press editor Jon Clarke insists German paedophile Christian Brueckner – who is currently serving seven years for the rape of a pensioner – is in ‘no position’ to criticise his book My Search for Madeleine that took 14 months of painstaking research.

It comes after sources close to the rapist, who is being held in German’s high security Oldenburg Prison, told the Sun that he was ‘bragging how the police don’t have a shred of evidence’ over his links to missing Madeleine.

The German, 44, went on to slam Clarke’s book saying it is ‘no better than a comic and that the decision by cops to contribute to it just proves how much they are clutching at straws for new leads’.

The book, out last month, included numerous interviews with former friends and acquaintances of Brueckner’s, as well as crucially, interviews with police and the prosecutor’s office.

Lead prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters revealed in the book that Brueckner, who lived in Praia da Luz where Madeleine was snatched in 2007, was being connected to ‘at least’ five other crimes.

READ ALSO: The first extract from My Search for Madeleine by Jon Clarke
These included the sexual assault of four children in a play park in Portugal in 2017 and a separate assault on a 10-year-old girl close to Praia da Luz just one month before Madeleine vanished.

“I don’t know how Brueckner can call the book a comic,” said Clarke. “It is in no way funny that such a dangerous man would be allowed on the loose for so long around Europe without any proper supervision or monitoring.

“The fact that he was able to drift around the continent despite a long list of horrible convictions, many including children, will be a huge concern to most parents.”

The Olive Press understands his legal team is desperately trying to establish an alibi for Brueckner, whose phone was used outside the Ocean Club hotel, less than two hours before the toddler, aged three, went missing there.


He was living in the area at the time and had rented a house less than a kilometre from the resort for seven years.

Prosecutors for the case in Braunschweig insist they are under no pressure to question or prosecute as he will not be leaving prison for ‘at least’ four or five years.

Wolters told Clarke that there were ‘between 10 and 100’ detectives still working on the case at any one time and that they had received thousands of good tips since the public appeal for information on the case in June 2020.

He believes Brueckner murdered Madeleine and claims his department has evidence to back this up.

The lawyer added that Belgian investigators are also looking into Brueckner in relation to the 1996 killing of 16-year-old Carola Titze in Belgium.


“A Belgian prosecutor had some concrete questions about Carola not long ago,” he said. “They needed some information about Christian B and we gave it to them”.

Brueckner is also a suspect in the rape case of 20-year-old Irish woman Hazel Behan in Praia de Rocha, Portugal, in 2004.

“We only have Christian B as the suspect,” Wolters confirmed.

In the same year, an eight-year-old girl, Joana Cipriano, also vanished close to Praia da Luz, leading to the claim that her mother Leonor had killed her.

The same detectives who investigated the Madeleine case were later found to have beaten the confession out of her.


The conviction was eventually overturned, with numerous independent investigators and detectives believing the two cases are very likely linked.

The detective who led both investigations for the Portuguese PJ force, Goncalo Amaral, was later found guilty of corruption and covering up for his officers and received a suspended sentence.

He was sacked from the Madeleine case for a series of blunders and bizarre claims.

Despite that, he has written his own book on the case, pointing the finger firmly at the McCanns for the death of their child.

My Search for Madeleine author Clarke was the first British national newspaper journalist to arrive on the scene in Portugal on May 4, 2007.

From the facebook group: 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/disgracedjournalistjonclarkeolivepress.debunked/posts/378439333996080/

Jason Mills

Just left this on the same article on the olive press page……

Oh do shut up Jon. You pen a book citing “tireless research” when the fact is, you’ve proven nothing and uncovered absolutely nothing of any evidentiary value to help the case whatsoever. You’ve used Madeleine as nothing but a cash cow.
And now for the past week or so, you’ve done nothing but whinge about people leaving negative reviews on Amazon and had them removed. And now you’re whingeing again because a man who has been investigated for four years or more, and has nothing proven against him, calls your book for exactly what it is.
People like you state for years that the McCanns are innocent until proven guilty. Very correct and right too. But then you plaster the image of a man all over your pathetic book, pretty much having him hung drawn & quartered. Where’s the innocent until proven guilty for him? I hope if he is innocent of any involvement in the McCann case, that he makes you his first call and sues for defamation.
You’re a disgrace."

Silentscope wrote:All Jon has done is cut and paste all previous reports on the Brückner case, and cite them as his own ‘tireless research’.

You don't have a copy of the paperback or kindle version of Jon Clarke's book do you, if you did you would know it's not that straightforward.

For a start, the Alcossebre sighting cannot be accredited to some tabloid newspaper, the sighting was investigated by the PJ at the time, as has been detailed throughout the various Olive Press threads.  Plus, you seem to be obsessing over this one minor issue - a drop in the ocean compared to the book as a whole.  If the witness took photographs of the VW camper as claimed in the PJ files, then I safely conclude those photographs were handed over to the investigative police force.

Jon Clarke is not 007, this is not an American blockbuster.  Clarke is a small time meddling journalist trying to make it big in the world of media.  He is yet another using the name Madeleine McCann to advance his career and swell his bank balance.

Jon Clark claims to have tracked down and interviewed many names said to be connected with the enigmatic Christian Brueckner, whether there be any truth in his claims I wouldn't know - we as an investigative team here on CMOMM, can only weigh-up evidence against apparent fabrication.  That is why we are here, our main purpose, not to idly gossip about heresay.  

All I can say, if Jon Clarke has embellished or created the claims he makes, then he and he alone will responsible for his downfall - his livelihood.

That is the purpose of this thread as reflected in it's title 'Extract from Jon Clarke's book:  My Search for Madeleine'.

If it's bitch and/or spite you're looking for, not something I like to see or encourage but I appreciate others beg to differ, please post your comments here..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t17177-new-blog-jon-clarke-olive-press

Verdi wrote:

So desperate was Amaral to get a win, I now wonder if it was possible that the police even planted Maddie’s DNA in the rental car the family had hired from Europcar a month after she went missing.

I've heard that/seen that written before now.

It will now be my personal mission to locate the previous source - it could lead to an important connection!

Watch this space ....

The mission to find the provenance of planted evidence' has come to a halt, it doesn't appear to go beyond the mother of Kate Mccann, Susan Healy, when interviewed in September 2007, after the forensic evidence hit the headlines and the Gerry and Kate McCann arguido interviews.  I had it mind that Philomena McCann made such references just goes to show, always a good Idea to triple check before posting up information.

I found this particular video..



And this reference sent to me by a jolly decent forum member..

The transcript is not 100% accurate but you can listen by opening the link below..

Madeleine McCann: Kate McCann named as suspect

Madeleine McCann: Kate McCann named as suspect; ENGLAND: Liverpool: INT Susan Healy (Kate McCann's mother) seated next her husband(?) watching television news Susan Healy (Kate McCann's mother) interview SOT - In Portugal apparently it is for protection of individual (referring to naming of Kate McCann as suspect in Madeleine disappearance investigation) / Certain questions can be asked that can't be asked if you are not a suspect / This morning it is different because I have heard that the police are saying they have evidence that Kate was involved / She sounded reasonably calm / Very anxious about her position / She knows perfectly well that if this evidence exists then it is proof there is someone who has had access to their belongings who has planted this evidence / She knows that / You can image how anxious that is making her feel / It is OK if you think you can tell the truth and everything will be all right / But that doesn't appear to be the case here.

https://www.gettyimages.nl/detail/video/kate-mccann-named-as-suspect-england-liverpool-int-susan-nieuwsfootage/670060818

'They won't be refusing to answer any questions'. That went well, didn't it?

See Chapter 45:



NONSENSE ON STILTS
We now come to one of the most astonishing, ludicrous, and seriously libellous claims we have read so far.
Clarke’s claim that Madeleine’s DNA was “PLANTED” in the hire car.
“We will also look at credible claims that Maddie’s DNA might have been planted in a hire car the McCanns
had hired three weeks AFTER she had vanished,…”. p. 17
The fact that he doesn’t return to the issue, neither ‘looks at the … claims’ nor references them points to
this being another malicious invention on his part.
[Dr Amaral and his legal team have been made aware of this gross Libel.]
“So desperate was Amaral to get a win, I now wonder if it was possible that the police even planted
Maddie’s DNA in the rental car the family had hired from Europcar a month after she went missing.” p.83
Just chew that over for a moment.
Clarke is alleging, albeit trying to keep out of serious trouble by using the words “might” and “wonder”, that
DCI Amaral conspired with others to plant evidence in the form of Madeleine’s DNA in the hire car, in order
to obtain a wrongful conviction and false imprisonment of one or both of the parents.
Even the most superficial knowledge of this case will tell you that there was no uncontaminated comparison
DNA of Madeleine found in the apartment, and that GM had to return to Rothley to bring a pillowcase,
which is said to have had sufficient cellular material for her DNA profile to be established.
“It was widely reported that the father returned home to Rothley in mid-May 2007 to obtain a pillowcase
from her bed. For some reason there was no toothbrush, no hairbrush, no clothing nor any other object
exclusive to the child while on holiday from which a profile could be obtained.
It would also seem that there was no toothbrush nor hairbrush available in Rothley, either.” REF 2
This is in fact the trip which coincided with the release of the forged Pool Photo, GM departed 20th May,
returned with Mitchell 22nd May, sister PM also arrived on 22/5, photo was sent to APF on 23/5 and
released into the public domain on 24/5 with the exhortion to ”look at the time”, clearly an instruction to
look at the date.
It was that total absence of any forensic evidence of any kind including Madeleine’s DNA which raised one
of the very many early Red Flags in the investigation, leading to the suggestion that the whole apartment
had been deep-cleaned during the week to remove all traces of blood and bodily fluids and any cellular
material.
There is therefore a vanishingly small amount of Madeleine’s DNA available, and it would be confined to the
items sent for screening.
The suggestion that the PJ, under the command of DCI Amaral would wait un2l the McCanns hired a car 28
days later just before they went to Rome, and then ‘plant’ Madeline’s DNA in it, specifically in the wheel
well in the boot and on the key fob is, with respect, so utterly ludicrous as to render worthless almost
everything else Clarke may have to say about this case.
The dogs did not alert to DNA. Dogs cannot detect DNA. That is an elementary and fundamental lack of
understanding of one of the most important issues in this case.
They alerted to Human cadaverine, a chemical formed by putrefaction with the formula NH2(CH2)5NH2
which does not contain DNA, and to Human blood, which contains very little. [Only white blood cells –
leucocytes – contain DNA. Red corpuscles have no nucleus and therefore no DNA – which is why they are
not called ‘cells’]
The Scenes of Crime officers collect specimens, their colleagues in Forensic Science laboratories search for,
isolate and identify DNA within the nuclei of the leucocytes or within, for example, cells from a hair follicle.
The mouth swab we are familiar with from modern Police dramas collects cells from the mucosa of the
cheek. Cells, each with a nucleus containing DNA.
DNA is not something you can carry round in a convenient spray, or on a swab in a jiffy bag ready to smear
on the vehicle of anyone you want to ‘set up’.
But Clarke is determined that he is right, and pours scorn on any evidence which does not fit his
preconception.
“… and nothing has come close to changing my view. Not even the so-called evidence from sniffer dogs –
who allegedly scented her body and blood in the apartment in two places, particularly behind the sofa, as
well as in the McCanns’ rental car. Some of their explosive findings might well have some critical relevance
today, as we shall see.”
“So-called evidence”, “allegedly scented her body and blood”
It is difficult to know where to begin with sneering nonsense of that sort, or whether even to try.
I will observe that yet again Clarke falls into the very trap the McCanns are determined he should avoid as
he incriminates them even more than do the actual facts.
The dogs alerted to Human Blood and Human Cadaverine. The McCanns specifically deny it was
Madeleine’s, and came up with a list of possibilities of varying absurdity – from a previous tenant’s having
cut himself badly whilst shaving and then wandering round the apartment including behind the sofa all the
time dripping blood onto the floor tiles, to the now legendary and unforgettable Kamikaze mosquitos which
having drunk from a human flew so fast and so erratically they smashed themselves into the wall behind the
sofa leaving drops of blood as they burst on impact. [This is not a phenomenon known to reputable
conventional science]
As Jane Tanner once notoriously said “I am not making this up”.
But Clarke says the dogs allegedly scented HER body and blood. And as a Geography graduate he will
clearly know better than dog handlers, seasoned detectives, Scenes of Crime operatives and forensic
scientists.

Jon Clarke's still crying  

https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2021/10/08/trolled-over-evil-social-media-campaign-to-destroy-new-maddie-book-comes-unstuck/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=olive%20press&fbclid=IwAR3zrzt0THoRx5PWRLxV3e9y_CKn0faJnStHFqq_s5HWFa9bFh-mEjeKvvU#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

PeterMac wrote:See Chapter 45:



NONSENSE ON STILTS
We now come to one of the most astonishing, ludicrous, and seriously libellous claims we have read so far.
Clarke’s claim that Madeleine’s DNA was “PLANTED” in the hire car.
“We will also look at credible claims that Maddie’s DNA might have been planted in a hire car the McCanns
had hired three weeks AFTER she had vanished,…”. p. 17
The fact that he doesn’t return to the issue, neither ‘looks at the … claims’ nor references them points to
this being another malicious invention on his part.
[Dr Amaral and his legal team have been made aware of this gross Libel.]
“So desperate was Amaral to get a win, I now wonder if it was possible that the police even planted
Maddie’s DNA in the rental car the family had hired from Europcar a month after she went missing.” p.83
Just chew that over for a moment.
Clarke is alleging, albeit trying to keep out of serious trouble by using the words “might” and “wonder”, that
DCI Amaral conspired with others to plant evidence in the form of Madeleine’s DNA in the hire car, in order
to obtain a wrongful conviction and false imprisonment of one or both of the parents.
Even the most superficial knowledge of this case will tell you that there was no uncontaminated comparison
DNA of Madeleine found in the apartment, and that GM had to return to Rothley to bring a pillowcase,
which is said to have had sufficient cellular material for her DNA profile to be established.
“It was widely reported that the father returned home to Rothley in mid-May 2007 to obtain a pillowcase
from her bed. For some reason there was no toothbrush, no hairbrush, no clothing nor any other object
exclusive to the child while on holiday from which a profile could be obtained.
It would also seem that there was no toothbrush nor hairbrush available in Rothley, either.” REF 2
This is in fact the trip which coincided with the release of the forged Pool Photo, GM departed 20th May,
returned with Mitchell 22nd May, sister PM also arrived on 22/5, photo was sent to APF on 23/5 and
released into the public domain on 24/5 with the exhortion to ”look at the time”, clearly an instruction to
look at the date.
It was that total absence of any forensic evidence of any kind including Madeleine’s DNA which raised one
of the very many early Red Flags in the investigation, leading to the suggestion that the whole apartment
had been deep-cleaned during the week to remove all traces of blood and bodily fluids and any cellular
material.
There is therefore a vanishingly small amount of Madeleine’s DNA available, and it would be confined to the
items sent for screening.
The suggestion that the PJ, under the command of DCI Amaral would wait un2l the McCanns hired a car 28
days later just before they went to Rome, and then ‘plant’ Madeline’s DNA in it, specifically in the wheel
well in the boot and on the key fob is, with respect, so utterly ludicrous as to render worthless almost
everything else Clarke may have to say about this case.
The dogs did not alert to DNA. Dogs cannot detect DNA. That is an elementary and fundamental lack of
understanding of one of the most important issues in this case.
They alerted to Human cadaverine, a chemical formed by putrefaction with the formula NH2(CH2)5NH2
which does not contain DNA, and to Human blood, which contains very little. [Only white blood cells –
leucocytes – contain DNA. Red corpuscles have no nucleus and therefore no DNA – which is why they are
not called ‘cells’]
The Scenes of Crime officers collect specimens, their colleagues in Forensic Science laboratories search for,
isolate and identify DNA within the nuclei of the leucocytes or within, for example, cells from a hair follicle.
The mouth swab we are familiar with from modern Police dramas collects cells from the mucosa of the
cheek. Cells, each with a nucleus containing DNA.
DNA is not something you can carry round in a convenient spray, or on a swab in a jiffy bag ready to smear
on the vehicle of anyone you want to ‘set up’.
But Clarke is determined that he is right, and pours scorn on any evidence which does not fit his
preconception.
“… and nothing has come close to changing my view. Not even the so-called evidence from sniffer dogs –
who allegedly scented her body and blood in the apartment in two places, particularly behind the sofa, as
well as in the McCanns’ rental car. Some of their explosive findings might well have some critical relevance
today, as we shall see.”
“So-called evidence”, “allegedly scented her body and blood”
It is difficult to know where to begin with sneering nonsense of that sort, or whether even to try.
I will observe that yet again Clarke falls into the very trap the McCanns are determined he should avoid as
he incriminates them even more than do the actual facts.
The dogs alerted to Human Blood and Human Cadaverine. The McCanns specifically deny it was
Madeleine’s, and came up with a list of possibilities of varying absurdity – from a previous tenant’s having
cut himself badly whilst shaving and then wandering round the apartment including behind the sofa all the
time dripping blood onto the floor tiles, to the now legendary and unforgettable Kamikaze mosquitos which
having drunk from a human flew so fast and so erratically they smashed themselves into the wall behind the
sofa leaving drops of blood as they burst on impact. [This is not a phenomenon known to reputable
conventional science]
As Jane Tanner once notoriously said “I am not making this up”.
But Clarke says the dogs allegedly scented HER body and blood. And as a Geography graduate he will
clearly know better than dog handlers, seasoned detectives, Scenes of Crime operatives and forensic
scientists.

Unbelievable and totally ridiculous! Now I understand why Gonçalo made a specific comment on the CMTV interview concerning this idiotic sycophant. Well done Peter for warning Gonçalo Amaral. Perhaps this page extract should be sent to the Judiciary Police and Portuguese Public Ministry, because this is absolutely libellous, easily disproven by logic as well as by the PJ investigation paperwork.

DCI Amaral "frankly couldn't give a damn," about Clarke, or any of the other McCann sycophants and apologists.
Any more than I did when prisoners' solicitors or Barristers attempted to brow-beat me, either before court, or in court.

They get PAID to do it. 
As do the McCann's spokes-people and all their shills..

That is the most unspontaneous, staged book signing ever. Perhaps his payment was the free book?