Olive Press: The Man the Money the Mischief

A day in the life..



My search for Mmmmm..



It's only a matter of time..





Complete with open shutters and windows, strong gusts of wind, unusual air currents and dastardly acts of superhuman daring.

[Contains scenes some might find offensive, viewer discretion is advised]

Up, up, and away!!

Love it ^^^

Donal McIntyre Podcast starring Jon Clarke out soon.

A new 8-part series, which details author and journalist, Jon Clarke's quest to uncover the truth of the Madeleine McCann disappearance and his hunt for the suspect at the centre of this tragic story. Donal takes us through Jon's involvement in the case from the very first day, and the various suspects, accomplices and corrupt detectives who have punctuated a flawed investigation from the very beginning.

With unrivalled access to those closest to the chief suspect, Jon Clarke reveals shocking new revelations that delve into the world and mindset of Christian Brueckner, and news of fresh leads that suggest justice and a conclusion of this most horrific of crimes may finally be in sight .


https://player.fm/series/murdered-missing-unsolved/madeleine-mccann-the-chief-suspect-all-episodes-22nd-april

'Donal takes us through Jon's involvement in the case from the very first day...'

Not yet another version of 'the truth' to come surely?

I think we are up to ten, but I am beginning to lose track
Need to start another card index, or borrow a HOLMES II computer system 
and ANACAPA to make sense of it.

I shall look forward to this one.If only to see which of these arrival times it repeats, 
"early hours of the morning";  "1:30am";  9am; 9;30am' "between 9;45 and 10;15am";
 11:45am; noon:  "later that day"; before the press conference that evening"
[Refs available for all the above.]
I have almost given up on the details of the meeting.
In 5A. NOT in 5A.  In 5H.   As they left.  at the press conference . . . .  (fill in as appropriate.)

and which version of what they said might also be instructive, since some are linked to the alleged time and place.
Or perhaps we'll get another Revelation, as we did with the SAT1 film, which we are still trying to put into context.

As an aside, Martin Brunt who was there for ten days ADMITS he never managed to speak to them AT ALL.
The top man in the top Murdoch agency could not get near them.

I saw this claptrap on a pro-McCann forum on Friday.  Surprise surprise it's found it's way over here.

A pro-McCann forum that appears more concerned about what's said on CMOMM than the loss of a little child .... Madeleine McCann.

UPDATE"
CLARKE has Finally taken down the advert for the luxury Apartment in Puerto Banus which was on his faceBook page
https://www.facebook.com/jon.clarke.3745
to recap, it was for a two week rental, extendable to three in August last Year, and the advert was posted around May last year.

This is the one with all his wife's contact details, phone number, and Familial diminutive name.
Sufficient details for anyone interested to google to establish if it was genuine – since he did not mention his own involvement – which would then have taken people immediately to the properties they own and rent, including all the personal details, home address, emails and everything else you need to make contact to actually BOOK the place.
But when we pointed this out months ago during his latest attack on us, he complained bitterly, threatened legal action [ I'm not making this up  JT]  but left it in place until sometime within the last three days.

The FB page still shows the article from ABC which states, in quotes, that he arrived in PdL in the "early hours of the morning', which Madueño – the journalist in question – expanded in the original to "1;30am".   again as a quote from Clarke.
Are we therefore to assume that that since he has been questioned on it, but has left it in place, available to be read by the entire world, that it is the "most correct" of all the times of arrival ?

Or not.

Ooops, times is 'ard..

SUBSCRIBE TO THE OLIVE PRESS
TRIAL OFFER: Pay just €1 to try us out for one month

Enjoy one month of unlimited digital access on this special offer for new subscribers to the Olive Press.

Don't miss out... Sign up now

I was one of the first reporters on the scene after Madeleine McCann’s disappearance. This is what I remember

I am certain that Christian Brueckner will finally be charged with the murder of Madeleine McCann



It’s been 15 years and five days since I rolled into the sleepy seaside resort of Praia da Luz as a journalist covering the Iberian Peninsula, expecting a three-year-old toddler to have turned up either dead in a pool or alive by a miracle.

I was on the scene only 12 hours after Madeleine McCann went missing and I am as certain today as I was then that she was abducted by a predatory paedophile.

What was remarkable back then, during those early hours, was just how lackadaisical the police effort was to find her. When I arrived, a couple of local cops milled around, while a few expats scratched their heads. Robert Murat, the first arguido (formal suspect), gushed to me about everything he knew about the case.

So unsecured was the crime scene I could literally walk up some steps under a flimsy piece of police tape and right into the apartment. I would have been nearly the 30th person to have left my DNA imprint in the holiday rental in just a few hours. Thankfully, I had the good sense not to try.

It has to be a case of third time lucky for the Portuguese police in the labyrinthine Madeleine McCann case. After a botched investigation that has almost become a global watchword for poor policing, the Portuguese Polícia Judiciária (PJ) finally have a firm suspect: German sex offender Christian Brueckner, 45.

It comes after first pointing the finger at Murat (an unusual chap, who has never explained three late-night phone calls on the night Maddie went missing) and, of course, the parents, who were quickly cleared of any involvement in her abduction.

Extraordinarily, Brueckner was not on a suspect’s list of over 600 known offenders who lived in the area when the British police launched Operation Grange in 2011. This, despite the 17-times convicted paedophile living around the resort of Praia da Luz for over a decade from the mid-90s to 2007 and being well known in the area for wife-beating and burglary. Not to mention two previous convictions for child abuse in Germany.

When officers from the PJ were instructed by the Faro prosecutors office, the DIAP, to formally grill Brueckner in prison they jumped at the opportunity to make him an official suspect.

Two officers were joined by three detectives from Germany’s BKA headquarters in Wiesbaden to put 20 questions to him, hijacking him by surprise as he walked back from lunch alone at Oldenburg prison – dubbed “Germany’s Alcatraz” – where he is in solitary confinement.

While his lawyer was advised of the visit, he insisted he didn’t have time to attend and it “wouldn’t make any difference anyway”. He had already primed his client to give a curt “no comment” to every question.

So what’s the next step? First of all, it is very unlikely that Brueckner will be extradited to Portugal to stand trial. My German judiciary sources insist there is “no way” he will leave Germany full stop. Ever.

In fact, he is unlikely to ever see the outside of a prison again and his descent into hell will begin this month when he is charged with three other sex crimes, with at least two more, aside from Maddie, following this summer.

Regarding the May 2007 abduction of Maddie, chief prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters, who I have spoken to on various occasions at his Braunschweig HQ, is in no rush. And nor does this dedicated and thorough lawyer need to be: his colleagues at the BKA have had Brueckner on their radar since 2013 when he was first questioned about the case.

That time, they completely messed things up by firstly telling him it was about Maddie, and even more remarkably, giving him three days to prepare his answers, not to mention hide any potential incriminating evidence.

The summons came after Germany’s biggest-ever Crimestoppers appeal led to at least two callers putting his name forward.

At the time he was a drug dealer linked to a number of appalling crimes around the Braunschweig area, where he rented a bar and kiosk. They included hospitalising a young girlfriend in the street to sexually abusing the five-year-old daughter of another lover.

He would also frequently vanish for weeks on end, mostly heading south to Portugal and southern Spain, where I tracked his whereabouts to various places during the course of researching a book on the case.

And wherever Brueckner went German police knew that crimes would be committed and they were certainly fully aware of how dangerous he was. They went to extraordinary lengths to extradite him back after he absconded from a two-year prison sentence in 1995.

Having seen letters he wrote to my colleague Jutta in Germany, with whom I am now working on a TV investigation, there can be no doubt about his alarming history and the evidence against him in the three cases he will be charged with this month.

In one missive, he revealed how his bad teeth and wonky jaw will help to convict him over the molesting of a 10-year-old girl on a beach near Praia da Luz, just one month before Maddie was snatched. Having located the original crime report filed by the poor girl’s family, who had a perfect view of a naked German with “rabbit teeth”, who ran away towards a beach car park where Brueckner frequently stayed, it looks cut and dried.

Wolters himself told me that the new charges – including the exposure to four children in 2017 and the rape of Hazel Behan, 20, in 2004 – are rather more straightforward than the Maddie case.

And once he has been convicted in the latter – in which he sadistically raped the Irish girl over hours, all filmed on his camcorder – it is likely he will then be put onto a special regime which will prevent him from ever leaving prison.

As for the Maddie case, Wolters began compiling it in 2018, two years after detectives started to probe it again, and two years before the public appeal in June 2020.

They now have lots of strong circumstantial evidence – plus, I am told, two recently received proofs – that make Wolters continually insist he is “100 per cent certain” Brueckner is the killer.

Some so-called “traces”, found in one of his vehicles driven at the time, may or may not be a red herring. That came from my colleague, journalist Sandra Felguiras, in Portugal, and she, like me, has been on this case from the beginning and has some impeccable sources.

But I don’t doubt there is some extremely damning material, among up to 20,000 photos, videos and other files, that police located in a Lidl bag, buried under the dead body of Brueckner’s dog at a box factory in former East Germany.

As for a much-discussed alibi in the Maddie case, well, he has not yet given any explanation to the police so far. Yes, his lawyer has spoken on a TV documentary for Channel 5 featuring ex-policeman turned journalist Mark Williams Thomas but there actually is no alibi for 3 May 2007, the night Maddie went missing. And German police have double-checked that. I worked on the show, but my beliefs do not coincide with Williams Thomas’ narrative, that Brueckner is innocent.

It happened before in the infamous Oscar Pistorius case, where this TV detective got it wrong by insisting the South African murderer was innocent. I am certain it will happen again and over the next year or two Christian Brueckner will finally be charged with the murder of Madeleine McCann.

Jon Clarke is an author and journalist. His book ‘MUST LEAVE: My Search for Madeleine’ is available on Amazon.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/i-was-one-of-the-first-reporters-on-the-scene-after-madeleine-mccanns-disappearance-this-is-what-i-remember-1619856

Clarke is becoming deranged.

Last week he went into the apartment. Now he says he didn't but he could have done.
Which in turn means he did NOT speak to the McCanns in the apartment, which has been in at least of his three versions of events

"When I arrived, a couple of local cops milled around, while a few expats scratched their heads. Robert Murat, the first arguido (formal suspect), gushed to me about everything he knew about the case.

A few may have milled around.  The rest, the dog handlers, the sergeants and inspectors with whom Clarke is filmed shaking hands were ensuring that people like him and the rest of the journalists did not get close enough to foul up the scene.
 
So unsecured was the crime scene I could literally walk up some steps under a flimsy piece of police tape and right into the apartment. I would have been nearly the 30th person to have left my DNA imprint in the holiday rental in just a few hours. Thankfully, I had the good sense not to try.

Better English would suggest "I could HAVE walked . . . but I didn't".
"I could walk" implies in standard english grammatical usage that he DID. Which we have known for a long time he didn't

It has to be a case of third time lucky for the Portuguese police in the labyrinthine Madeleine McCann case. After a botched investigation that has almost become a global watchword for poor policing, the Portuguese Polícia Judiciária (PJ) finally have a firm suspect: German sex offender Christian Brueckner, 45.

No they don't. The Germans have him. The PJ eliminated him a very long time ago. He has been declared :arguido; as a procedural ploy.

It comes after first pointing the finger at Murat (an unusual chap, who has never explained three late-night phone calls on the night Maddie went missing) and, of course, the parents, who were quickly cleared of any involvement in her abduction.

They didn't point the finger at MURAT. YOU DID.  And with Lori Campbell you then libelled him and set him up and no doubt were paid a small fortune for doing so.   He received £600,000 in damages.   How much did you get paid?

The parents were NOT quickly cleared of any involvement.
They were 'arguido; for 10 MONTHS, Sept 2007 to July 2008, and the status was only suspended when the case was formally shelved. The Supreme court of Portugal made it clear in an unprecedented statement that they had NOT been cleared.

JON LUCIAN STEWART CLARKE – Owner and editor of the Olive Press KNOWS ALL THIS,
And yet still feels constrained to say something totally different.

i will leave the 12 hours after to peter mac. 

but looking at the link, because of my lousy handiwork it would not work properly  any longer of course.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/i-was-one-of-the-first-reporters-on-the-scene-after-madeleine-mccanns-disappearance-this-is-what-i-remember-1619856

do we have to understand, dear jon c. former a kind of star reporter and first stand-in for the real deal of the murdoch imperium in tabloid productions, like go there, we send the real ones out by plane later, had a new hobby, like sending letters to other news serving website, to view his opinion, at least one he has for this part of his serialization? 

sending letters to the editor is risky business, see how easy it is to tell about your very own crimes, like gathering illegal access to a crime scene, aha, o o o , well the statute of limitations for just that would have been reached long time ago. 

but it is always nice when you still got an confession out.

maybe the next book of his hands could be how to travel once to portugal, and arrive at thirteen different times. 

and are you sure jon? i mean about that leaving no dna, there are still samples that could not even been traces on mt-dna from all the hairs found in 5a, and you think you did not leave your dna, but what with fingerprints, because there have been two unnamed fingerprints in the pj files. are you sure they are not yours.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm#oa1v2p284

maybe something you recognize as yours in 5a? you know what the germans can do with a partial print.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm

and almost 30 witnesses, and that number has already grown from earlier opinions of jon c., and as always he is still counting, but after a good night of sleep he writes for now 30 in stead of 26. 
did they see the deep trench also? you know the one next to 5a. 

i would advice dear jon c. to send letters to all papers, you know, if you do rehearse enough in the end you can keep it to just one single story. you are almost there, but it still needs some work. 

the last storyteller did not end very well. 

tips for the rest of the stars of reporting;

did reporter disturb the crime scene of madeleine mccann's ........?
free choice like; villa, holiday villa, flat, apartment, house, or just trench.

can dna find incriminates writer of madeleine book.

can partial fingerprint leads pj to new suspect in the madeleine mccann case.

special one for the sun; 'it was one of our own!'

'new suspect could not hold story straight, even once!'

it would not be nice to write all them ourselves, just for free, we still have empathy at times. never been a good reason to print the truth, check what you did get printed, there is always tomorrow, to make another version, from whose version of the truth we like most. 

so jon c. how can you know you did not leave that trace of your visit to/in/almost/could have been in 5a and the trench, if that is not tried and tested? or as hansel said to his gretl , we still have some breadcrumbs left. we will get there!

o'dear, forgotten one for the times, they are more difficult they are very serious, at most times, but not always; 

british expat tabloid reporter spoils crime scene. real criminals escape.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE>>>
of Facebook's only displaying the last comment.
I wonder if she has realised.

you know, she will maybe get that one now. our dear member pam, is a bit to shy to dare posting her very own crab overhere, but dear pammy is reading with us every day and hour.  

hello, pammy!

i know you are not under the obligation to answer, but dear you often made my day. actually you are the only good reason to look at least weekly at twitter. and do a little walk in the facebook parcs. 
do not loose your marvels granny, we love them!

pammy is the kind of people that gives me the strange urge, to get a songtext and play  a bit around between my ears. usually that is very good thing, because my voice is not the kind you do actually want in your ears, not even your own ones.

but it has still some imperfections. the first connection resulted in pammy at sky with diamonds, but that in her ear did not give the best feel, actually maybe when you tell a bit more, just choose a type of social media, we will find it, about those crystals of you, i still can do with just a bit more to inspire me. it would be of help if your stones also work if you just have them in your hair, that would make it so much easier.

i can get it a lot better of course, it still needs some work.

pammy at sky,
with diamonds in her hair, 
telling brunty , no despair, 
madeleine has met her prince,
so no, no murderer or death to her,
she will be there.

but nahh i thought, that could be better, as pammy is always such an inspiration to all of us, her loving trolls, i wouldjust give her very own song. 

so pammy this one is fully dedicated to you;


I have a madeleine in Morocco,
And she's coming. Hip-hip!
I have a madeleine in Morocco,
and she's coming, hi!
I have a madeleine in Morocco,
A madeleine in Morocco,
I've got a madeleine in Morocco, and she's coming.


Singing a ja, jippie jippie jee!
Singing a ja, jippie jippie jee!
Singing a ja jippie, a ja jippie
A ja jippie jippie jee!



And she rides with her two princes

When she comes, bump the bump, hi!

And she's riding with two princes

If she comes, bump the bump, hi hi!

And she rides with two princes,

She rides with two princes

She rides  with two princes when she comes!



Singing a ja, jippie jippie jee!
Singing a ja, jippie jippie jee!
Singing a ja jippie, a ja jippie
A ja jippie jippie jee!



And we'll roast a pig on a spit, brunty, brunty

And we'll roast a pig on a spit, brunty brunty

And we'll roast a pig,

we'll roast a pig,

we'll roast a pig,

on a spit, brunty, brunty



Singing a ja, jippie jippie jee!
Singing a ja, jippie jippie jee!
Singing a ja jippie, a ja jippie
A ja jippie jippie jee!



And then she goes home again on the express train, tuut, tuut

And then she goes home again on the express train, tuut, tuut

And then she goes on the fast train

And then she goes with the fast train

And then she goes with the fast train

Home again, tuut, tuut



[i]Singing a ja, jippie jippie jee!
Singing a ja, jippie jippie jee!
Singing a ja jippie, a ja jippie
A ja jippie jippie jee!


it is to be done with this music, and you do not know how lucky you are, i found one, without the dutch original tekst.


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



it is seen as an ideal song for long distances and long hours of nothing, ideal of course, now we have to wait til something real is happening.


to pleasure pammy, i got the songtext from the page of the alchemist society, but i had to get some of it, from the scouts also, thanks to deeple for their excellent translations, as always. but that messed up my script a bit. 


and yes verdi, i do know it is a bit of topic, but there is a connection, pammy is also a fervent follower, a loving fan and excusor for jon. c. but you know it is so hard to keep your spirits up, i do think we needed just a song, just one. i promise i would not do it again. we all love pammy, she is just a integral part of our troll community, long time member she even is. so hard working with our cause. cb as a topic is already a farce since it started, and pammy deserves that song of course, so nice to have such a member. 
[/i]

onehand wrote:and yes verdi, i do know it is a bit of topic, but there is a connection, pammy is also a fervent follower, a loving fan and excusor for jon. c. but you know it is so hard to keep your spirits up, i do think we needed just a song, just one. i promise i would not do it again. we all love pammy, she is just a integral part of our troll community, long time member she even is. so hard working with our cause. cb as a topic is already a farce since it started, and pammy deserves that song of course, so nice to have such a member.
[/i]

Yes, a very big bit off topic!

If a McCann supporter, or anyone else, registers with CMOMM they are welcome to fight their own corner hereon and expect challenge if commentary warrants - that way we have a fair exchange without bitterness.

People in the past and present have joined with the sole purpose of disrupting the forum, they are very soon weeded out and disposed of accordingly.  So far that approach has worked favourably.  

Of course there are spooks among us, nothing much can be done about that but providing they stay quiet and just watch, it's not seen as a problem.  They have no power on the forum.  Over on twitter/facebook they can do as they please - and do, their perverted course has no place on CMOMM.

CMOMM has been named 'the cesspit' by pro-McCann devotees, please let's not give them fodder to justify.

 

Now please ....  

onehand wrote:but looking at the link, because of my lousy handiwork it would not work properly  any longer of course.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/i-was-one-of-the-first-reporters-on-the-scene-after-madeleine-mccanns-disappearance-this-is-what-i-remember-1619856

Not sure what you're getting at here but if for some reason you can't access the original article, I posted it up-page..

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t17161p50-olive-press-the-man-the-money-the-mischief#453019

i know, i saw the link, with opinion in it and highlighted it, your link was very okay. 

but it is very usual that papers, online also have a part to dedicate to opinions, they themselves do not want to address as the view of owners, editors and other people who work for that publisher. 

so it is not a piece under redaction of this publisher, but just a letter to the publisher from jon c. 

well we all know where jon c. got that inspiration. 

it is often not a compliment if your stance did not make it outside the box of opinion. 


well and about dear pammy, as she has chosen not to address anything overhere, but loves it to post pieces from this forum onto het favorit channel twitter, and most fora have somewhere in the guidelines, and yes, i never took the time to read them, it is just a guess, you can not be non-polite or negative against another member, i just used all positives i could swallow. 

but still isn't it a shame, so many members who are reading with us, on a daily base, that be to shy and flabbergasted to post themselves. 

but again i promise i would not do it again, our wise forummanager. but i am not a bit sorry. so i spare you the posting of my choice for jon c. that would work marvelous on paradise by the dashbord lights and i'm a believer(of the mccanns) for mwt.

Clarke's ramblings after last nights documentary

on Clarke
4 mins  ·
Just a few comments on the MWT doc from last night :
Keep up the trolling.
It is obvious that MWT knows relatively little in this case and I don't think his approach helped. People didn't want to talk to him. Jon managed to get some interesting information out of Cheyenne, all MWT got was a knife thrown at him and chased off with a shovel. Jon knows far more about this case than Mark and I have a feeling he will look back on his doc with regret some day. It really was hyped up and didn't deliver what he advertised in the build up. Little explanation of any of his reasoning or evidence he collected.
I'm sure MWT said that CB isn't fully committing to the alibi either. It sounded more like CB was saying "I think" I was with the woman on the 3rd but isn't sure. Which, if is the case, MWT has been deliberately mis-selling the alibi to the public all these months. He even said on 'This Morning' that CB claims he was with this woman but that the alibi wasn’t sure. But by the sounds of the letter, not even CB is being committal about the statement either. MWT has taken this tentative info and ran with it as a definitive alibi to promote the doc when it is no such thing.
Well. I think it's safe to say the MWT was perhaps a little overhyped.
What a nonsensical pile of deduction that was on the part of MWT. "CB said he was somewhere else", MWT says he can't disprove it because his alibi remembers naff all except she was in Portugal in May 2007 but sure, that'll do. Solid. Besides, CB was so open and honest with MWT by admitting he was dealing drugs on Barranco beach around May 2007, and MWT found a picture of his van there, so CB must be telling the truth about this detail and everything else. Yep. It's so obvious when you don't think about it.
Hey Mark, do you want to buy a bridge mate? I'll do you a great deal.
Us here at Websleuths pointed out that a photo of CB's van was parked at Barranco Beach way back in 2020.
MWT has really mis-sold the evidence he claimed to have for this doc IMO. The 'alibi' is no such thing for starters. Not only does the 'fling' not confirm CB's whereabouts for the 3rd, CB says in the letter to MWT he isn't totally sure that's where he was that night either.
I was disappointed with the evidence MWT put forward about the phones as well. He stated the phone could have been within 35km of the PdL mast (or something like that) but didn't give any explanation for how he came to that conclusion. The assertion seems completely at odds with what was stated in the Jutta Rabe doc where they went through it in detail and identified the phone had to have been within a 5 minute radius of the center mast.
As for the other phone owners he apparently identified, again the evidence was completely lacking. The 683 number which he identified as belonging to someone who had searched for disturbing (*advertiser censored*: lets say explicit adult material) appeared to be someone who had the number recently. There was no evidence offered that this person had the phone in 2007 though. And the 680 number that MWT said belonged to a friend of CB's wasn't really explained properly either. From what I gathered, someone had told him a man living near Foral used the number up to 5 months before the disappearance (which I guess coincides with the end of CB's incarceration time, so could it be this person was looking after CB's phone while he was inside?). MWT doesn't really confirm this evidence though, he speaks to the man's wife who doesn't recognise the number and then MWT deduces this man must have had 2 phones. Doesn't seem to occur to him that CB and this man were friends and there could be other explanations for them both having access to this phone.
All in all, the doc was very disappointing and I don't know whether there was stuff they had to cut (for whatever reasons) but the evidence MWT offered up was very speculative and paper thin. That said, the doc did bring up one or two other interesting details and was quite revealing in terms of key people who were notably absent from MWT's discussion points. It's worth a watch anyway just to see Cheyenne greeting MWT at his house! Yikes.
Mr Wolters, who is heading the case in Germany, said: “Because Mr Williams-Thomas doesn’t know the files we are not surprised by his opinion. It’s a fact that the suspect has no alibi.
“We found nobody who gives Christian B an alibi. And the suspect doesn’t claim an alibi.”
Madeleine McCann case prosecutor claims murder suspect Christian B has no alibi
It was mostly stuff we already knew about. The main take away from it was that the veracity of the "new evidence" MWT promoted the doc against was grossly overexaggerated. He doesn't establish any corroboration of CB's supposed alibi, certainly not for the days around the disappearance. In fact, MWT negated to mention in any of his promotions that CB isn't actually sure himself if he was with this woman on the 3rd. So it seems this is just an "it's possible" type of alibi that FF and CB are touting.
MWT basically makes a speculative assumption that because CB told the truth about some things, maybe he is telling the truth about everything else. That's about the up and down of it, no real "facts" established by MWT.
There were a couple of new things brought up, nothing major but for those following the case it is still probably worth a watch. MWT having a knife lobbed at him and then chased off with a shovel was probably the biggest surprise of the doc though.
Seems like all out war now. MWT has made a grave mistake backing CB here IMO. He is rattled and acting unprofessional now amidst the criticsim.
One could safely say, "What alibi?"
MWT did not set the heather alight with his documentary.  In fact I think he systematically destroyed any credibility he might have enjoyed as he worked tortuously through the ninety minutes of it.
You are a member of a coterie which has spent fifteen years "questioning" the McCanns and the absolute lack of any evidence at all for justifying that has never seemed to bother you.
It rather says it all that your "questioning" is reserved for the spokesman for the forces of law and order investigating crimes against children and nary a "question" enters your mind concerning a proven predatory sex beast and a proven paedophile.
Says it all really.
Wonder why this girl had a pepper spray which she tried to board a plane with in her possession?
Interestingly MWT seems to think that Scotland Yard had a road block in place where they were taking photographs of the occupants of cars passing through.
It seems to me that Brueckner endeavoured to set up an alibi for a planned abduction by telling this girlfriend that he was somewhere else on the 3rd of May.  She initially appears to have believed him. And then balked at telling downright lies.
Not that any of this even remotely matters.  Brueckner's Alibi is dodgy.  A half decent Barrister will nail that.
Mark Williams Thomas has blown it again.


Plus comments: https://www.facebook.com/groups/disgracedjournalistjonclarkeolivepress.debunked/posts/520663823106963/

That really is a ramble. From the time stamp posted late at night.

But he misses the main point.
For there to be an Alibi there needs to be an allegation that something happened at a particular time.
And it does not become legally important until that allegation is made, in the form of an opening statement in formal interview, or on a charge sheet.
"That you did, on Thursday 3rd May 2007, at Praia da Luz, in the County of Portimão, Algarve, between the hours of 9:25pm and 9;35pm unlawfully take and carry away Madeleine Beth McCann, from APARTMENT 5A, Ocean club in the said town, without the consent of her parents..."
The defence can then deny the date, the time, the place, the person, or even claim the parents gave consent.

The suggestion that there was an Abduction between 2125 and 2135 on 3/5/7 is pure 'belief', backed by no evidence at all.
Only the two principal suspects have ever claimed it, and even they are unable to point to any evidence. What bits they did point to – shutters, window, curtains, entry by front door, Tannerman, high shelf . . . – have all been shown to be not as they initially stated.

 JC and MWT jointly however follow what seems to have become an article of faith. And refuse to consider any other possibility.
 Quite why we do not know.

what would happen if the so ever polite germans would ask laughing jon for his alibi for some days in may 2007. 

that would become a bit of a charade, so he would be the last one to make a joke about the alibi of others. 

it is only the mccanns and friends, that could tell their movements by the minute, and they had no watches and phones with them that night the alarm was set off, there must even be a video that stated that. i always wondered about that riddle, how bad their memory was, like not knowing which door you used, seeing a shelf that never have been there. are able to tell when a picture was taken and that the time was out. but at dinnertime they could remember it on the minute. 

so when a person that has nothing to do in the case, after 15 years can tell what he was doing about in that week, and the other party does not say that cannot have happened, but cannot be absolutely sure about timings and the days, that is still seen as a quite good memory. 

while the person who makes all in a joke, can still not remember what he did, around what time and if he actually did something criminal, or not, like trampling on a possible crime scene. and tells about every week a new concoction of his version of his truth. 

well i do live in a country, where even a minister-president can get a way with just; i do not have any active memory about that. against that threshold cb got a fair bit of a story out as an alibi. and is what the other party could say to confirm that, after 15 years.  that is quite a good memory! 

and in the end it is not a prosecution officer that does have to believe it, it will be a job to convincing a judge in court. and people like a jon c. have just been nice dogsbodies to picture the picture of guilty, i know in his country of origine, there are juries, so the man has very little experiences in talking dirty about people under investigation that are already are named as suspects. 

the prosecution is never the one that have to believe a suspect, it is all about the chance the judge will believe and accept it. that is what they will decide on. because of how sta braunschweig decided to portret themselves in this case, they got so much egg on their faces, they can not leave it out of the court. you mixed up some pictures jon.

PeterMac wrote:That really is a ramble. From the time stamp posted late at night.

But he misses the main point.
For there to be an Alibi there needs to be an allegation that something happened at a particular time.
And it does not become legally important until that allegation is made, in the form of an opening statement in formal interview, or on a charge sheet.
"That you did, on Thursday 3rd May 2007, at Praia da Luz, in the County of Portimão, Algarve, between the hours of 9:25pm and 9;35pm unlawfully take and carry away Madeleine Beth McCann, from APARTMENT 5A, Ocean club in the said town, without the consent of her parents..."
The defence can then deny the date, the time, the place, the person, or even claim the parents gave consent.

The suggestion that there was an Abduction between 2125 and 2135 on 3/5/7 is pure 'belief', backed by no evidence at all.
Only the two principal suspects have ever claimed it, and even they are unable to point to any evidence. What bits they did point to – shutters, window, curtains, entry by front door, Tannerman, high shelf . . . – have all been shown to be not as they initially stated.

 JC and MWT jointly however follow what seems to have become an article of faith. And refuse to consider any other possibility.
 Quite why we do not know.

It reminds me of the Murat case. Take the blame for a while to take the heat of the McCanns, then enter Smith to exonerate him by claiming that the man he saw was definitely not Murat. That was followed up with a large payout.

Is CB a willing patsy? Did MWT appear in the nick of time, just as the 15 year period was coming to a close, to exonerate CB?

CB is allegedly writing a book now. But why was he isolated? Why was he never questioned before? Why speak and give an alibi now? In how many cases has he been the suspect, only to later be exonerated? Nothing about the CB case makes any sense, unless he is in it.

@sharonl

CB was isolated at his own request, after he was exposed Publicly by the British press. He wrote a Letter of Complaint to the Ministry of Justice in September 2021 in which he reported insults, abuse and death threats from fellow inmates.

Apparently if a Questioning of a Suspect is to take place, the Defendants Lawyer is Automatically granted ‘Akteneinsicht’ permission to read the Prosecution file. Clarke believes CB has already been granted Access to the Joana E file, which led him to believe that his appearance had been altered to better fit the description of the Witness.

If this is to be a ‘Trial by Media’ then Attack may be his best Defense.

I doubt that he is a ‘willing Patsy’.

They have just saved their ‘best Suspect’ until last.

All media and press speculation.

As the Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann has been since the night of 3rd/4th May 2007.

The case is simple.

Prolonged to assure the prime suspects exoneration from prosecution and persecution, the prime suspects being Gerald and Kate McCann.

That is where the story begins and ends .... Gerald and Kate McCann.

Anything else is but window dressing designed to mislead - and it works every time

To this day infiltraitors are planted to perpetuate the deception - it works every time. Ain't that right?

So here we are fifteen years down the line ....

Having just seen Kate McCann's reference to Sunday Mirror journalist and the fingering of Robert Murat in her autobiographical novel 'madeleine', which incidentally led to his being designated arguido so early in the investigation, it prompted me to poke about JC's booky wooky to see what he had to say about it ..



Interesting wouldn't you say ....

I think Jon 'the klaxon' Clarke, he of the Olive Press, must be feeling the pinch.

I've been bombarded with enticing emails from the Olive Press over the last 24 hours, luring me with benefits of being a subscriber!

I'll take a rain check, or maybe locate a more reliable source of information that doesn't involve payment ....

It would be a shame if people could read his Paper without having to Register or take out a Subscription.

https://issuu.com/theolivepress

Yes I am aware of that ^^^ as I'm in no doubt Jon Clarke of the Olive Press is also aware but it's not the point.

UPDATE:
Despite the denials, despite the threats including of legal action against those who pointed it out, despite the wriggling and squirming . . .
The MUCKRACK entry by S. Madueño drawing his readers attention to the article about Clarke's book, which says, in QUOTES, that Jon Clarke, owner of the "Olive Press" and author of "My Search for Madeleine", arrived in Praia da Luz at half past ONE in the morning, having received a phone call 'that very day' . . .


is still there, unamended, unexplained, unedited, unredacted
It is clear that Madueño stands by what he wrote, both in the extract and in the article. 
Clarke has still failed or refused to explain.




https://muckrack.com/jj-madueno-1/articles
Screen shot taken 09:10 CEST, 8/6/22