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

This chapter is actually broken down into two parts and is possibly the most important, and potentially the most explosive piece of research/investigation.

Hence it will be published on Friday 5th November.

Followed by letters to various authorities.

That will be a hard introduction to follow !

Bonfire Night wouldn't be the same without a Guy.

Here they are - please read them in order:

https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-48-part-one-my-search-for.html


What really happened to Madeleine McCann?: Chapter 48 - Part Two: AND NOW - THE STUNNING ADMISSION

So evidentially compelling in the patient analysis by detective Peter Mac.
Jon 'Don Quixote' Clarke has inadvertently  exposed another lie in the great MI5 conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It was all 'teed up' and ready to go to the newsrooms on command.

Is Goncalo aware of the Jon Clarke 1.30am claim?

Absolutely needs nailing.

for me it looks like it, that dear jon is not lying in what had happened, but only about when all did happened.

his story about no access restrictions, all people walking a crime scene, meeting the mccanns. no dogs, no one was helping, all could only have happened just after 22.00 hours on the thursday of 3 may. and some hours after. 
and even it to be the first journalist at the ground will be no lie. 

he is just very unlucky that he is seen on film, on a time in the morning of 4 mai 2007, that ells us all he says could not have been possible on the time he mentioned. 

it is a pretty classic form of telling porkies, use something that in truth had happened, and just rework that to another moment. a form of projection. not a first in this case.

for me that makes it more acceptable  to see, why he is so emotional, and keeping hold on to his story. 
because his words are true, only his timeline is a lie. 

so if we forget his timings, but believe what he tells, he was there even much earlier, than the early hours of the fourth of may. 

it is the one and only way, to being the first journalist on the crime scene.

Also ties in with the Telegraph's first 12.01 post on 4th May.

I know this has been bashed about many times before and generally accepted by most people that this was 'just the time that attached itself to the archive posting and was actually posted much later' but I have never accepted that, even with the FOI response.

On any given day, from before then to now, if you look at any number of posts, it is quite clear that an actual time attaches itself to any article posted during the day or night, but 12.01 is the time that attaches to pre-written articles that are to be posted on a particular date, hence it was ready for publication before midnight on the 3rd.

BlueBag wrote:Is Goncalo aware of the Jon Clarke 1.30am claim?

Absolutely needs nailing.

He is now. As are Grange, the PJ, the public Prosecutor, CB's lawyer the BKA and many more

I have just been asked elsewhere what we hope to achieve.
The same as GA is calling for in his new book, the same that TB is calling for in this, and the 
Lubbock and Balkwell cases.

That the authorities re-open the cases and look again at "What Happened",
and in all three cases ignore what the interested parties told them at the beginning.

That they test everything, believe no one and suspect everyone.

The PJ must have his phone pings for early hours of 4th May?

Good point, if Jon took a Cellphone it would most likely have been pinged when he crossed the border.

He may have received the Automatic ‘Welcome in Portugal’ SMS.

Along with a message from the new Network provider in PDL.

Thankfully Jon Clarke of the Olive Press has never been involved with any official investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, any more than Summers and Swann, Mark Williams-Thomas, or any other opportunists who have attached their name to the case- and there ain't no shortage thereof.

He's not worth the oxygen, this is only adding to his desired notoriety.

Does anyone really care what he has to say .... I don't!

Verdi wrote:Thankfully Jon Clarke of the Olive Press has never been involved with any official investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, any more than Summers and Swann, Mark Williams-Thomas, or any other opportunists who have attached their name to the case- and there ain't no shortage thereof.

He's not worth the oxygen, this is only adding to his desired notoriety.

Does anyone really care what he has to say .... I don't!

If it can be proved he was in PDL at 1.30am I think that's quite important (an understatement).

In fact it would be THE smoking gun.

So yeah... I care.

Fantastic work from Peter.

Clarke, Summers and Swann, and MW-T may not have been involved in the official investigation, as you rightly say.
They do however jointly wield an influence disproportionate to their involvement in moulding public opinion and subtly manipulating the official enquiries, as we saw only too clearly in DCI Gonçalo Amaral's case.

I agree that his usual fatuous space-filling articles about sightings and tracking down people totally uninvolved in anything merely add to his desired notoriety.

This is something different.

Clarke clearly was in PdL very early in the event.   That much can be proved by watching the contemporaneous videos.
But his latest claim that he was there at 0130, or in the 'early hours' can only be one of two things
False:  in which case he is merely a boastful liar, 
but more importantly, (and more likely ?)
True:  in which case the whole edifice built on the reports of Madeleine's disappearance between 2125 and 2135 3/5/7 crumbles into dust, and it becomes clear that the 'official story' is pure invention.

DCI Amaral strongly suspected that from Day 1.
If it can now be proved out of the mouth of one of the main proselytes of the Abduction story to be false, that is in my humble opinion, fairly important, and we should not only care what he says this time, but analyse it forensically.

And to spell it out in more detail, and more pompously:-
"It is the DUTY of anyone who has new evidence in this case to bring the details to the immediate notice of the people whose professional task it is to investigate it.
And then to alert those who oversee those people, whether formally as supervisory officers, or informally as members of the Fourth estate, holding the executive to account.
Accordingly. the three leading investigative agencies, the PJ, the BKA, and the Metropolitan Police have been notified, as have many of the journalists who have maintained a close interest in the case over the past fourteen years."


Incidentally Madueño has not amended his Muckrack entry, which still says "la una y media de la madrugada a Praia da Luz". = "One thirty in the morning in PdL", and his professional colleagues have forwarded the twitter link.
It has been there for 16 days now.

Verdi wrote:Thankfully Jon Clarke of the Olive Press has never been involved with any official investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, any more than Summers and Swann, Mark Williams-Thomas, or any other opportunists who have attached their name to the case- and there ain't no shortage thereof.

He's not worth the oxygen, this is only adding to his desired notoriety.

Does anyone really care what he has to say .... I don't!

Did you even read the chapters? Or did you just see the name Jon Clarke and think 'oh gawd, not him again'

Can you not see the significance of what Clarke has published?
For him to say he arrived in PdL at 1.30 on the morning of the 4th, having driven 4.5 hours to get there, must mean he received the phone call before the 'abduction' alert.

It's quite apparent that journalists have been instrumental in this cover-up, and it would now seem Jon Clarke more than the others.

We've been here on this forum since 2009, other fora since 2007, waiting for a moment like this - and you say you don't care?    

Peter has written to various authorities with this new information and if, as Blue Bag quite rightly says, the PJ have at least got his phone pings...then surely that goes some way to prove the whole thing has been a scam? 

Even if readers don't bother to read all of Peter's chapters based on your dismissive opinion I would urge them to, at least, read this one:


https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-48-part-two-and-now-stunning.html

According to a German Documentary screened recently on VOX, in PDL there were 74,000 phone call records saved from the day before, until the day after the disappearance.

Findind a number with +34 prefix that had arrived between 22:00 and 01:30 even later might not be too difficult?

Verdi wrote:Thankfully Jon Clarke of the Olive Press has never been involved with any official investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, any more than Summers and Swann, Mark Williams-Thomas, or any other opportunists who have attached their name to the case- and there ain't no shortage thereof.

He's not worth the oxygen, this is only adding to his desired notoriety.

Does anyone really care what he has to say .... I don't!

Having helped Peter recently in this particular piece, and having hunted through various interviews and articles, with the realisation that Clarke adjusts, manipulates and in some cases dramatically creates, I find your reply rather disconcerting.

Clarke is a mouthpiece, he is a liar, on these points we can categorically agree. He is also a public figure who rightly or wrongly, has access to areas that you as a group, and us as researchers can only dream to have. He utilises all of these areas to suit his own needs and is known as a 'piece of the jigsaw' [again rightly or wrongly] that is this case. Whether you care what he says, or whether he is worth oxygen, is not really up for debate. You take each piece of evidence on it's merit. In this case it has come from a man we all know to be waste of space, and a pathological liar, but evidence is evidence, and should be treated as such.

I have always 'assumed' this group had the sole intention of finding the 'truth' of this case. Where, who, why, when and how that materialises is of no consequence. You take each piece of the jigsaw on its merit, and analyze as required. It may turn out to be a dead end, it may have no consequence or bearing, but EVERYTHING has to be looked at, studied and given a category, rather similar to how a police or journalistic investigation is worked.

In this particular snippet of information, the key word used is 'madrugada'. A time the Spanish refer to as 'early morning'. The time after midnight and before sunrise. To be clear it is not a word used with any regularity, and to use it means you are referencing a particular and exact period of time.This is no usual journalistic wording where they use language that allows for maneuver at a later date. This is a categorical use, to detail to the reader that we are talking about a specific area of time.

The author Madueno has stated that the Muckrack account in question is not his, and that Clarke stated 9.30am to him. So where did the 1.30 [madrugada] entry come from exactly? How can you make such a mistake? He admits clearly that the twitter account is his, but denies his involvement in the Muckrack account.

En serio? No sé como va eso, pero es sin mi permiso ni control. No sé nada de eso.
Aun así. La hora correcta de empezar a trabajar es a las 9.30 como ya te dije. Y gracias por avisar de la red esa. Investigaré cómo he llegado ahí y qué hay mío publicado. Ya que no recuerdo haber entrado nunca

Loosely translated "Really? I don't know how that goes, but it's without my permission or control. I do not know anything about that
Even so. The correct time to start work is 9:30 as I already told you. And thanks for advising that network. I will investigate how I got there and what is mine posted. Since I don't remember ever entering"

1. The only way to link both accounts is by someone knowing his Twitter password. So his account is compromised?
2. 1,300 promotional items for your work, and you want us to believe that someone has gone to so much trouble to not only use the same facial image from his twitter page, but they are regularly updating, without fail, every day new pieces of his work. Bear in mind Muckrack is a self promotion website, so what exact purpose would someone have to promote someone else's work?
3. the correct time is 9.30? Yet the word madrugada is used to clearly categorise EARLY MORNING, and now his best answer is 'it is not me'.
4. He also refrains to directly answer other than 'it is not me' or '9.30 is the start time' the question of why the word 'madrugada is used to clearly categorise 1.30 as 'early morning'. So if it was 9.30, you would not have used the word 'madrugada' then would you? Middle of the night as opposed to morning time. Hmm I don't think so. Any good writer worth their salt would not do that.
This was yesterday, and as of this morning the post on Muckrack is still there. Had you investigated this possible compromise of your twitter account, and blatant plagiarism of your work, by someone else advertising it, surely you would have had the offending account removed??? As there is an option to remove the item, if it is the wrong byline, as well as an option to contact the site directly.
The real clincher in it all, is his own ABC friends have liked the work, and have shared it. So, again why would they do this if they thought the account was fake??

It's typical journalism denial at it's best. IMO, he has being using his handwritten shorthand notes when putting the entry onto the Muckrack account [that is not his], but remembered to adjust the time on the article.  There is no explanation or reply that can confound two such differentiating entries. 9 and 1 are at opposites ends of the keyboards, or if using the number pad in opposite corners. The use of 'early morning' to be specific of the time is as damning as it comes. and to me more than anything else deserves more investigation. A simple request to analyse IP address would show if the Muckrack and Twitter accounts were from the same person. [Granted we as everyday people would not have such access, others would] As referenced phone records would be interesting but whether they would still be available is another question.

I personally have contacted another news group to request their help in not only further investigating this, but also in highlighting the 'facts' that have been unearthed by this group, Peter, myself and various others. Blogs, forums, social media take the story so far, I think help is required to take it further.

Going back to your original comment of nurturing his notoriety and him not being worth the oxygen. I agree to an extent, but surely if we can show him, his book, his newspaper and anything else he is related to, as being flagrant with the truth, facts and specifics, then surely we have a duty to follow the process through, even if that does go against our own personal morals, ethics and beliefs.

Verdi wrote:Thankfully Jon Clarke of the Olive Press has never been involved with any official investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, any more than Summers and Swann, Mark Williams-Thomas, or any other opportunists who have attached their name to the case- and there ain't no shortage thereof.

He's not worth the oxygen, this is only adding to his desired notoriety.

Does anyone really care what he has to say .... I don't!

Another way of looking at this is to ask:

"Has Jon Clarke of the Olive Press been actively involved from the start (or even before the start) in the official, Clarence Mitchell-run promotion of the official, but false narrative that Madeleine McCann was abducted?"

Bearing in mind, inter alia, that he has...

* rushed over to Praia da Luz sometime in the early evening of Thursday 3 May
* gleefully pronounced that he knew 'straightaway' that the McCanns were innocent
* has recycled his view that 'the McCanns are innocent' multiple times in the Olive Press
* was the virtual creator of the false story that Madeleine was kidnapped by a violent paedophile gang, one of whom knocked the front teeth out of Marcelinho Italiano
* cooperated fully with the 8-part Netflix series on Madeleine McCann which was full of untruths from beginning to end
* and now has written his book proclaiming Christian Brueckner as the abductor and murderer of Madeleine...

...we can surely answer that question as Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes - purely on the above six facts alone.

Is this 'the smoking gun'?

I would contend that it is one of several smoking guns, e.g.

* Last Photo represented as Thursday when it was Sunday
* No photos of Madeleine after Sunday
* CEOP dummy Madeleine McCann page set up Monday 30 April 2007
* Absence of credible, independent evidence Madeleine was alive after Sunday
* The framing of Wojcek Krokowski by Nuno Lourenco...

...etc

For it to be on Muckrack, the user logs in, and posts a link to the story, and then clicks add item. Muckrack then auto populates the first 2 paragraphs [500 characters] and it posts the excerpt to the page.

The user then has the capability to see how the article is being viewed and by how many. 

SO for the Muckrack entry to include the 1.30 madrugada comment, it would have HAD to be written by the user [in this case Madueno, I dont believe for a minute he is unknowing about this account]

The article would then be edited, but because the Muckrack entry was posted prior to the article being edited to show the new time, it still displays the original entry.

Clarke would not have wanted the timing to be for public consumption, thus the quick edit of the time. As stated previously there is elements of truth in all of Clarke's variations, but this has been a huge error that they thought they had obviously managed to catch before public viewing,.

crusader wrote:Clarke may be a pathological liar and a waste of space but he's not fool  enough to incriminate himself in such a way.

He's done his investigating and written his book, make what you will of it, there were no big revelations in it.

The only mystery here is, if Madueno didn't write it, who did and for what purpose.

Is this the same Jon 'Deep Trench' Clarke we're talking about? The same one who exposed himself as a fool on Neflix?