Christian Brueckner: To be or not to be

so we getting it now into snatch-gate, at least that is an sandra f. original!

nicole f. and the russians, with cb as the cleaning lady.

she sounds not very sure if she wants nicole f. in the leading role, or not, a wise girl keeps her options open, sandra must at least getting the meaning of that by experience. 

they have to learn der hans to just say no comment with a bit that could serve to be a poker face, instead of a justice farce. or not let him go on screen, if he has nothing to declare to a public. 

so maybe they just have to learn him to say; 'no, there is no need for attention in this moment of the case we are investigating. we would not have any reason to be your guest.'

'no comment is easy', you can not go wrong with that.

but 'i do not even want to deny it', is very different. why not just say at that very moment; 'it is completely nonsense', why wait for the german press. 

i'm waiting what germany will do, it is a kind of representation that a dutch parliament would lay some fire under our minister of the justice department to be grilled on.  we had our near misses with police officers in the media already, never expected the germans would let this happen, 3 times out.

onehand wrote:so we getting it now into snatch-gate, at least that is an sandra f. original!

nicole f. and the russians, with cb as the cleaning lady.

she sounds not very sure if she wants nicole f. in the leading role, or not, a wise girl keeps her options open, sandra must at least getting the meaning of that by experience. 

they have to learn der hans to just say no comment with a bit that could serve to be a poker face, instead of a justice farce. or not let him go on screen, if he has nothing to declare to a public. 

so maybe they just have to learn him to say; 'no, there is no need for attention in this moment of the case we are investigating. we would not have any reason to be your guest.'

'no comment is easy', you can not go wrong with that.

but 'i do not even want to deny it', is very different. why not just say at that very moment; 'it is completely nonsense', why wait for the german press. 

i'm waiting what germany will do, it is a kind of representation that a dutch parliament would lay some fire under our minister of the justice department to be grilled on.  we had our near misses with police officers in the media already, never expected the germans would let this happen, 3 times out.

Have you watched the full reportage (part two) or are you just going on the word of someone who is distorting the report on twitter, and has ulterior motives to do so.

Perhaps they found the fibres at the bottom of Clarke's deep trench right outside the apartment, 
"here, right here, going down from here". 
Or in Morocco, or the USA
Or trapped in the twisted metal of the jemmied and smashed shutters

It is beyond parody.

i see insinuating i do have a need of twitter, or others before asking a question not as a polite thing to do.

and no thanks, my brain is used to just form its very own opinion. and it does not do things like believing, of being a fan of some other virtual remedy in this case. i never been very good in being a fan, or follower of just other people. and also never had any urge to the must be part of a group. working in a team is okay, but it must have a purpose i see the need of. i just miss the software to be worshiper or anything, so i do not in hero's too. i can bow and be a slave of the animals under my care, but not people

my only handicap is that i am restricted to the use of just 3 working fingers, but my brain is still in very good shape. it has still a nice compression time, and only lacks the ability to get names in it. that habit never was even there. my software for english, dutch and german languages is in good working order, french, some italian, spannish and more and more portuguese got a place, but still needs a lot of updating. 

i do have the habit of read all and look at all, but i do now the difference between real and not real. 
i even never had posted something on twitter, i had only to make an account because they no longer let you just read. even on facebook i behave as a silent guest. 
actually that was long time ago also my reason to join this forum, it became to much to keep in my head in what i already had seen and read, and what not. 

i can block names and things like avatars during my reading time out of my field of view, only when something of interest is written or said i do look back at it. 

and i indeed have a network of people, that also keep me updated of all the social media wars out there, so i do know how to walk around that, so it would not spoil my time and energy. even my being 'born curious' mind is not interested in that part of this case. it is more a kind of use, to make an guess if the message is something worth looking into. i have a like for facts and matter, and why adopt some others opinion, if you just have on of your own, that needs work like some up dating from time to time. 

and i do know what route you try to wander, from that i dare to make a conclusion, that you missed out on some of my post history. 

for me the law is important, not the law on its own, but maybe even more in to upholding the law. and i do not like it when that part is made into reality tv show, to keep ego's high and money mighty, but loosing all of the case it all started from. also what a law means, all it implications, well there are lucky me, far better sources to get that, than twitter champions. no , offences meant, but it is not an example of quality.

you was not there when i had my instructions before i made a promise to uphold the law with the dignity it deserves. so maybe you can not understand the importance it has for me, and how shameful it is to have to look when that dignity is broken down. like what i did see happening in sandra f. her screen time. 

i do know you are yourself an avid partner in the twitter #mccann, i was just a witness of that because i was there, not because i was looking for that aspect of twitter, it is not my way. of course i would use something if i have a use for it, even from twitter. i have very little boundaries with that aspect. but twitter and facebook, or all others are not a daily part of my life, ik take it in doses of some hours a week, on a as need base. 

do you have something else you want to know?

i think it is my turn to ask a question, why do you think it is needed to defend a media persona, she has shed her opinions and stances, in a by her own chosen format, she has all the right in the world to that, like i have all the right in that same world to find it a disgusting way to do that. so if you find her way and format fantastic, why do you not say so, it is not a contest who has the best opinion. who cares what others think of an opinion, everyone have already one of their very own. i'm not shy to share mine, but i do not adopt easily the opinions of others, but facts could make me get to make a difference in mine. 

and i already said i'm born curious. so i have another direct question.

in your view and opinion, what role and importance has sandra f. in het outing of stance and opinion in this case, where and why needs this specific case needs her?

Jon Clarke talking to Alex Phillips here...starts 25mins 52

onehand wrote:i see insinuating i do have a need of twitter, or others before asking a question not as a polite thing to do.

and no thanks, my brain is used to just form its very own opinion. and it does not do things like believing, of being a fan of some other virtual remedy in this case. i never been very good in being a fan, or follower of just other people. and also never had any urge to the must be part of a group. working in a team is okay, but it must have a purpose i see the need of. i just miss the software to be worshiper or anything, so i do not in hero's too. i can bow and be a slave of the animals under my care, but not people

my only handicap is that i am restricted to the use of just 3 working fingers, but my brain is still in very good shape. it has still a nice compression time, and only lacks the ability to get names in it. that habit never was even there. my software for english, dutch and german languages is in good working order, french, some italian, spannish and more and more portuguese got a place, but still needs a lot of updating. 

i do have the habit of read all and look at all, but i do now the difference between real and not real. 
i even never had posted something on twitter, i had only to make an account because they no longer let you just read. even on facebook i behave as a silent guest. 
actually that was long time ago also my reason to join this forum, it became to much to keep in my head in what i already had seen and read, and what not. 

i can block names and things like avatars during my reading time out of my field of view, only when something of interest is written or said i do look back at it. 

and i indeed have a network of people, that also keep me updated of all the social media wars out there, so i do know how to walk around that, so it would not spoil my time and energy. even my being 'born curious' mind is not interested in that part of this case. it is more a kind of use, to make an guess if the message is something worth looking into. i have a like for facts and matter, and why adopt some others opinion, if you just have on of your own, that needs work like some up dating from time to time. 

and i do know what route you try to wander, from that i dare to make a conclusion, that you missed out on some of my post history. 

for me the law is important, not the law on its own, but maybe even more in to upholding the law. and i do not like it when that part is made into reality tv show, to keep ego's high and money mighty, but loosing all of the case it all started from. also what a law means, all it implications, well there are lucky me, far better sources to get that, than twitter champions. no , offences meant, but it is not an example of quality.

you was not there when i had my instructions before i made a promise to uphold the law with the dignity it deserves. so maybe you can not understand the importance it has for me, and how shameful it is to have to look when that dignity is broken down. like what i did see happening in sandra f. her screen time. 

i do know you are yourself an avid partner in the twitter #mccann, i was just a witness of that because i was there, not because i was looking for that aspect of twitter, it is not my way. of course i would use something if i have a use for it, even from twitter. i have very little boundaries with that aspect. but twitter and facebook, or all others are not a daily part of my life, ik take it in doses of some hours a week, on a as need base. 

do you have something else you want to know?

i think it is my turn to ask a question, why do you think it is needed to defend a media persona, she has shed her opinions and stances, in a by her own chosen format, she has all the right in the world to that, like i have all the right in that same world to find it a disgusting way to do that. so if you find her way and format fantastic, why do you not say so, it is not a contest who has the best opinion. who cares what others think of an opinion, everyone have already one of their very own. i'm not shy to share mine, but i do not adopt easily the opinions of others, but facts could make me get to make a difference in mine. 

and i already said i'm born curious. so i have another direct question.

in your view and opinion, what role and importance has sandra f. in het outing of stance and opinion in this case, where and why needs this specific case needs her?

Firstly let me apologize, I was quick to judge your words without knowing you and I agree with many of the points you referred. I felt somehow infuriated because I'm trying to bring carefully done translations from the Portuguese media, like I have always done throughout the past 15 years, to the fore so new information can be discussed and opposed to if needed, yet I continue to see people jumping to conclusions without even bothering to watch or read anything at all, spreading misinformation simply because it's more sensationalistic or confirms their bias. I understand that you don't do gurus nor influencers, but there are people who unlike you, prefer to not think critically or acquire knowledge about a determined issue and just repeat what they see in a random person's twitter. Perhaps it's a sign of our times, where narcissism and lies are more valued than diligent work and integrity, where everything can be instagram filtered to cover up the blemishes of whatever defective product is being sold.

Sandra Felgueiras doesn't need me defending her nor I am her mouth piece, nor do I have any ulterior motives when I call out an injustice when I see one, as was the case with the "fibres" fabrication that was wrongly attributed to Sandra, it's just my nature. I do not personally believe in her line of investigation.  Even though Brueckner is a sadistic sex predator who deserves to rot in jail, I do not believe that he is the person behind Madeleine's disappearance or alleged murder. Nor do I think that her investigation has presented enough, if any evidence, in as much a TV program can present evidence that would prove Brueckner's guilt. Nevertheless I value her work, not only in the past but still now, as a journalist, even though we might not meet eye to eye in a number of issues beyond this case.  Why is she important to this case? She has access to material the English and other foreign journalists don't have, we might not like her style nor the content she presents, but she does go after and pursue the leads she has.

@xklamation can you please confirm the telephone number next to Brückner’s name is from him or not? Obrigado

Silentscope wrote:

@xklamation can you please confirm the telephone number next to Brückner’s name is from him or not? Obrigado

Yes it is.

Translation of bottom screenshot:

Declaration

It is declared, for the purposes deemed appropriate, that the interpreter, Christian Stefan Brueckner, holder of the passport n.º 923901082, with residence at Stadt Ausburg - Germany, with the phone nº 08231 79368, has appeared in this police department, in the quality of a translator, in the scope of the writ of arrest with the (criminal process number) 49/07.2 PCFAR.

Faro, May 9, 2007

The declarant.

(the signature should be after this line)

//

49/07.2 PCFAR. - 49 number of process, 07 the year 2007, PC Prosecution, FAR of faro, I think

@ xklamation 

Brückner had a Portuguese lawyer that does not recognise the number issued in the English press when the case went public.

00351 912 730 680 allegedly belonged to CB in May 2007.

915078040 was apparently his Portuguese Mobile number in December 2007.

According to Nicole F, who received a call from him on that number just before the €100,000 suitcase robbery.


The number 08231 is the correct landline (Festnetz) for Augsburg Germany.





[th][/th][th][/th][th][/th]

K	Königsbrunn b Augsburg	08231
O	Oberottmarshausen	08231

Either he had more than one mobile phone, one German and one Portuguese or maybe even more like burner phones, or Wolters' appeal wrongly attributes the 680 number to CB. Hopefully the PJ or/and the Faro prosecutor will have access to the cell phone operators data before everything is wiped out with a new law, European directive, that was introduced this week that will oblige cell phone operators to wipe out all data, inclusively meta-data, retroactively up to before 2008. This is going to be a huge blow to all ongoing criminal investigations.

For reference https://www.dn.pt/sociedade/terramoto-na-investigacao-criminal-milhares-de-processos-podem-cair-e-arguidos-ilibados-14831404.html
Use  https://www.deepl.com/pt-PT/translator#pt/en/

If he was a careful Drug dealer, he would be in the habit of changing SIM cards and Phones on an irregular basis.

- Anti observation.

Exactly. I think today the UK is watching the first part of MWT 3 part-doc, we'll get the second episode here on the 10th of this month if not mistaken. I spoke with João Mira Godinho who told me that "the three pieces of evidence put forward by the German prosecutor's office will be dismantled", he worked with MWT on this 3 part series, followed the case since day one as he is a veteran journalist based in the Algarve. I'm very curious to see what exactly does come out in the rest of the episodes because the first one was a bit thin regarding the mobile story MWT wrote and spoke about in the UK media. The questions are: Will the PJ or even the BKA follow his lead? Is this lead solid at all? Will they even have the time to do it in face of the new law introduced this week that I mentioned above? And another that I just remembered, will the German authorities also be obliged to wipe out that phone data information the PJ sent them, due to this wide-ranging privacy law?

@xklamation wrote:
And another that I just remembered, will the German authorities also be obliged to wipe out that phone data information the PJ sent them, due to this wide-ranging privacy law?


EU law will apply equally to all Member States as far as I am aware. A Judge can Order an extension however.


https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Telekommunikations%C3%BCberwachung?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

first, i must say thank you for your apology. second another thank you for all the translations you have made, i found then even earlier in time as this forum, and i have read all of them, even multiple times, i have many times used them as reference material. 
certainly in the early years it was quite hard to find good translations, google never worked for me, we have a dutch translating site, that is reasonable to use, and today we also have deepl, but still translations are better by humans. 

the snatch theory was already growing in the former series of sandra f. about cb. not presented as the pj has this theory, but it has little meaning if she now choose to make into the pj thinks this, we all now, that the pj in portugal does not give commentaries out to journalists and reporter in a running case. and do we really expect sandra is listening again to a source from the pj. or did she just the same as with der hans, telling what she thinks is happening and accepting a' i can not tell you that', as a translation in to a; of course sandra, we have that in mind and that is what we will follow through in this case. 

what i get from what sandra is doing mostly is giving information, that has no meaning in a the mccann case, it has only shown cb's activity around the mccann case, maybe it was a secret in other parts of europe, but the first few months after cb came to light in the german sequel of aktezeichen xy.. the listing of all he had done was just out there for every one who wanted to take a look, it was taken behind the screens at the time, the echr case around the supposed wrongful extraditing from italy was handled. 

i never maid even copies, because it had given a quick overview, and even some detail about all those cases he was tried for in germany, but for me, it had no other purpose in this case, than just knowing it was indeed a kind of person, that is better not walking any streets. 

the tale of the robbery in portugal, does not tell me very much about cb, he never made it into a court, so i can not say, he done that. also stating it was the same approach, that later was used around 5a, sounds difficult the see as being true. in the robbery case nicole f. is given the role of signer as go and take it, by just saying one word naturlich. the phone call that the germans  have in mind, was a whole lot longer, and just saying naturlich, naturlich for half an hour is hard to get. for me to meagre to say that is done in the same way. 

i also think that mwt, in his docu has a lot of different intel gathered about the users of both phone numbers. at least one has it used for pretty nasty pedo practices. i do hope it gets taken into more context when it goes on tv. and it that indeed from the periods of time around the third of may.  it looks like mwt had someone to hack those numbers, or at least one of both, the bka wants intel on. but it would be hard to use it in a legal manner. always a shame, but privacy rules are still something that are also out there for the police officers working a case. if intel from 2007 is still somewhere out there, it can hardly be legally out there. 

but it was a short shot of his docu, but from that it looks like it, this call was not very likely in use by nicole f. for just saying naturlich, naturlich for half an hour. but we have to wait for that a bit longer. 
and if it can not be used in a case against cb, i do hope there are uses in other cases. 
there are so many more pieces of s..t walking about, who i always would like to be behind lock and key, and forgotten. i do not believe in second chances for these kind of people, male , or female. 

it is not i do not feel compassion with the people he probably robbed, but it tells nothing about a role in the mccann case. the possible crimes are technically to different. it is never a question if he had the guts do do all kind of nasty things to people, but if he had done nasty things in the mccann case. 
and using the crime of robbery is also overrated, it would probably be taken down as a theft. still not nice, but robbery has usually a bit more elements to fill.

with the documents that show up on screen, i have a bit more of a problem with, of course it is made easy to know who is who, but i am used to take a fair bit of care with personal information of people who are not an criminal element in a case. even with convicted criminals we have overhere the habit of not disclosing their full names, the only once you will see, are those from the people who give that information willingly to the media. the media itself had made the decision, that the use of initials and age will do in 1953. 
this is different per country, so in a case you have an interest in we just look to the belgian of french to see for conformation about a name. 

so if i look in what could have meaning on the mccann case, sandra f. delivers very little, almost everything is for me just noise. there is nothing told that could solve the problem of the existing statements of the first investigation. especially the timeline as created by the complete tapas 9 leaves no room for any third party on 3 mai 2007.  it does not matter, what side you want to choose, from both sides it would be walking against a wall. and sandra does not touch that timeline at all. and opportunity is a very vested element for a third party in this case. 

none of the people she has on, could deliver something that puts cb in the mccann case. being a horrible person is just never enough. there are a lot of horrible people out there, everywhere, even a pretty endless list of people who are capable to grap a child, who even have done that, without anyone realizes it. you could make equal shows about them. still it is all about this case, and being a horrible male figure is just not enough.

CLARKE ! ! !  upthread.
Now he arrives at 9:30.  three and a half or three hour drive,  phone call at the crack of dawn, gets there and surprised how quiet it was,  one or two police at the front, walks under the flimsy police tape and goes into the apartment.
What a pity the contemporaneous news reel video shows dogs, vans, camera crews, police vans, and SIX other journalists, including Len Port, with Clarke looking over their shoulders and comparing notes before wandering off just before the Mccanns emerge at 9:55.

But this time he doesn't claim to have spoken to the Mccanns in the apartment, which is some sort of progress, I suppose.
He also doesn't correct the presenter who announces him a  "ONE OF THE FIRST journalists.

The three to three and half hours for the 404 k (252 m) journey implies an AVERAGE speed of 134 kph (84 mph) or 115 kph (72 mph)

The mendacity index is rising.

CaKeLoveR wrote:And what an ego it is - 'The golden hour was a complete disaster from start to finish - I did my best in those early hours'..  

Those early hours ?
0130 might have been those early hours, but 0930 is 12 HOURS after the report.

crusader wrote:...it was only the McCann's who were telling anyone who would listen Madeleine had been abducted.

Everyone was still searching for a lost child at that point.

Exactly - and that's what needs to be remembered, no matter what man-made obstacles put in the way.

Christian Brueckner has past his sell by date, this is not a case it's a distraction pure and simple.  If the name Brueckner is to be the epilogue to this protracted drama, then they - the authorities, are going completely the wrong way about it.  Bringing the name to the fore with a trumpet voluntary and keeping it alive for two (?) years just devalues any merit the story may have had.

It is a distraction, it's had the desired effect.  The fifteenth anniversary would have gone down in the annuls as a lukewarm non-event if not for the name of Brueckner.  Press and media are keeping this alive for a reason - and it's working.  They lead you, the reader, in a particular desired direction always far far removed from the prime suspects .... Professor Gerald and Ms Kate McCann.

Back to basics!

Meanwhile, Gerry and Kate McCann were swanning around Europe on their magical mystery tour, flying (literally) in the face of evidence, received and treated like superstars whilst covertly damning every nation by sullying the country's reputation with salacious hints of national/international child sex abuse and child trafficking.

According to their version of events, Madeleine was abducted most probably by a paedophile, or on the brighter side - a childless couple.  No scope for alternative scenario .... abduction by paedophile it was and still is! 

And they had the bare faced audacity to accuse the Portuguese police of being narrow minded, not broadening their investigation to consider alternative theory .... wrong!!!


The Portuguese police did thoroughly investigate Madeleine McCann's disappearance, routinely considering every possible scenario no matter how bizarre - even though the McCann two insisted their daughter had been abducted.  It didn't take very long for the PJ to rule-out the possibility of abduction in the absence of any evidence to lead that line of investigation.  And yes, the crime scene was compromised but not by the PJ, nor the result of them failing to cordon-off the crime scene - the crime scene was already contaminated before the police arrived, before the police were called.

Anyone noticed, every press report about Brueckner mentions peadophile or sex fiend or sex offences - it's just words which can't be taken seriously without access to official court documents to prove the allegations.  From quick recollection, I don't think there has been one single suspect over the years that hasn't a record of child sex abuse.  The childless couple have long since left the scene.

There is no such thing as the perfect crime, perhaps the repeated inference over the years had it's reason - should remains be found sometime somewhere somehow.

Beyond a shadow of doubt, there is reason why Madeleine McCann's disappearance had to be covered-up ....

crusader wrote:
MWT on this morning today.

Phillip Schofield:  Fifteen years ago today, three year old Madeleine McCann disappeared from the hotel room in Praia da Luz where her family were holidaying

Holly Willoughby:   The next morning a concerned family friend called in to GMTV and the British public heard Madeleine McCann's name for the first time

To my knowledge it has never been ascertained who first alerted the British media to Madeleine McCann's disappearance, nor when where why.

Reports vary considerably as to how and when the news first broke, the normal course would be for a central press agency to circulate news, leaving it to individual media/press organs to apply their own take.

Such a tragedy would demand instant response by sending reporters off to the crime scene for direct coverage.  I can imagine reporters want to be first on the scene for that long awaited 'exclusive' to catapult their name in the ranks of journalism - with a heavy dose of poetic licence to give their story that extra boost.  It doesn't surprise me to hear journalist vying for supremacy of exclusive ownership nor does it surprise me to learn how scores of journalists from across the continent descended on Luz as soon as Madeleine McCann's disappearance was first reported.

I don't think it can ever be ascertained the original source of the report,  exactly how the story was circulated and by whom and the precise timing.  In the grande scheme of things it probably doesn't matter very much - what does matter is the fact a little three year old child disappeared off the face of the earth back in April/May 2007, without trace.

Since that time, after Snr Amaral was removed, very little has been done to solve the case of Madeleine's untimely fate but plenty has been done to absolve the prime suspects .... Gerry and Kate McCann.

ETA:  Since the intervention of outside interference, the fingers are always pointing towards Portuguese ineptitude.  I doubt many of the reporters have ever bothered to read the PJ case files, if they have it's conveniently ignored to pave the way for further deception.

CaKeLoveR wrote:Poor old Jon, he's becoming very confused. He'll soon need to be wheeled around if a poosh chair.

There is a Global Charter of Ethics for Journalists.

https://www.ifj.org/who/rules-and-policy/global-charter-of-ethics-for-journalists.html

At one point I was going to examine it in detail and give examples of Clarke's breaches but after realising the chapter wold run into several Volumes I gave up.

1. Respect for the facts and for the right of the public to truth is the first duty of the journalist.
2. In pursuance of this duty, the journalist shall at all times defend the principles of freedom in the honest collection and publication of news, and of the right of fair comment and criticism. He/she will make sure to clearly distinguish factual information from commentary and criticism.
3. The journalist shall report only in accordance with facts of which he/ she knows the origin. The journalist shall not suppress essential information or falsify any document. He/she will be careful to reproduce faithfully statements and other material that non-public persons publish in social media.
4. The journalist shall use only fair methods to obtain information, images, documents and data and he/she will always report his/her status as a journalist and will refrain from using hidden recordings of images and sounds, except where it is impossible for him/her to collect information that is overwhelmingly in the public interest. He/she will demand free access to all sources of information and the right to freely investigate all facts of public interest.
5. The notion of urgency or immediacy in the dissemination of information shall not take precedence over the verification of facts, sources and/or the offer of a reply.
6. The journalist shall do the utmost to rectify any errors or published information which is found to be inaccurate in a timely, explicit, complete and transparent manner.
7. The journalist shall observe professional secrecy regarding the source of information obtained in confidence.
8. The journalist will respect privacy. He/she shall respect the dignity of the persons named and/or represented and inform the interviewee whether the conversation and other material is intended for publication. He/she shall show particular consideration to inexperienced and vulnerable interviewees.
9. Journalists shall ensure that the dissemination of information or opinion does not contribute to hatred or prejudice and shall do their utmost to avoid facilitating the spread of discrimination on grounds such as geographical, social or ethnic origin, race, gender, sexual orientation, language, religion, disability, political and other opinions.
10. The journalist will consider serious professional misconduct to be

• plagiarism
  
  
• distortion of facts
  
  
• slander, libel, defamation, unfounded accusations
  
  

11. The journalist shall refrain from acting as an auxiliary of the police or other security services. He/she will only be required to provide information already published in a media outlet.
12. The journalist will show solidarity with his/her colleagues, without renouncing his/her freedom of investigation, duty to inform, and right to engage in criticism, commentary, satire and editorial choice.
13. The journalist shall not use the freedom of the press to serve any other interest and shall refrain from receiving any unfair advantage or personal gain because of the dissemination or non-dissemination of information. He/she will avoid - or put an end to - any situation that could lead him/her to a conflict of interest in the exercise of his/her profession. He/she will avoid any confusion between his activity and that of advertising or propaganda. He/she will refrain from any form of insider trading and market manipulation.
14. The journalist will not undertake any activity or engagement likely to put his/her independence in danger. He/she will, however, respect the methods of collection/dissemination of information that he / she has freely accepted, such as "off the record", anonymity, or embargo, provided that these commitments are clear and unquestionable.
15. Journalists worthy of the name shall deem it their duty to observe faithfully the principles stated above. They may not be compelled to perform a professional act or to express an opinion that is contrary to his/her professional conviction or conscience.
16. Within the general law of each country the journalist shall recognize in matters of professional honour, the jurisdiction of independent self-regulatory bodies open to the public, to the exclusion of every kind of interference by governments or others."
You see the problem !

I prefer to maintain the belief that the world still entertains serious dedicated journalism, that follows the Charter of Ethics to the letter, even in these times of mass deception.

It's difficult enough for the law to uphold truth so I think the journalist can be excused.

On the other hand, the more discerning observer will recognize the distorted press and media coverage of a criminal case such as missing Madeleine McCann.

Quite a few names are prominent, particularly the tabloid press - even those who write for the more respected papers have links with the gutter press, the tabloids. 

And as we all know, the media/press are essentially propagandists - that in itself is not ethical.

sandancer wrote:" I was actually able , believe it or not ( no Jon we don't believe it !) to go up to the back of the apartment , to walk under flimsy pieces of police tape and step up the steps to the front of the apartment . " 

But , but but Jon - first you told us you went up to the apartment and met the Mccanns ( who weren't even there , ) Then you said you could have but didn't . Now you're saying you did ? 

 " To the back of the apartment " yes that's up the steps , well done ! 

 " Step up the steps to the front of the apartment " ?? 

There are NO steps to the front of the apartment dear ! 

So which is it , the back of the apartment , or the front of the apartment ? 

How many versions of this story are you going to make up , better keep a list Jon your memory is letting you down badly . That trench out the front is getting deeper and you're digging yourself into it !

That man is a walking contradiction, he's the Schrödinger's cat of tabloid hacks. That's the problem when people lie so frequently. Well done Peter for your immense work debunking Jon Clark numerous fabrications.