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

Chambers wrote:

PeterMac wrote:1:30 am
That same night
9am
9:30am
9:45 - 10;15am
10:45am
11:45am
noon
later that day
.....
take your pick.  He has said them all, and they are in print and saved.

The chapter has been circulated in English, Portuguese and German to all the usual suspects, most of whom have opened the email already.  The wheels are in motion.

I can't see the relevance of this man or any of the iterations of his account. The only agenda he's pushing is his own and changes his story in response to the zeitgeist.

PeterMac has already explained "the relevance of this man and the iterations of his account":

PeterMac wrote:YOU SAY :  I don't intend to try and re-write my lost post, nor to again explain my opinion of Jon Clarke - suffice to say, I just don't think he's worthy of too much attention. Aside from perhaps a degree of ridicule.

There are those of us who always look closely at the last person to see her alive.
GM tried to dump that on MO, but he had the sense to get out of that trap by changing his official story to say he didn't turn his head to the left and therefore didn't actually see Madeleine, which is why this was left out of the second Version of the Truth timeline

In exactly the same way we focus on the first person at the scene.  It is well known that arsonists are very usually in the crowd looking on.   In other situations people involved will often volunteer to help with the searching, or talking to 'witnesses' or get themselves deeply embedded in the enquiry.

THEREFORE focussing on Clarke who insists and maintains he was the First / only / first British journalist at the scene, and puts his time of arrival variously as later that day / noon / 11:45 / 10:45 / 9:45-10:15 / 9:30 . . .  and now early hours of the morning / later that same night / 1:30 AM  is, with respect, an important part of unravelling the story.

There are those who think that it embeds Clarke deep within the organisation and promulgation of the "official story" which he caused to be published across the Sun, Daily Mail and watched and profited hugely as it was syndicated to the gutter press of the world.  He did this for SIX MONTHS before he wrote a single article in his own newspaper.

His well recorded history of invented 'sightings' or of stories about 'sightings which he had followed up and found to be nonsense, published at exact points which gave the impression that their timing was to divert attention from something else embarrassing to TM, leads one further to suspect his involvement.

It is possible that he is a "useful Idiot" and yet as a not unintelligent journalist he will be aware of being manipulated against his will or without his knowledge.  That is therefore less likely than his acting under instruction.

Jill Havern wrote:

Chambers wrote:

PeterMac wrote:1:30 am
That same night
9am
9:30am
9:45 - 10;15am
10:45am
11:45am
noon
later that day
.....
take your pick.  He has said them all, and they are in print and saved.

The chapter has been circulated in English, Portuguese and German to all the usual suspects, most of whom have opened the email already.  The wheels are in motion.

I can't see the relevance of this man or any of the iterations of his account. The only agenda he's pushing is his own and changes his story in response to the zeitgeist.

PeterMac has already explained "the relevance of this man and the iterations of his account":

PeterMac wrote:YOU SAY :  I don't intend to try and re-write my lost post, nor to again explain my opinion of Jon Clarke - suffice to say, I just don't think he's worthy of too much attention. Aside from perhaps a degree of ridicule.

There are those of us who always look closely at the last person to see her alive.
GM tried to dump that on MO, but he had the sense to get out of that trap by changing his official story to say he didn't turn his head to the left and therefore didn't actually see Madeleine, which is why this was left out of the second Version of the Truth timeline

In exactly the same way we focus on the first person at the scene.  It is well known that arsonists are very usually in the crowd looking on.   In other situations people involved will often volunteer to help with the searching, or talking to 'witnesses' or get themselves deeply embedded in the enquiry.

THEREFORE focussing on Clarke who insists and maintains he was the First / only / first British journalist at the scene, and puts his time of arrival variously as later that day / noon / 11:45 / 10:45 / 9:45-10:15 / 9:30 . . .  and now early hours of the morning / later that same night / 1:30 AM  is, with respect, an important part of unravelling the story.

There are those who think that it embeds Clarke deep within the organisation and promulgation of the "official story" which he caused to be published across the Sun, Daily Mail and watched and profited hugely as it was syndicated to the gutter press of the world.  He did this for SIX MONTHS before he wrote a single article in his own newspaper.

His well recorded history of invented 'sightings' or of stories about 'sightings which he had followed up and found to be nonsense, published at exact points which gave the impression that their timing was to divert attention from something else embarrassing to TM, leads one further to suspect his involvement.

It is possible that he is a "useful Idiot" and yet as a not unintelligent journalist he will be aware of being manipulated against his will or without his knowledge.  That is therefore less likely than his acting under instruction.

So if Peter has established that Jon wasn't first journalist on the scene, then why the continued pursuit of a man whose only 'crime', for want of a better word, is embellishment of the truth for personal gain?
He's no paid shill, or 'acting under instruction', he's been hawking his latest attempt at a book at the WRVS in Luz ffs. He's a jobbing journo who was posted to the crime of the century and has had his snout in the trough from the get go. In my opinion.

So if Peter has established that Jon wasn't first journalist on the scene, then why the continued pursuit of a man whose only 'crime', for want of a better word, is embellishment of the truth for personal gain?
He's no paid shill, or 'acting under instruction', he's been hawking his latest attempt at a book at the WRVS in Luz ffs. He's a jobbing journo who was posted to the crime of the century and has had his snout in the trough from the get go. In my opinion.

your question aside, which I'm going to refrain from answering, I might be a conspiracy theorist here, but your recent joining of this forum, coinciding with your style of replies, and the recent copying of screenshots from this forum to another, not to mention the berating and outright slander of people from this forum and their viewpoints, tell a rather telling story.


I also notice that my recent first post evoked a trolling of Facebook to see who I was, and I was then labelled 'another myth spewer' not to mention the usual honour of being called a troll.


All rather coincidental, and not something im inclined to think is coincidence. Unlike you I have nothing to hide, hence my user name reflects my name and I can be easily looked up on Facebook, where you will find nothing, not a former plod, or another blonk lawyer., or another, whats that word your forum uses for people who think contrary to the popular media theory. Ah yes 'Haverns'.


I will point you in the direction of the definition of an internet troll. 


"An internet troll is someone who makes intentionally inflammatory, rude, or upsetting statements online to elicit strong emotional responses in people or to steer the conversation off-topic."


Now, not for me to judge, what you do on your own time and forum is your concern, but note the use of the word intentionally. I am sure you will deny deny deny as is the common practice, and maybe the members of this forum 'wash over their heads the various points of slander that I read recently, and maybe I won't take your trolling of my personal facebook posts as an affront, I will however choose to not answer your questions that although veiled as new member innocence or playing devils advocate, are a poor attempt to hide your obvious intentions, as well as your identity. Now toddle off back to your forum and ill take note of the replies that will fill the boards for the next day or so, unlike you I don't need to use fruitful or slanderous language to make a point, you do know by the way that the moment you use that language, your point is lost right? even if it did contain something of note. 

The nutters are now trying to implicate Clarke as a smoking gun or something!

or something!, if your going to state facts on your forum, then at least try and be clear, precise and specific. anyone can spout their mouth off, having something to back it up requires a little bit more upstairs.

In the case of a missing child there is no place for 'embellishing' the truth.

Chambers wrote:
So if Peter has established that Jon wasn't first journalist on the scene, then why the continued pursuit of a man whose only 'crime', for want of a better word, is embellishment of the truth for personal gain?
He's no paid shill, or 'acting under instruction', he's been hawking his latest attempt at a book at the WRVS in Luz ffs. He's a jobbing journo who was posted to the crime of the century and has had his snout in the trough from the get go. In my opinion.

If anything, PeterMac has established that Jon WAS the first journalist on the scene if it transpires he really did arrive at 1.30am as he's stated in a published article, because it means he got the phone call to go there BEFORE the crime even took place.

What can't you understand about the significance of that?

Peter has informed the relevant authorities and it's up to them whether they do anything about it.

And if Jon has been "hawking his latest attempt at a book at the WRVS in Luz ffs" then I pity the poor pensioners who were duped into parting with their money.

mande1270 wrote:

So if Peter has established that Jon wasn't first journalist on the scene, then why the continued pursuit of a man whose only 'crime', for want of a better word, is embellishment of the truth for personal gain?
He's no paid shill, or 'acting under instruction', he's been hawking his latest attempt at a book at the WRVS in Luz ffs. He's a jobbing journo who was posted to the crime of the century and has had his snout in the trough from the get go. In my opinion.

your question aside, which I'm going to refrain from answering, I might be a conspiracy theorist here, but your recent joining of this forum, coinciding with your style of replies, and the recent copying of screenshots from this forum to another, not to mention the berating and outright slander of people from this forum and their viewpoints, tell a rather telling story.


I also notice that my recent first post evoked a trolling of Facebook to see who I was, and I was then labelled 'another myth spewer' not to mention the usual honour of being called a troll.


All rather coincidental, and not something im inclined to think is coincidence. Unlike you I have nothing to hide, hence my user name reflects my name and I can be easily looked up on Facebook, where you will find nothing, not a former plod, or another blonk lawyer., or another, whats that word your forum uses for people who think contrary to the popular media theory. Ah yes 'Haverns'.


I will point you in the direction of the definition of an internet troll. 


"An internet troll is someone who makes intentionally inflammatory, rude, or upsetting statements online to elicit strong emotional responses in people or to steer the conversation off-topic."


Now, not for me to judge, what you do on your own time and forum is your concern, but note the use of the word intentionally. I am sure you will deny deny deny as is the common practice, and maybe the members of this forum 'wash over their heads the various points of slander that I read recently, and maybe I won't take your trolling of my personal facebook posts as an affront, I will however choose to not answer your questions that although veiled as new member innocence or playing devils advocate, are a poor attempt to hide your obvious intentions, as well as your identity. Now toddle off back to your forum and ill take note of the replies that will fill the boards for the next day or so, unlike you I don't need to use fruitful or slanderous language to make a point, you do know by the way that the moment you use that language, your point is lost right? even if it did contain something of note. 

The nutters are now trying to implicate Clarke as a smoking gun or something!

or something!, if your going to state facts on your forum, then at least try and be clear, precise and specific. anyone can spout their mouth off, having something to back it up requires a little bit more upstairs.

Yeh, I think you've got the wrong person here.

"he's been hawking his latest attempt at a book at the WRVS in Luz ***. "


Is there a WRVS in Luz ?
If you mean that he gave a short presentation and then sold one or two copies as a guest speaker at
the Fuengirola Branch of the University of the Third Age,(aka. U3A), which met in St Andrew's, Los Boliches
then perhaps you should say so.   
Facts matter.
To us anyway.

@ crusader;

len port heard it on sky news, if we believe summers and swann, it has been mentioned in their book. 

besides mentioning that len port heard it on sky news, he is acknowledged in their tanks, and by their words , the first journalist on the scene.

Martin Brunt 'excellent'  - 

CaKeLoveR wrote:Martin Brunt 'excellent'  - 

Yes, the very same Martin Brunt who door-stepped Brenda Leyland prior to her *ahem* suicide  

https://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-mccann-family-and-dossier-of-death.html

With the understandable media pandemonium in the initial stages of a missing three year old child holidaying on foreign soil with her family, it's nigh on impossible to pin point the original source of headline news.  As the disappearance occurred away from the child's country of residence the natural assumption would be news from a central source, a press agency, which would explain the later dispersal of news reported on Saturday 5th May 2007 - here I refer to the British press.

But..

Maddie: Rachael Mampilly interview at Leicestershire Police Headquarters – part II/III

0.00.06 1578 'Okay the time is one forty seven pm and thats on Wednesday the ninth of April, two thousand and eight. We're in an interview room at Leicestershire Police Force Headquarters. I'm DC 1578 Andrew GIERC of the Leicestershire Major Crime Unit. Would you give me your full name and date of birth please''

Reply 'Er Rachael Mariamma Jean MAMPILLY, eleventh of the eleventh, seventy'.

1578 'Thank you very much. This is the second interview of today Rachael and we've discussed over the first interview, the build up to the holiday, the association of the group and you've then taken us through a summary of daily routines, upon arrival at the Resort and we've gone into some detail in respect of the activities on Thursday the third of May, two thousand and seven, the day of course that Madeleine disappeared'.

Reply 'Mmm mmm'.

1578 'I have a list of questions here from the Portuguese Authorities that I'd like to go through with you. Firstly, could you clarify to me please your mobile phone number''

Reply 'Yeah ........

'And is that the number you had in Praia''

Reply 'Yes, mm yeah'.

00.01.45 1578 'Okay. Do you know who the user is of a mobile number, .......

Reply 'No, ......

1578 'No, you've just says ... could it have been a Portuguese number''

Reply 'Erm, just say it again''

1578 '...'.

Reply '...'.

1578 '......''

Reply 'No, no idea, I mean I've got my phone, I could look'.

1578 'Okay, do you have it with you''

Reply 'I do yeah but, is there any way'.

1578 'This phone number'.

Reply 'Yeah, is it a number that I rang''

1578 'Called yourself'.

Reply 'Right'.

1578 'At twenty two thirty six twenty five hours on the fourth of the fifth, so on the Friday'.

Reply 'On Friday'.

1578 'Just after ten thirty in the evening'.

Reply 'Erm, erm okay well let me just have a look at my mums number, oh thats, that ends in ..., thats not right is it, erm 7, what did it end in again''

1578 'It ends in 3319'.

Reply '...., erm, erm did you say it called me, or I called it''

1578 'That number called your mobile'.

Reply 'Ten thirty, (inaudible), well I don't know, the only people that, well I think the only people I spoke to, I know that a client did ring me one of the days but it wouldn't have been ten thirty at night, erm it was either that Friday or the following Friday to cancel an interview that was happening but I mean that wouldn't have been at ten thirty at night, erm I would think, I mean I suppose it could, it might have been a Journalist, because on the night that Madeleine disappeared, on the Thursday, a friend of mine, or friends of Matts and mine, Kath and James LANDALE and James LANDALE's a BBC News erm and at the time he was like Political Correspondent, erm I saw him the other night actually reading the news on BBC News 24 but I rang him, or I rang his wife Kath cos I had her mobile number, erm basically to say you know that Madeleine had gone missing, was there any way that we could get it on the news and that was, that was on the Thursday night, so I suppose and it was the loc, it was the, was it the Local Elections or something happening that day''

00.05.56 1578 'I dont know'.

Reply 'There were some sort of Elections, must have been Local Elections and James was out, away reporting on that but anyway Kath put me in touch with him and I spoke to him and I spoke to a couple of people on the BBC News 24 desk, so I mean you know, it must'.

1578 'That was on the Thursday evening''

Reply 'That was on the Thursday night'.

1578 'What time would that have been''

Reply 'Well that was sort of you know, midnight after midnight (inaudible)'.

1578 'And this was just after ten thirty pm, twenty two thirty six''

Reply 'On the thir, but that was on the fourth''

1578 'Yes sorry you're correct on the fourth, Friday so'.

Reply 'Yeah, I mean it could have been somebody calling I suppose in relation to that possibly, erm but otherwise, I mean I only really spoke to you know, sort of my mum and sort of you know, close friends and family, erm and then you know, well Kath, Kath, James' wife and then James rang me and I think I rang him back and then a couple of people from the BBC News 24 rang, but that was the Thursday night'.

00.07.10 1578 'Okay'.

Reply 'Erm and actually I do remember actually, on the Friday, my phone went a lot with lots of different BBC people ringing at various times, so that could have gone on until the evening'.

1578 'Alright then, we move on. Who is the user of phone number ......''

Reply '... erm'.

1578 'There are a number of text exchanges between you and that person both ways'.

Reply 'Right'.

1578 'On the second of the fifth and also fourth of the fifth, one, two, three, four, five, there were six messages, exchanges on the second'.

Reply 'Okay right'.

1578 'And five exchanges on the fourth'.

Reply 'Erm'.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

is it ironic then that Alex Trelinski also worked for Radio Leicester?

All these coincidences keep right on coming!

I'm sorry to soil PeterMac's important place here on CMOMM with tales of 'The Olive Oyl Press'. I can only liken it to the stench of dirty nappies left overnight in a car boot.

This set off alarm bells recently..



Fiona Govan wrote extensively for The Telegraph covering the story of Madeleine McCann's disappearance back in 2007/2008. More accurately I should say she propagated the team McCann narrative.

Now look where she is - working alongside Jon Clarke, not that I can say that's a good career move but govan the opportunity, I would rather downsize in the beauty and sun of Spain than trust my luck upsizing in the depressing cold and wet slushy England.

And then some..



That word again..

MISSING MADDIE Madeleine McCann’s parents reveal hunt for daughter is ‘like Groundhog day’ as they face 15th Christmas without her

   Tracey Kandohla Niamh Cavanagh

   19:35, 24 Dec 2021Updated: 1:44, 25 Dec 2021

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17139440/madeleine-mccann-parents-hunt-daughter-groundhog-day/

Funny that innit?

'Who let the hogs out ....'  



NB:  Sorry I can't copy over the Olive Press stuff 'n nonsense - I don't/won't subscribe.  Second thoughts strike that, I'm not in the least bit sorry.

Verdi wrote:And then some..



That word again..

MISSING MADDIE Madeleine McCann’s parents reveal hunt for daughter is ‘like Groundhog day’ as they face 15th Christmas without her

   Tracey Kandohla Niamh Cavanagh

   19:35, 24 Dec 2021Updated: 1:44, 25 Dec 2021

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17139440/madeleine-mccann-parents-hunt-daughter-groundhog-day/

Funny that innit?

'Who let the hogs out ....'  



NB:  Sorry I can't copy over the Olive Press stuff 'n nonsense - I don't/won't subscribe.  Second thoughts strike that, I'm not in the least bit sorry.

We don't do fake news on this forum anyway. As for the owner, Fake news super-journo with the time machine, Jon Clarke, has most of us blocked on Twitter.