Operation in search for Maddie McCann

by Unanswered 13.05.14 15:43

Hello All

Sorry to post this as my 1st post (and not to fully introduce myself) soz

but I am was a little bothered to read this article [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The bit that I am a little confused over is the comments section, and the character Adrian's comments.

If this is widespread news, (as I cannot see it being hidden) due to the fact of all the "agencies" etc. involved is it creditable?

Thanks

U

by whatliesbehindthesofa 13.05.14 15:48

This Adrian looks like an attention seeker to me. He could have gone to the Portuguese press and told them what he knew. That would get a body dug up pretty sharpish. Nah, this person is seeking attention.

by mariola 13.05.14 15:54

Adrian should tell us all where he thinks the body is.He can do so here or in the olive press.

by AskTheDogsSandra 13.05.14 15:55

There's also this post by Jon Clarke who is clearly talking about PeterMac and seems to think he is better than a retired high ranking detective who has read all the files and been to PDL himself with an American criminal profiler!

Not to mention THE DOGS!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
May 13th, 2014 9:44 am

FYI the Olive Press is not supporting PM’s personal views at all… Indeed we openly disagree… Having investigated this case ourselves (on 4 trips to Praia) we believe the parents are innocent…
However on this very point he, as does anyone, has a right to his view and, read again please, these are not crazy unsubstantiated claims. And the comments are being modified and this stream will be shut down if it sinks further into a slanging match.
PM’s comments are relevant as he lives in Spain, actually was a senior police executive for many years and we have never heard he was disgraced in any way. He also runs a solid business, pays his taxes and mostly behaves himself, we understand!

by **Nina** 13.05.14 15:58

PeterMac, you are being mentioned in dispatches.

by AndyB 13.05.14 16:00

AskTheDogsSandra wrote:There's also this post by Jon Clarke who is clearly talking about PeterMac and seems to think he is better than a retired high ranking detective who has read all the files and been to PDL himself with an American criminal profiler!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
May 13th, 2014 9:44 am

FYI the Olive Press is not supporting PM’s personal views at all… Indeed we openly disagree… Having investigated this case ourselves (on 4 trips to Praia) we believe the parents are innocent…
However on this very point he, as does anyone, has a right to his view and, read again please, these are not crazy unsubstantiated claims. And the comments are being modified and this stream will be shut down if it sinks further into a slanging match.
PM’s comments are relevant as he lives in Spain, actually was a senior police executive for many years and we have never heard he was disgraced in any way. He also runs a solid business, pays his taxes and mostly behaves himself, we understand!

I'd be very interested in reading a detailed article by the Olive Press that describes exactly what happened, why the T9 statements make no sense and contradict each other and explaining all the other anomalies while simultaneously leaving the parents innocent of any involvement

by Guest 13.05.14 16:10

AskTheDogsSandra wrote:There's also this post by Jon Clarke who is clearly talking about PeterMac and seems to think he is better than a retired high ranking detective who has read all the files and been to PDL himself with an American criminal profiler!

Not to mention THE DOGS!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
May 13th, 2014 9:44 am

FYI the Olive Press is not supporting PM’s personal views at all… Indeed we openly disagree… Having investigated this case ourselves (on 4 trips to Praia) we believe the parents are innocent…
However on this very point he, as does anyone, has a right to his view and, read again please, these are not crazy unsubstantiated claims. And the comments are being modified and this stream will be shut down if it sinks further into a slanging match.
PM’s comments are relevant as he lives in Spain, actually was a senior police executive for many years and we have never heard he was disgraced in any way. He also runs a solid business, pays his taxes and mostly behaves himself, we understand!

I ran Jon Clarke's comments through Google translate:

PM is trustworthy and his claims are not crazy and/or unsubstantiated. PLEASE DON'T SUE US MCCANNS! PLEASE, PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE

by mariola 13.05.14 16:15

AskTheDogsSandra wrote:There's also this post by Jon Clarke who is clearly talking about PeterMac and seems to think he is better than a retired high ranking detective who has read all the files and been to PDL himself with an American criminal profiler!

Not to mention THE DOGS!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
May 13th, 2014 9:44 am

FYI the Olive Press is not supporting PM’s personal views at all… Indeed we openly disagree… Having investigated this case ourselves (on 4 trips to Praia) we believe the parents are innocent…
However on this very point he, as does anyone, has a right to his view and, read again please, these are not crazy unsubstantiated claims. And the comments are being modified and this stream will be shut down if it sinks further into a slanging match.
PM’s comments are relevant as he lives in Spain, actually was a senior police executive for many years and we have never heard he was disgraced in any way. He also runs a solid business, pays his taxes and mostly behaves himself, we understand!

The is mind blowing.Jon Clarke is a publisher and has investigated the case and yet he thinks the McCanns are innocent.What planet is he on?

by 1soapy 13.05.14 16:17

I am not sure that those arguing for the innocence of the McCann's could give a detailed account of what happened, without contradictions and without a whole range of responses begging to be asked in return.... as I don't think those who believe the McCann's to be guilty could explain things without contradictions and a whole range of responses wanting to be asked in return. And I don't think either proves or disproves their case at this stage. This forum is called the COMPLETE mystery of Madeleine McCann... at the moment. Maybe it can be renamed the partial mystery soon?! Perhaps there are individuals here who feel they would like a good go though? I know a few (e.g. on other sites) have tried and with seeming success at the time and up to the point of evidence available at the time. At explaining the circumstances with guilt attributed to the McCanns. Not sure about explanations with the McCanns as being innocent of anything more than neglect.
Just trying to show some impartiality here.
In light of the comment about thorough investigators holding the McCann's innocent. I believe that if you come from an ignorant (or media based) perspective to a site like this AND look at at least some of the files, you would be convinced quite overwhelmingly of the guilt of certain folk. If you already hold a pro-McCann view and/or have fought with people like who exist on this forum, then it would be very hard to change viewpoints. Almost like a religion. IMO. I think it MUCH less likely that one could first hold a guilty view and THEN change it.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.05.14 16:17

Article with my comments in blue below

Operation in search for Maddie McCann ‘planned for long time and at a high level’ says detective

THE search for Madeleine McCann has gone all around the globe and is now returning to where to all began.

Scotland Yard detectives have been granted permission by Portuguese authorities to begin excavating three key sites in the Algarve holiday resort where she vanished in 2007.

The searches will begin within weeks.

But a former senior detective, based in Spain, who doesn’t want to be named, told the Olive Press that he believes the operation has been planned for a very long time.

“Military helicopters are not just hired by the hour on the spur of the moment, like catamarans on the beach,” he said.

“The whole thing has been approved at a very high level. By which I mean government.”

The former career detective, now based in Andalucia, continued: “This isn’t just any other search. Someone must have spelled out exactly what they want to look for, exactly where they want to look, and exactly why.

“And this must have been agreed as a viable and useful thing to do by the entire chain of command.”

YES, PeterMac from here has effectively been 'outed' by Jon Clarke and the commentators.

The operation comes just days after the seventh anniversary of Maddie’s disappearance, on May 3.

Gerry and Kate McCann, both 45, are fully informed about the developments in the hunt for their daughter, but will not be travelling to the resort while the work is carried out.

One of the key areas to be searched is a patch of wasteland, about the size of three football pitches, across the road from where the McCanns were staying – at the Ocean Club.

Another area is the tapas bar where they were dining when three-year-old Maddie disappeared.

The overgrown area, beside a school, was an open expanse at the time but is now fenced off.

Aerial photographs are set to be taken of the area, to assess the land, while officers on the ground will look for disturbances of rocks, excess soil and moved vegetation.

The searches will be conducted by Portuguese police, with British detectives on site alongside them.

While there has long been speculation that Maddie could have been taken across the border into Spain, the case has now decisively returned to Portugal.

The Olive Press was the first newspaper on the scene following her disappearance.

And Jon Clarke has resolutely failed to explain, despite being asked repeatedly:

1. WHEN he got the summons to go to Praia da Luz

2. WHO told him to go there

3. HOW LONG it took him to get from his home nesar Ronda in Spain to Praia da Luz on the south-west coast of Portugal - normally a journey of 5 to 6 hours

4. HOW HE CAME TO BE IN PRAIA DA LUZ on the MORNING of Friday 4 May, as he boasted in an edition of the Olive Press back in October 2007.

If he got there before noon, he must have set off from his home before 7am - and must have got the summons from someone in the media.

Who called you, Jon Clarke, and when?

Editor Jon Clarke was asked to cover the story by The Daily Mail, Sun and Mirror, while they scrambled to send their own reporters out.

Some of the paper’s key findings was the level of slackness surrounding the initial search.

Numerous people, including neighbour and former suspect Robert Murat, were able to traipse around the crime scene unimpeded,

OK, so on what basis does Jon Clarke purport to KNOW that Robert Murat was 'allowed to traipse around the crime scene unimpeded'?

From where has he got the evidences for that?

while sniffer dogs did not even arrive until around 4pm the following day.

Incredibly on the morning after her disappearance, workmen were even allowed to continue digging up a trench in the road right outside her rental home.

It soon emerged that none of the cameras on the motorway to Spain, where it was believed Maddie could have been taken, were working.

“The whole operation was a complete shambles from the beginning,” explains Clarke.

Like any journalist, Clarke gets paid by those who hire him - and has to tow their line - or else.

“To say the police were half asleep would be an under-statement.”

In an open letter to the media, Met Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said: “This case has for some time been moving towards increased action in Portugal.

“Whilst the process is more bureaucratic and slower than we would wish, I now believe that activity will occur in forthcoming weeks.

“The most important task for me is to build momentum and protect our investigation in order that we can do everything possible to solve the case.”

There is an article on this forum about one of the most absurd Madeleine stories ever to appear, the one about the basketball-paying 'amateur detective' from Angola, Marcelinho Italiano, having allegedly 'fled' from Portugal to Spain after having had two of his teeth knocked out by members of a gang of vicious paedophiles who had taken Madeleine to the U.S.

The article was SOURCED FROM JON CLARKE, who was a key figure in the whole story.

LINK: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by jeanmonroe 13.05.14 16:36

Jon Clarke (Publisher)
May 13th, 2014 9:44 am

FYI the Olive Press is not supporting PM’s personal views at all… Indeed we openly disagree… Having investigated this case ourselves (on 4 trips to Praia) we believe the parents are innocent…
----------------------------------------------------

"we believe the parents are innocent…"

BECAUSE?

Please TELL us, Jon Clarke, pretty please!.

by 1soapy 13.05.14 16:39

and of what exactly and are they guilty of anything?

by jeanmonroe 13.05.14 16:48

1soapy wrote:and of what exactly and are they guilty of anything?

Did you mean "and of what exactly?"

"and are they guilty of anything'?
---------------------------------------------------

And of exactly WHAT are they (the 'parents') 'innocent of' according to Jon Clarke?

The 'parents' are certainly 'guilty' of leaving THREE children, all under the age of 4 years old, alone, in a totally unsecured/totally unlocked apartment, in a foreign country, out of sight and earshot, EVERY night of their holiday.

KM 5th August 2007

'That WEEK we had LEFT THEM ALONE while we had dinner.'

by 1soapy 13.05.14 17:15

The question was towards Jon Clarke.

He did not say WHAT it was that they are innocent of. And if everything/anything, does he believe they are guilty of anything and to what extent (e.g. should they be punished)?

by **PeterMac** 13.05.14 18:43

Jon Clarke effectively owns the Olive Press. It is HIS paper.
He went to Pdl on 4th and started writing stuff for NI.
He did not publish a single piece in HIS OWN PAPER, until October (25th I seem to recall !)
He was Paid by several papers, (and the rules apparently permit you to claim expenses in full from both. I am assured - by Jon - that this is legal and OK, and nothing further should be read into that)

But the point is he was a paid hack. Not an independent investigative reporter.
We cannot and do not know what brief he might have been given, verbally, by anyone.

He became defensive when I asked him, - here over a beer - about the ludicrous Anglolan Bouncer story and the way in which he reported it and then the NI papers quoted his story, feeding off it.
NI had given him the "lead' in the first place.
He also became very defensive about the links with NI, until I pointed out that he was named on several of the stories in conjunction with Lazzeri.

by **PeterMac** 13.05.14 18:51

What was also interesting was that in the comments I included reference to the DOGS
And all hell broke loose, as it always does when people do.

I suspect, obviously that some of the ANONs are paid shills, possibly close to Rothley itself, whose sole purposes it to disrupt any comments thread which attempts to discuss
and since they have nothing else to say, the argumentum ad hominem (abusive) is the easiest wasy to do it.

So let us state again, in case they are watching this thread.
1 The dogs revealed the previous presence of a deceased human - or of materials closely connected with a deceased human - in apartment 5A
2 No (other) person is recoded as having died in 5A
3 The parents BOTH told lies to the investigating police officers, from their very first contact with them
4 The dogs also alerted to indicate contact with materials associated with a deceased human, on clothing owned and worn by Kate and on items associated with Gerry.

by **tigger** 13.05.14 19:11

PeterMac wrote:Jon Clarke effectively owns the Olive Press. It is HIS paper.
He went to Pdl on 4th and started writing stuff for NI.
He did not publish a single piece in HIS OWN PAPER, until October (25th I seem to recall !)
He was Paid by several papers, (and the rules apparently permit you to claim expenses in full from both. I am assured - by Jon - that this is legal and OK, and nothing further should be read into that)

But the point is he was a paid hack. Not an independent investigative reporter.
We cannot and do not know what brief he might have been given, verbally, by anyone.

He became defensive when I asked him, - here over a beer - about the ludicrous Anglolan Bouncer story and the way in which he reported it and then the NI papers quoted his story, feeding off it.
NI had given him the "lead' in the first place.
He also became very defensive about the links with NI, until I pointed out that he was named on several of the stories in conjunction with Lazzeri.

He was also alerted very early by the newspapers he mentions to arrive in PdL around midday. A six hour drive.
If they were struggling to get their reporters over there and must have alerted Clarke before six in the morning.
Which is fine, but six hours should be enough to get a journalist on a 2 hour flight to Lisbon or preferably Lagos imo.

He gives the wrong information on the GNR dogs, which arrived around 2 in the morning, specialist sniffer dogs were brought from Lisbon and were operational by 11.00 p.m. on the 4th.

by Doug D 13.05.14 19:31

Wasn't going to bother posting this, but now the thread is up and running:

Comment from James:

'this man is posting the same rubbish on a hate site which has now stated its members need to think of ways to halt the investigation.'

I must have missed that!!!!!!!

by **PeterMac** 13.05.14 19:43

The pro-shills are seriously deluded.

by Seek truth 13.05.14 21:40

jeanmonroe wrote:Jon Clarke (Publisher)
May 13th, 2014 9:44 am

FYI the Olive Press is not supporting PM’s personal views at all… Indeed we openly disagree… Having investigated this case ourselves (on 4 trips to Praia) we believe the parents are innocent…
----------------------------------------------------

"we believe the parents are innocent…"

BECAUSE?

Please TELL us, Jon Clarke, pretty please!.

Funny when many people on the Internet say they don't believe the mccanns, they explain why.
But those who say the mccanns are innocent have little to say, would love to know why they're innocent.

by Unanswered 14.05.14 12:27

Thank you all for the interesting comments which discredit the initial report.

I think that I was taken in by the comments section at the bottom with respect to comments from Adrian.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

At the time, I was looking at the claim by Stephen Birch, and the possible evidence/implication of RM being "framed" for the act.

I am not sure if this Adrian is anyway related to the "Stephen Birch" claim, or it is entirely different, due to the fact Stephen Birch didn't officially get involved i.e. his investigation wasn't until 2012. It is also at odds due to the "depth" dimensions.

I understand that Adrian could be another crank, but it just struck me that his "revelation" seemed to be quite well constructed.

U

by By Numbers 14.05.14 16:26

I'm always interested in what, or whom, people try to discredit. A poster on the David Icke forum who was there, you know, just correct us all on the facts, and be neutral, and was most definitely, decidedly not there to misinform or subtly undermine anyone whose accounts people might listen to, stated that Peter MacLeod wasn't a real police officer. Funnily enough, when asked to back this up with the facts of which s/he was such a fan, s/he appeared to lose the ability to read precisely this one question. It'd be a shame if an article such as this would mean s/he had to go the bother of having to create a whole new persona and backstory.