Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #25

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #621

Troll campaign ? Poor Jon Clark ...

For case people don't know one does have to pay $50 or more to amazon (on the last year) to be able to leave comments/reviews and even so those will be checked by amazon staff. Also the reviews will have a mark as a Verified Purchase.

For "trolls" to write revievs it wouldn't be just as simple as creating an account, write something and go away. One would need to pay at least $50 for that account, buy the book to be Verified Purchase and only then write the review and wait for it to be moderated. Not likeley at all that "Trolls" would go to the trouble of doing that. Also I can see only 1 or 2 bad reviews there....

But I can see many reviews there that do look like written by Jon himself ...
 
  • #622

This is interesting ....

The so-called ‘trolling’ of the well-researched book byOlive Press editor Jon Clarke is causing considerable commercial damage.

If JC cares so much for the case and MM why not simply publish the book as a free PDF or something like that ? Why would it matter that he can't make more money over MM case just because he have 1 or 2 bad reviews on amazon ? :confused::confused::confused:

It just shows very well what his priorities are...
 
  • #623
(...)

And for all others,who discouraged into buying or reading his book,only have to say,that MSM is just the same.

Newspaper articles can be very contradictory, also...
(...)

Unfortunatly you are 100% correct so if one doesn't have access to process files of a specific case one does need to get all info from MSM and see what does make sense and what is pure lie.

Even when one does have access to process files of specific cases info there might still be not 100% clear and well explained but that is another story, at least it's NOT what the media/press wants us to believe for thir own agenda...

Example, when PJ stated that MM parents did kill her a bunch of MSM news would "apear" with lots of "facts" that would make the reader go intro that direction, now that CB is the prime suspect many media articles will compile lot of info that will make readers go intro that direction, etc ...
 
  • #624
I’ve received my copy of Jon Clarke’s book. I noticed him giving credit to this Forum. Can we please engage with what is written in his book?

Interesting. Back on 18/09 you posted this :

Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #25

(...)He has uncovered valuable and important new information that hasn’t been in the public domain, thus far.

So ... How did you know that JC did uncover valuable information if you only got your copy of the book now ?

But sure ! Let's talk about all of that new information that JC did uncover and it's not on the public domain ...
 
  • #625
This is interesting ....

The so-called ‘trolling’ of the well-researched book byOlive Press editor Jon Clarke is causing considerable commercial damage.

If JC cares so much for the case and MM why not simply publish the book as a free PDF or something like that ? Why would it matter that he can't make more money over MM case just because he have 1 or 2 bad reviews on amazon ? :confused::confused::confused:

It just shows very well what his priorities are...

Maybe JC will take your invaluable advice. He is known to read this forum.
 
  • #626
  • #627
Maybe JC will take your invaluable advice, as he is known to read this forum.

My major issue with JC is simply the fact that he tells a bunch of lies to make the rest of the stuff he states to apear more credible to the ones willing to accept what is easier rather than what makes sense.

Example: When on his book he describes the factory where CB was as "horrible" because it does have a grave (anyone can see that would be impossible to hide a body of a ching on that hole on the ground), there is a car full of bullets (if you check the photo of the car on the factory you will clearly see that those marks were not made by bullets as bullets would punch holes on the car), then he talks about cirurgical scissors (to make people think about MM being killed/tortured with scissors like in horror/snuff movie) while in fact in Germany (and many other coutries) by law you need to have first aid kit on your car and most likely that scissors just came from one (or even if it didn't what are the chances that it was still lying there and HCW didn't care about it), etc ...

He just puts in a bunch of lies to make the rest look more credible.
 
  • #628
Maybe JC will take your invaluable advice. He is known to read this forum.

I did write to him, to Olive press and all major papers where he did promote his book. I pay the amazon the $50 in stuff that i didn't need to be able to left my comment on his book (yet they are still reviewing it), so yes, i did go to the lengh of trouble to do so because i was trully annoyed at some of the stuff that he wrote that I do know as 100% fact to be bul*** simply added to make his story more credible.
 
  • #629
And about JC, In 2013 FAPE, the Federación de Asociaciones de Periodistas de España - the Spanish Journalists’ Association, handed down a judgment against “The Olive Press” and Jon Clarke for having published a long article entitled “Maddie? Yes, but not the one we were looking for...” and found it infringed Articles 4 and 13 of the FAPE Ethical Code for not having respected the right to personal and family privacy of M.A., a minor, and of her parents, Mr. L. A. and Mrs. R. E., and also did not bother to check the sources of the information.

FAPE Judgment against Olive Press 2013/82

RESOLUCIÓN 2013/82

http://www.comisiondequejas.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/82.pdf

La información publicada en “The Olive Press” es un ejemplo de sensacionalismo irresponsable para atraer la atención del eventual lector. Su contenido es charlatanería en estado puro, “gossip” en el idioma en el cual se ha escrito y en el lenguaje periodístico “amarillismo “, siempre reprochable pero mucho más cuando se puede poner en peligro al sujeto pasivo de la información que irrumpe inesperadamente en el ámbito de la intimidad de la menor, una niña de ocho años, sacándola a la luz pública con perjuicio de su estabilidad emocional e incluso con riesgo para su integridad personal.

[translation]. “In the reasoning of this resolution it states that the journalist has acted with remarkable flippancy and published a scandalous story based on very flimsy material. The information published in "The Olive Press" is an example of irresponsible sensationalism to attract the attention of the prospective reader. Its content is pure charlatanry, "gossip" in the language in which it has been written and in journalistic language “amarillismo", [sensationalist journalism] always reprehensible but much more when an innocent subject of the information can be endangered”

VII.- RESOLUCIÓN

Teniendo en consideración los anteriores razonamientos de la ponencia, esta Comisión de Arbitraje, Quejas y Deontología del periodismo ACUERDA que don Jon Clarke, editor de “The Olive Press” y doña Wendy Williams, autora del reportaje “Maddie? Yes … but not the right one” han infringido los arts. 4º y 13 del Código Deontológico FAPE por no haber respetado el derecho a la intimidad personal y familiar de Madeleine A., menor de edad, y de sus padres, el señor L. A. y la señora R. E., ni haber cuidado de contrastar las fuentes de la información, no dándoles además la oportunidad de ofrecer su propia versión sobre los hechos. Madrid, 6 de noviembre de 2013

[translation]. In 2013 FAPE, the Federación de Associationes de Periodistas de España - the Spanish Journalists’ Association, – “is agreed that Mr Jon Clarke, editor of “The Olive Press” and Wendy Williams, the author of the report, “Maddie? Yes, but not the one we were looking for . . .” infringed Articles 4 and 13 of the FAPE Ethical Code for not having respected the right to personal and family privacy of M.A., a minor, and of her parents, Mr. L. A. and Mrs. R. E., and also neither bothered to check the sources of the information, nor gave them the opportunity to offer their own version of events.”

Madrid, 6 November 2013
 
  • #630
  • #631
I’ve received my copy of Jon Clarke’s book. I noticed him giving credit to this Forum. Can we please engage with what is written in his book?

I've only read the extracts (kindly posted by @Betty_Boop88 ) earlier in the thread.

Have you now read it all, Tekno? Are there bits you find particularly interesting/enlightening?
 
  • #632
  • #633
  • #634
Maybe JC will take your invaluable advice. He is known to read this forum.

He won't. My advice will not help him out to make money at the cost of the sadness/pain of others.
 
  • #635
Hello WS's been inactive on here in ages, just dropping by to say Hi :)x
 
  • #636
  • #637
Interesting. Back on 18/09 you posted this :

Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #25

(...)He has uncovered valuable and important new information that hasn’t been in the public domain, thus far.

So ... How did you know that JC did uncover valuable information if you only got your copy of the book now ?

But sure ! Let's talk about all of that new information that JC did uncover and it's not on the public domain ...
vermisstekindersuche,
1. I am an avid reader, skilled with various reading/comprehension techniques.
2. Have you read the book?
3. Let’s engage in what Clarke’s book reveals.
4. Kindly, drop your passive aggression.
 
  • #638
  • #639
For case people don't know one does have to pay $50 or more to amazon (on the last year) to be able to leave comments/reviews and even so those will be checked by amazon staff. Also the reviews will have a mark as a Verified Purchase.

That's not true. People can easily review a product on Amazon that they never purchased. Their review won't say they purchased the item, but they are still allowed to leave the review. There are many articles out there discussing fake reviews on Amazon and ways to recognize them, because anyone can review any item.
If your review of this book wasn't approved, I assume it either violated TOS or wasn't written in the expected language.
IMO.
 
  • #640
I've only read the extracts (kindly posted by @Betty_Boop88 ) earlier in the thread.

Have you now read it all, Tekno? Are there bits you find particularly interesting/enlightening?
I have, Anxala. Clarke uses the conventional method of revisiting and examining what has thus far been uncovered in Madeleine’s disappearance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
122
Guests online
2,332
Total visitors
2,454

Forum statistics

Threads
632,113
Messages
18,622,197
Members
243,023
Latest member
roxxbott579
Back
Top