He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth
So said the head of the Portuguese Police Professional Association when talking of the British government's media monitoring unit director, Clarence Mitchell. Don't take his word for it - judge for yourselves.
The preface to Kate McCann's book 'madeleine', published in May 2011, states that her reason for writing the book was to give her version of the truth for Madeleine and the twins Amelie and Sean when they were old enough to understand.
From the perspective of a casual observer a very strange thing to say, particularly as the afore named offspring Madeleine was missing and had been missing since May 2007, some four years earlier. Not to be unreasonably critical as who knows how the loss of a child affects the reasoning unless personally involved in such a tragedy. Heaven forbid.
The truth is undoubtedly a fundamental ingredient to investigating and solving the disappearance of a three year old little girl, without that truth the investigation is flawed from the beginning, making it very difficult if not impossible to solve - this appears to be the case with the disappearance of little Madeleine McCann.
I tire of hearing suggestions of damage limitation, in reality what does that mean? This is not the reputation of an individual or corporation that needs it's public profile to be protected or restored, it's a criminal investigation into the disappearance of a three year old child - can you see the difference? This begs the question why Gerry and Kate McCann required the services of a public relations representative from the very beginning, the 4th May 2007, to protect their interests? Should their missing child not be their priority, would they not put their life on the line for their own child? No, it seems not.
The British government seconded their media monitoring unit director to Praia da Luz to look after the McCanns interests, to control how the media represented the case of their missing daughter, seemingly to prevaricate and portray their own version of the truth. Starting, by way of example, with the McCanns claim of jemmied shutters and open windows, a story line swiftly related to friends and relations back in the UK, a story line they continue to propagate to this very day, flying in the face of evidence that negates the claim totally. Evidence documented in the Portuguese police process, determined within hours of their arrival at the crime scene - the shutters had not been jemmied, the window to the children's bedroom was not open. The government media monitoring director, one Clarence Mitchell, was however quite willing to publicly repeat the claims made by the McCanns, even going so far as to speak in their defence on many occasions.
An evasion of the truth, the facts, some might say - a public relations damage limitation exercise other might say. Either way the dreaded word 'lie' come into play. The government media monitoring unit director purposely propagated the McCanns version of the truth, knowing full well the evidence was stacked against it. That's of course what public relations is all about but again I ask - why would the parents of a missing child need public relations? Why was a government media monitoring unit director sent hot-foot over to Portugal to protect the interests of the parents of a missing child? After all this is what it's all about.
Not only did Mr Mitchell willingly carry the McCanns innocence burden as a representative of the British government for over four months, he even resigned his position with the government to become the MCanns full-time spokesman - so sure was he of their total innocence, irrespective of all the evidence stacked against them.
So where is this essential ingredient, the truth, hidden? In the mouth of Clarence Mitchell or in the thorough professional Portuguese police investigation? Is not the former tantamount to accusing the Portuguese authorities of falsifying evidence - of lying?
Look and the facts and judge for yourself.
It's all here and a whole lot more..