Is Clarence Mitchell telling us something new about apt 5a?

by worriedmum 27.06.14 22:42

I have brought this clip over from another thread, with thanks to Newintown for bringing it to our attention.

During this Sky interview Clarence Mitchell responds to the opinion proffered by Mark Williams -Thomas that Madeleine could have wandered out of the apartment and have been 'scooped up', as Clarence Mitchell puts it,by an abductor. Mitchell is quick to refute this suggestion, citing the 'open window' and the 'closing of the patio doors' as evidence that Madeleine could not have accomplished these acts, ergo , it must have been an abductor who entered the apartment.

What he says next is very interesting,

...''WOULD SHE HAVE CLOSED THE PATIO DOORS BEHIND HER, LAID OUT TOYS, THAT APPARENTLY ,NO, ONLY CUDDLE CAT WAS THERE AND IT SIMPLY DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY, KATE KNOWS THAT''

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

from about 3.40

by Guest 27.06.14 23:02

Fossey one more post like that and you will be out of here.

by worriedmum 01.09.15 20:00

Does anyone know what toys he is referring to?

by HelenMeg 01.09.15 20:16

He seems to do a hasty backtrack... interesting

by tinkier 02.09.15 0:57

worriedmum wrote:I have brought this clip over from another thread, with thanks to Newintown for bringing it to our attention.

During this Sky interview Clarence Mitchell responds to the opinion proffered by Mark Williams -Thomas that Madeleine could have wandered out of the apartment and have been 'scooped up', as Clarence Mitchell puts it,by an abductor. Mitchell is quick to refute this suggestion, citing the 'open window' and the 'closing of the patio doors' as evidence that Madeleine could not have accomplished these acts, ergo , it must have been an abductor who entered the apartment.

What he says next is very interesting,

...''WOULD SHE HAVE CLOSED THE PATIO DOORS BEHIND HER, LAID OUT TOYS, THAT APPARENTLY ,NO, ONLY CUDDLE CAT WAS THERE AND IT SIMPLY DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY, KATE KNOWS THAT''

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

from about 3.40

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

I can't seem to access the above, states video private?

by lj 02.09.15 1:59

Can't see the video either.

by worriedmum 02.09.15 11:20

Looks like it's been whooshed?

by tinkier 02.09.15 11:31

worriedmum wrote:Looks like it's been whooshed?

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

HelenMeg must have seen it, she made a comment just the other day. Someone must be monitoring this forum very very closely!

by **tigger** 02.09.15 14:42

Toys - plural.
Which day did Kate appear with a cabbage doll in mainly yellow and green. Father Pacheto behind her. Was that after or before the triumphant exit from the church on the 12th?

by worriedmum 03.09.15 0:20

Wasn't there some discussion about this doll?Does anyone else remember?

by tinkier 03.09.15 0:27

worriedmum wrote:Wasn't there some discussion about this doll?Does anyone else remember?

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

The green rag doll was supposed to be a birthday present for Madeleine's 4th birthday.

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

by worriedmum 03.09.15 0:33

Thanks for posting the picture and information, Tinkier. In that case, it surely won't be one of the toys Clarence Mitchell may have been alluding to?
Do you think Clarence just made a mistake about 'toys'? It feels as if he started to say one thing then changed his mind...Hobs, Hobs, where are you Hobs?

by **tigger** 03.09.15 11:10

tinkier wrote:
worriedmum wrote:Wasn't there some discussion about this doll?Does anyone else remember?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The green rag doll was supposed to be a birthday present for Madeleine's 4th birthday.

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

Ahh! thanks. That's early. Now:

Why was this birthday present in PdL on the 12th? Surely it should have been hidden from sight in Rothley Towers? (Maddie might otherwise have seen the present before her birthday)
Who took it with them to PdL? Surely there was no time in the early days, when large parts of the family descended on PdL within hours of zero hour?
Then left after a few days - even so, it seems unlikely that anyone took this present with them, even more unlikely that it was sent to Kate in time for her birthday.
Wonder if it's mentioned in the book.

Clarence is saying 'laid out the toys' - Kate's main evidence for abduction was the items left on the bed (c.q. the non existent high shelf) a Princess pink blanket and a pink Cuddlecat. Is Clarence saying that there was in fact a 'laying out' of toys? But that it wasn't done by Maddie? So then it would have been either Kate or the abductor who 'laid out' the toys.

Cuddlecat had two websites all for himself within weeks. For some reason the ragdoll didn't.
I suppose carting cuddlecat and ragdoll around would have been a bit of a crush and the essential role of Cuddlecat was that it was Maddie's favourite toy - since she was a baby. Two favourites would be too many imo, in fact the pink blanket may have been the only real comfort item Maddie really ever used. Cuddlecat looked brand-new and was initially reported to have been a birthday present from her godfather - who may or may not have been Jon Corner - on her 4th birthday.

Somewhere along the line Cuddlecat was selected for the starring role and the ragdoll (which was new, like CC) seems to have left without leaving an address. No Amelie or Sean seen toting it around.

The main story clearly needed adjusting in the early days. I apologise for going on about such trifles, but imo they are important - because it should be a simple story and it never has been.

Maddie had a favourite toy, old and used 'reeking of her DNA'. (Jon Corner) . Kate was carrying a newish toy and washed it several times, DNA or no.