Candid Camera: Clarence Mitchell

Exclusive: 'Twice in the past ten years, I thought we'd found Madeleine McCann'

By Clarence Mitchell - 28th April 2017

A former BBC reporter, Clarence Mitchell was appointed to assist [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] as their media spokesman following the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine, in Portugal in 2007. Mitchell now works for a public relations company and continues to assist the McCanns when necessary. Here is his  incredible account of the youngster's disappearance, the police operation to find her and the  subsequent 10 years of anguish....

Twice in the ten years I have worked with the McCanns, I genuinely thought we were within reach of finding their missing daughter, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

The first moment came very early on, just weeks after her disappearance on May 3, 2007. I had been sent by the British government to the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz to assist Kate and Gerry in dealing with the already huge media interest.

Shortly after I arrived, I started to get phone calls, always at three o’clock in the morning, always the same ghostly man’s voice, repeatedly naming a farm where she was being hidden.

The British police recorded the calls and it turned out there was indeed a farm, fitting his description exactly, near [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. As it was raided, and turned out to look exactly as he had painted it in those calls, I really felt we were on to something. But she wasn’t there, and those tip-offs – like so many others that we received from hoaxers, ransom seekers, conmen and psychics – were never explained.

The second came at the end of 2007. I was now being employed by Kate and Gerry as their press spokesman, and they were back at home in Leicestershire with their twins, Sean and Amelie. Spanish private investigators working on their behalf had [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of Morocco. All the information coming back to us suggested heavily that it could be Madeleine, so much so that an aircraft was put on stand-by, with its engines running, waiting to fly to pick her up.

Kate and Gerry sat tight. They had learned by that stage to be sceptical, not to give in to natural hope only for it to be dashed. They preferred to wait until the Moroccan authorities had checked it out. And when they did, it became clear she was not Madeleine.

On the tenth anniversary of her disappearance, I continue to assist Kate and Gerry as required, keeping a weather eye on reports and sightings, such as the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]said this week that Scotland Yard’s Operation Grange is following up.

Beyond that, rightly, the Metropolitan Police do not go into operational detail publicly. So, wherever this latest lead may take them, be it Portugal or elsewhere, this time around, like Kate and Gerry, I will sit tight and simply let the authorities do their job before getting my hopes up.

I had [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] before becoming a civil servant and helping the McCanns. I met Gerry first. It was some two weeks after Madeleine had gone missing, and he had flown back to England to collect some of her belongings and see members of their large, close extended family.

Obviously, he was distressed, but also very rational. As I have subsequently learnt by spending time with the couple at close quarters, Gerry deals with trauma by compartmentalising it and being in control. His emotions, then as now, are poured into what he can do practically to raise awareness of Madeleine’s disappearance.


In Portugal, I found Kate very friendly, grateful for the support I could offer, but already wary of the media attention. Even though she realised that it was invaluable in keeping awareness high, she – more so that Gerry – found it very intrusive.

That was before it turned into something altogether more cruel, with the McCanns becoming widely vilified for making a mistake in the way in which they chose to care for their children on that fateful night in Praia da Luz. They had left them in an unlocked holiday apartment, though still checking on them regularly, because there was no baby-listening service at their complex.

They were always the first to admit their mistake, but what a price they are still paying. God forbid it is a price they may have to pay for the rest of their lives. I was with them, in private, away from the cameras on many occasions, when they were in absolute grief and misery.

For all the doubters, they have never done or said anything at any time that has given me any cause for suspicion that they were anything other than the innocent victims of a dreadful crime. Before that first meeting with Gerry, I was briefed by British police working alongside the Portuguese on the case. They told me then, categorically, that they had “cleared the ground beneath their feet”.

In other words, the British authorities believed that Gerry and Kate were categorically not guilty of any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.

Yet the Portuguese police turned against them, naming them as arguido, a technical term conferring certain legal rights that is clumsily and misleadingly translated into English as “suspect”. You can become an arguido over the most minor traffic offence.

By that time, though, I had been called back by the government to London, but Kate and Gerry were ringing me at four in the morning saying: “We’ve been out here in Portugal too long, we’ve been stitched up, we’re about to be arrested, it’s all dreadful.”

Other than being sympathetic, I couldn’t do anything to help them. So when the offer came to work for them full-time, I took it in an instant.

What stands out, looking back over ten years, is the sheer lunacy of the accusations made against them.

There was, for instance, the theory entertained by the Portuguese police that their daughter had somehow been killed accidentally and that they then had [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. I was there when the keys to that car were handed over to them, at their apartment; they hired it several weeks after Madeleine had disappeared.

Even if they had already got their daughter’s body out of the holiday apartment and stored it somewhere (a fridge was suggested, ridiculously), the police theory would mean that, in the full view of the world’s media, who were camped on their doorstep around the clock, the McCanns would have had to put her into the boot and then shaken off the ever-present paparazzi to dispose of her. It was as implausible as it was utterly offensive.

Later, in the autumn of 2007, when we were all back in England, a team of Portuguese police officers came to interview me about the times I had ridden in that car with Kate and Gerry. Did I notice any unusual smells in the hire car, they asked? It was beyond laughable. It also revealed, I felt, frightening ineptitude.

By then, a whole, vile cottage industry had grown around the case, with retired police officers who had nothing to do with the investigation appearing on Portuguese TV to suggest, for example, the McCanns had been at a swingers’ party on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Kate, in particular, got deeply angry. There was no shouting, sobbing or throwing things. It was more of a simmering but intense rage that things could be so misrepresented and so blatantly unfair.

Their real fury, though, was that such lazy reporting of wild untruths would actually mislead people and so hinder the search for Madeleine. That was why they took legal action against [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the Portuguese police officer who wrote a very unpleasant book about them after being removed from the investigation. If people in Portugal, or elsewhere, believe the claims of an officer who never interviewed them, then Kate and Gerry feared that the public would simply assume Madeleine was dead and forget her.

The pressure would have broken other couples. Occasionally, I would catch them in tears, or hugging each other. But they seem to have coped. If anything, it has brought them together even more, rather than split them apart.

The McCanns are private people. I have never been privy to their innermost thoughts. It is not that sort of relationship. We haven’t even discussed politics. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in the forthcoming election, and my flag is blue; theirs, I’ve always believed, is red. It certainly didn’t affect our friendship.

They have thrown themselves into looking after the twins, trying as best to create a home where reminders of Madeleine are all around them, where she is still very much part of the family, and where they can shield Sean and Amelie against this constant gaze that the family is still under.

We have a good understanding with the British media that, until they are 18, the twins should never be photographed, but we can’t always enforce it. A local paper here or a foreign agency photographer there has occasionally managed to include them “by accident” in a photograph at a school sports day or other public event.

Despite the support they have received, there are still bills to pay. Before Madeleine’s disappearance, Kate was a locum GP, but she has never returned to work. Gerry continues as a senior cardiologist. (It is a tiny point, but symbolic of how almost every fact is twisted in this story. Gerry is not a surgeon, as often inaccurately reported. He is the man who keeps you alive and your essential tubes open when you are having your heart operation under the surgeon’s knife.)
 
Kate and Gerry hate being recognised. When I was with them, we would sometimes walk into a restaurant and the whole place would go quiet as they entered. People are mostly sympathetic. Many just don’t know what to say to them.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
E-fits of men seen acting suspiciously near the apartment on the night Madeleine went missing


Nobody in my experience has ever been bold enough to accuse them of anything unpleasant to their faces. All of the worst, ugly nonsense is online – that Gerry is not Madeleine’s real dad, that paedophilia is somehow involved, that there’s a huge global government conspiracy to cover something up.

One of the most ridiculous and offensive theories I have come across online – and there are many – is that Madeleine had somehow been hidden at the church in Praia da Luz inside a coffin, beneath a body awaiting burial.

I continue to believe Madeleine was abducted for some reason. Kate is sure that, just short of her fourth birthday, Madeleine would not have been capable of wandering out of the apartment, closing the curtains, sliding doors and two small gates behind her.

Nobody in my experience has ever been bold enough to accuse them of anything unpleasant to their faces. All of the worst, ugly nonsense is online – that Gerry is not Madeleine’s real dad, that paedophilia is somehow involved, that there’s a huge global government conspiracy to cover something up.

One of the most ridiculous and offensive theories I have come across online – and there are many – is that Madeleine had somehow been hidden at the church in Praia da Luz inside a coffin, beneath a body awaiting burial.

I continue to believe Madeleine was abducted for some reason. Kate is sure that, just short of her fourth birthday, Madeleine would not have been capable of wandering out of the apartment, closing the curtains, sliding doors and two small gates behind her.


And so the couple keep her bedroom in Leicestershire ready for her return, with the presents there for all the birthdays and Christmases with them that she has missed. It is very much a family-only place. In all my time in their house, that door has remained shut.


They hope and pray that, wherever she is, Madeleine is being looked after. What sustains them is that there is absolutely no evidence of physical harm coming to her. So they will always believe firmly that it is as logical to think she might be alive as it is illogical to assume the worst.

As told to Peter Stanford


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

Clarence Mitchell slams 'lazy' Madeleine McCann coverage

Oliver Luft - 11th November 2008

British journalists following the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] case in Portugal last year were responsible for lazy and distorted stories, the press adviser to the missing child's family, Clarence Mitchell, has said.

Speaking at the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] conference in Bristol yesterday, Mitchell told delegates that he faced the daily problem of dealing with inaccuracies created by a hungry British press pack. He added that 99% of the stories coming out of the local media in Praia da Luiz were "totally inaccurate lies".

Mitchell said that the local bar in Praia da Luiz effectively became the newsroom for the British press pack, with its "lethal combination of Wi-Fi and alcohol".

"The British press out there in Portugal, and I'm not singling out any particular publication, were - I'm afraid to say this and I don't like to say this because I'm a former journalist myself - they were lazy," he told the conference.

He said: "The Portuguese police hid behind the law of judicial secrecy saying they weren't able to comment, either on the record or off the record, but that didn't stop lots of information finding its way from police files into the Portuguese press.

"However, when the British press made inquiries they came up against a stone wall so they resorted to sitting in the local bar, which had the lethal combination of free Wi-Fi and alcohol, and that became the newsroom predictably enough.

"It meant that they then sat every morning just going through whatever had been leaked to the Portuguese papers, 99% of it totally inaccurate lies, 1% I would say distorted or misunderstood through cultural differences in some cases.

"This was then put to me, I would then deny or try to correct it, that would be a quote from me, 'Mitchell's balanced it', that was balanced journalism, and off it went."

Mitchell said that British newspapers put reporters under pressure to come up with new angles and exclusive stories in the months after Madeleine went missing in May last year.

"I had certain reporters from certain groups almost in tears some mornings saying, 'If you don't give me a front-page splash by 4pm I'm going to be fired," he added.

"I can understand the pressure they are under but when I said 'I can't help you, we honestly haven't got anything of value or anything to warrant that coverage' nevertheless a front page would then duly appear in certain titles."

Mitchell added: "Things that were allegations or suggestions in the Portuguese press were hardened up into absolute fact when they crossed the Channel."

He also told the conference yesterday that more than £1m in compensation had now been paid by British newspapers to Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, and the friends - the so-called "tapas seven" - with whom the McCanns dined on the night their daughter went missing.

In March, the McCanns accepted £550,000 from Express [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] after the Daily Express, Sunday Express, the Daily Star and Daily Star Sunday ran numerous defamatory articles.

Express Newspapers was again forced last month to apologise and pay £375,000 in libel damages to the "tapas seven" after the publisher ran a series of defamatory stories about the group.

The News of the World also apologised in September for publishing extracts from Kate McCann's private diary without her permission and made a financial contribution to the search for Madeleine.

"The British press out there in Portugal, and I'm not singling out any particular publication, were - I'm afraid to say this and I don't like to say this because I'm a former journalist myself - they were lazy," he told the conference.

He said: "The Portuguese police hid behind the law of judicial secrecy saying they weren't able to comment, either on the record or off the record, but that didn't stop lots of information finding its way from police files into the Portuguese press.

"However, when the British press made inquiries they came up against a stone wall so they resorted to sitting in the local bar, which had the lethal combination of free Wi-Fi and alcohol, and that became the newsroom predictably enough.

"It meant that they then sat every morning just going through whatever had been leaked to the Portuguese papers, 99% of it totally inaccurate lies, 1% I would say distorted or misunderstood through cultural differences in some cases.

"This was then put to me, I would then deny or try to correct it, that would be a quote from me, 'Mitchell's balanced it', that was balanced journalism, and off it went."

Mitchell said that British newspapers put reporters under pressure to come up with new angles and exclusive stories in the months after Madeleine went missing in May last year.

"I had certain reporters from certain groups almost in tears some mornings saying, 'If you don't give me a front-page splash by 4pm I'm going to be fired," he added.

"I can understand the pressure they are under but when I said 'I can't help you, we honestly haven't got anything of value or anything to warrant that coverage' nevertheless a front page would then duly appear in certain titles."

Mitchell added: "Things that were allegations or suggestions in the Portuguese press were hardened up into absolute fact when they crossed the Channel."

He also told the conference yesterday that more than £1m in compensation had now been paid by British newspapers to Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, and the friends - the so-called "tapas seven" - with whom the McCanns dined on the night their daughter went missing.

In March, the McCanns accepted £550,000 from Express [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] after the Daily Express, Sunday Express, the Daily Star and Daily Star Sunday ran numerous defamatory articles.

Express Newspapers was again forced last month to apologise and pay £375,000 in libel damages to the "tapas seven" after the publisher ran a series of defamatory stories about the group.

The News of the World also apologised in September for publishing extracts from Kate McCann's private diary without her permission and made a financial contribution to the search for Madeleine.

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

So there you have it - Clarence Mitchell, the former UK government director of the Media Monitoring Unit, explaining just how he controlled reportage on the case of missing Madeleine McCann.

Could Clarence Mitchell be a shill?

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

It remains a mystery me, to this very day, why Clarence Mitchell took his McCann Roadshow over to Australia - most probably the furthest point on the globe from the UK, or indeed Portugal.  Then again, I guess he had good reason ..



Thanks to forum member and friend Richard D Hall of Richplanet fame.

Without people like you, where would we be?

PROFILE:   Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCann family

Hannah Marriot - 28th November 2007

Clarence Mitchell has only been in PR for a few months. But at the CIPR's presidential reception three weeks ago, he was certainly the star turn

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

Once word got around that the spokesman for the McCann family was in attendance, the great and the good of the PR ind­ustry were almost queuing up to talk to him, all eager to find out a little more about the mystery of Madeleine’s disappearance.

Mitchell is a seasoned hard news reporter, who worked for the BBC for nearly 20 years, and then for the Government’s Media Monitoring Unit (MMU) for two years, before being seconded out to handle the media in Portugal for the McCanns tow­ards the end of May.

As a reporter, Mitchell says he was ‘always seen as a fireman’, and would be flown in ‘when there was trouble kicking off in Northern Ireland’, or in other dangerous locations such as Iran and Iraq. He also covered the death of Princess Diana, the murder of Milly Dowler and the Fred and Rosemary West mass-murders.

Like any reporter, Mitchell became used to being dispassionate. He describes one of his ‘lucky breaks’ as being on the motorway behind the Kegworth air crash on the M1 in 1989: ‘It sounds dreadful, but that’s journalism – you need to be in the right place at the right time.’

In his current role, of course, Mitchell is far from neutral – indeed, he is vehemently convinced of the McCanns’ innocence, a fact that has not been lost on the press covering the story. One national newspaper journalist describes Mitchell’s work with the McCanns as a ‘crusade to right what he perceives as a real injustice’.

Mitchell wears his commitment to the family almost literally on his sleeve, sporting a pair of bright yellow and green campaign wristbands. He also has a yellow and green ribbon pinned to his lapel, signifying the search for a missing person and strength.

Mitchell was first sent to meet Gerry McCann at East Midlands airport two weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance. The pair flew back together to Portugal. Mitchell then spent an intense month of 15-hour days with the family.


He had to return to his government role, and others handled the McCanns’ PR. But even then, he says, the family still called him for advice in his own time. ‘We had bec­ome friends,’ he says. ‘But I couldn’t help them beyond the odd phone call, bec­ause officially the Government couldn’t be seen to be involved.’

In September, he quit his government role in order to work for the family, at a time when much of the media seemed to be turning against the McCanns.
Mitchell is clear about the reasons for this change of feeling: ‘I have to be careful what I say, but somebody who has good connections with the police decided early on, it appears, that they were somehow involved, and decided to plant stories.’

The Portuguese press ran these stories – ‘they have a very lurid end to the tabloid market, just as we do,’ he says – and then the British press picked them up.

Mitchell is obviously angry with the press, many of whom he believes were simply ‘recycling rubbish’: ‘As a former journalist myself, some of the behaviour of the British press has been shameful.’

Mitchell played a great part in quashing the most negative of these stories. He exp­lains that he had a very simple strategy: ‘When I came aboard Gerry and Kate were being accused left, right and centre. What people don’t always understand is that the papers aren’t running these stories necessarily because they believe them – they are good angles. They will also run an equally good angle from the other side.’

Mitchell also gets fired up at accusations from some sections of the press that the McCanns have been too concerned with PR. He says that the majority of the time he is turning down requests for interviews.

And at the beginning of the campaign, when then McCanns were raising awareness, the strategy was different. As someone with three young children, Mitchell says: ‘I would say that any family in this situation – myself included – would hit the phones and do what they could.’

Mitchell admits that he does get angry. But one journalist covering the case says that the fact that Mitchell ‘is not afraid to say what he thinks’ can only be a good thing for the McCanns.

When Mitchell left the BBC in 2005 it was because he had reached a plateau, having being passed over for the role of royal correspondent and realising he would never present the Ten O’Clock News.


He describes his post at the Government’s MMU as an ‘inward-facing, administration role’, adding: ‘Sometimes when there was a big story I’d be thinking, I know where I’d be today.’

Now, he’s back at the heart of the story. Indeed, Steve Anderson, the Mentorn Media creative director, who was the exec­utive producer on this month’s Panorama Special: The Mystery of Madeleine McCann, goes as far as to stay that this was the job Mitchell was ‘meant to do’.

Mitchell seems completely driven by personal conviction and adrenaline, and it is understandably difficult for him to predict what he will be doing next.

Officially, he says, he is now communications director for multi-millionaire Brian Kennedy – the McCanns’ main benefactor – so he will still be employed when the situation is res­olved. After that he will look into opportunities, either with Kennedy or elsewhere.

At the end of the interview, Mitchell cannot help but bring the message home: ‘Don’t forget that in the middle of all this there is a little girl out there, alive, and she needs to be found and brought home.’

TURNING POINTS...

What was your biggest career break? There have been a few at different times. Getting into papers in the first place, after a couple of years in a boring job I didn’t like, in a bank. And being on a motorway when an aircrash happens in front of you, from a reporter’s point of view, is a big break. Having the Prime Minister as your local MP is a big break. I’ve been in the right place at the right time many times. And without the government role I would never have been in touch with Gerry and Kate, so you could say that was a break as well.

What advice would you give someone climbing the career ladder? Know what you want to do, absolutely focus on it and keep ploughing away. Eventually people will start taking your seriously. That applies to journalism, to PR, to any walk of life.

Who was your most notable mentor? I haven’t had a mentor as such. I’m pretty much
self-driven, although there have been people I have respected. My very first newspaper editor, Dennis Signy, was very influential and I’m very grateful to him. A number of BBC editors have also been very kind. That said, you make your own luck.

What do you prize most in new recruits? Drive, a degree of ambition, but properly focused. Passion underscored with scepticism.

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

Investigation may last a year - Expresso
 
It is in the experience of Clarence Mitchell that the McCanns put their trust to regain public opinion
 
Maria Barbosa - 29 September 2007
 
Clarence Mitchell goes through the streets of London at the same speed at which he speaks in his mobile - which actually never stops ringing. The McCann's spokesperson receives about 60 calls a day (Gerry call's him about 5 to 6 times). Mitchell spoke to Expresso whilst he had breakfast, one day before the publishing of the picture taken in Morroco by a Spanish tourist.

Q: You exchanged your position as a servant of the British Government for spokesperson of the McCanns. Did you make this decision for sentimental reasons or professional ambition?

A: I am not a sentimental person and neither am I making any plans for the future. I accepted the invitation by the McCanns because I know that they are innocent.

Q: Have you ever asked them if they are involved in their daughter's disappearance?

A: I have never felt the need to ask them that question because we have spoken contantly about this subject, and both tell me that they are innocent. Since I have spent a month with them, I believe in what they tell me. It is enough to see how they deal with the twins, Sean and Amelie. You can see that they are dedicated to their children and that they would never do anything to hurt them. This argument may not prove anything, but for me it is important that I work with honest people.

Q: In order to defend the McCann's innocence with such surety it is necessary that you know more than what you say...

A: I know the facts that can explain all the police suspicions regarding what was found in the car or in the apartment rented by them. I can not reveal any more details. Some of the accusations that appear in the PT press - the British papers only translate what is written there  - supposedly happened whilst I was with them. Therefore I know the truth.

Q: How do you explain the cadaver scent detected in the vehicle rented 25 days later?

A: It is not up to me to reply. There has never been anything that has happened that has led me to suspect the McCanns. And I was only not with them at night time, for obvious reasons. But the story about the car is not the only one that makes no sense: it was suggested in the press that Kate and Gerry went to Fátima to bury Maddie's body. I went with them in this trip and I guarantee that we did not bury any body.

Q: You spent a month in the Algarve with the couple. Who sent you and what is it about the McCanns that makes them so special?

A: They are not Mourinho (laughs). This is one of the points that Gerry stressed over the phone that he wished me to tell you: they are a normal family, the same as so many other middle class families. They are people with a higher academic education, but that above all love their children. They are not influential people. They have not had any special treatment.

Q: You were sent by the Foreign Office. Are all British people that find themselves in trouble awarded the same treatment?

A: Every time that a British subject has problems abroad Consular assistance is offered. As it was regarding a missing child and not the theft of documents, the help provided by the Consul of Portimão was greater. Since the case dominated the media, The Foreign Office, in London, thought of me because I had experience as a reporter and I knew key English people. It wasn't Tony Blair nor the present Prime minister, Gordon Brown, that sent me. I am not their spokesperson nor do I call them asking for advice.

Q: But you were responsible for the projection of the McCanns in the media at a world scale. The fact that you worked for the British Government facilitated this...

A: In Portugal there has been a wrong image created about me. I was the Director of the Government's Media Monitoring Unit. Their work, about 40 people, and their function is to control what gets printed in the press. Every morning I had a meeting with the Prime Minister's spokesperson at 10 Downing Street and we discussed any developments. I didn't get to speak to Gordon Brown directly. Everything that I have been able to do for the McCanns has been through my computer and my mobile.

Q: It was enough that you called certain people so that Kate and Gerry were granted an audience with the Pope.

A: And I am a Protestant! When I was in the Algarve on behalf of the Foreign Office I kept in touch with the British Embassies, the Vatican's inclusive. Through Cormac Murphy O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, I knew that Maddie's disappearance had not gone un-noticed by the Vatican. He suggested that we asked for an audience with the Pope. It was I that wrote that email, since Gerry and Kate did not want any special treatment.

Q: Was it your decision to use the media so that the case may not be forgotten? Some specialists argue that this exposure might be fatal...

A: The parents trusted my instincts. They only told me that they wanted to do everything to find her. It was them that decided on a tour around Europe, that started in Amsterdam. After they had been to Germany, Kate was inclined to go to the North of Africa. Actually it is in that area that Kate suspects that Maddie might be.

Q: With the change of direction of the investigation, Kate's attitude (the fact that she does not/has not cried in public) has been the subject of criticism. In private what has been her reaction?

A: Kate is very strong. She seems like a reseved and contained woman in her emotions but she is suffering a lot. I have seen her crying in private. I can also tell you that the parents were advised by specialists not to reveal their emotions in public. The kidnapper may enjoy watching their suffering.

Q: There is a lot of speculation about the events of the 3rd May. What did kate say when she did not find her daughter in the bedroom?
 
A: The witness statements say that Kate shouted "they've taken her". They are incorrect, I will say no more.

Q: Whilst you were a journalist following the case of Jessica and Holly in Soham. The children were found dead 2 weeks later. Did you predict the same ending to this case?

A: I thought that by this time she would have been found dead or alive, but an ending similar to the case of Jessica and Holly is possible, I don't want to and can't speak about Robert Murat but some of the journalists that worked with me in Soham, and that were recently in Portugal, saw similarities between the case and Robert Murat, more than this I will not say.

Q: Before accepting Kate and Gerry's proposal you admited that you needed some guarantees. Were you refering to Brian Kennedy, the businessman that pays your wages?

A: I could not resign from my job with the Government before this issue was resolved. It was unacceptable that Maddie's Fund would pay my wages. The solution found was the best: I work for the McCanns but who pays my wages is Brian Kennedy, who made himself available to help them financially. My objective is to help them overcome this phase but I also want to be paid for it, which has not happened yet.

Q: Some celebrities generosity, such as Richard Branson, allowed the McCann's to hire the best lawyers that money can buy. Did you advise them in their choice?

A: Absolutely not. But I do recognise the need for them to be surrounded by the best Portuguese and British professionals. They are suspected of having killed their daughter and having got rid of the body. That is a very serious accusation. People want them charged and tried. Or at least that Maddie appears next week, and that is not going to happen. this investigation might take a year.

Q: Do they still trust the Portuguese Police? Or do they want to follow other clues using private detectives?

A: I have to be careful with what I say. This is a sensitive subject. The McCanns want to continue to co-operate with the police, and they have to do so. Even if Maddie is no longer in Portugal, the PJ continue to be a main say. However, any parent in the same situation has the right to use any means to find their child. I am not confirming the hiring of private detectives.

Q: You started the interview by saying that you were not sentimental but during the trip through Europe with the McCanns you were photographed crying. In that day the ex-journalist became the news...

A: It wasn't intentional. But when I found out that my wife had lost the baby, I felt lost and angry for being there and not beside her. It is at least ironic that during this search for Maddie, I had also lost a son. Very young yes, but it was my son. I believe that that united us."

[Acknowledgement pamalam at gerrymccannsblog]

McCanns threat to Portuguese Police via Clarence Mitchell

01:18 minutes

xklamation

Gerry McCann returns to work with his partner in crime..

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

Gerry McCann on his way to returning to work with his partner in crime..

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

Boy, you gotta carry that weight
Carry that weight a long time

Lennon/McCartney

Stephen Nolan Interviews Clarence Mitchell - 7th January 2011

Transcript

Stephen Nolan:   Our last story, errr... of tonight. Nearly four years since their daughter disappeared, Kate and Gerry McCann have written a book about their ordeal. Tonight, I've been talking to the man charged with keeping the hunt for Maddie in the public eye. A hard job these days for Clarence Mitchell, the McCann's spokesman.

Clarence Mitchell: Well that's the fickle nature of the news media, isn't it, and the attention span of news desks. I mean the... the situation with Madeleine is still very much continuing and I'm still very much working on it on behalf of Kate and Gerry and all of the people who are... are helping them looking for Madeleine. Errm... I now work for a firm in London, Lewis PR, errm... but I'm still very much, as I say, active for Kate and Gerry and media enquiries still come in from around the world every day, in one form or another. Errr... All sorts of enquiries, interview requests, suggestions for features, sightings of possibly Madeleine. All sorts of things. They all have to either be passed on to the private investigators or we take decisions as to how we deal with them. So although I, and Madeleine, and the whole situation may not be in the news as much as it was, its still very active for me.

Stephen Nolan: And, of course, it... it's by the very nature of how news works that you're going to have that period that you've got to exploit, for want of a better word. You've got to get the maximum publicity because, you know, it will go away and it's gone now.

Clarence Mitchell: Well, I would argue that it hasn't gone completely. Kate and Gerry and myself are very grateful to the international news media, not just the UK, around the world for the continuing interest in Madeleine and whether she will be found. Errm... many, many families around the world of missing people have not had that luxury, if you like, where the media visit them at the start of their situation and then go away for good. That hasn't quite happened in Madeleine. I mean, look, here we are, nearly four years on, and still here we are discussing her on national radio. For that I'm grateful to the BBC and to you and your programme producers.

Stephen Nolan: How possible do you think it is though, Clarence, because you're a journalist at heart and you... you understand the amount of publicity you got; you understand that was exceptional. How... how possible is it that Madeleine is still alive given that level of publicity?

Clarence Mitchell: It is still possible that she is alive because there is no evidence to suggest that she isn't and that's the whole basis on which the investigation, the private investigation, continues to this day. In the absence of anything to suggest that she has been harmed or, as you suggest, has been killed, and there is no evidence to suggest that, then not only Kate and Gerry but everybody working with them will continue to keep going until an answer is found.

Stephen Nolan: Did the campaign cost a lot of money?

Clarence Mitchell: The campaign has cost a lot of money and continues to cost a lot of money and it's only happening because of the vast generosity of people around the world. If you remember an awful lot of money came in very quickly due to that publicity level that we were discussing. People responded and Kate and Gerry, everybody associated with them are immensely grateful to this day for every penny of it. It was all spent in terms of the investigation and running a private investigation in two countries, sometimes in several continents where if things have to be followed up around the world, is a very expensive business. All of that's been spent on various contracts, on various private agencies, errm... since... since it happened. At the moment, a small team led by Dave Edgar, a former RUC officer, errr... are... are still investigating and they are funded by the Find Madeleine Fund. We also, if you remember, had a number of settlements against certain newspaper groups, not least the Express, and all of the monies that were raised through that in settlement to Kate, Gerry and their friends went back into the fund and have been ploughed back into it. So the money is still there but it... it ebbs and flows as the investigative needs require.

Stephen Nolan: I want to talk to you, Clarence, about how the newspapers, errr... errr... dealt with Gerry and Kate in... in the context of what's happened in... in the Jo Yeates murder, as well, errr... of... of recent times. But before we do that, errm... what is your gut instinct because you've seen all the information and all the leads coming in? What's your gut instinct now as to what's happened? Are you comfortable sharing that?

Clarence Mitchell: My instinct has been, and remains, that there is a chance that she's alive and that's the basis we're all doing this. We wouldn't... if we thought there was no hope, you know, what would be the point of going on? But, because there is that absence of anything to suggest what's happened, it is just as logical to keep going. That's certainly what keeps Kate and Gerry going. Obviously, as her parents, they will maintain that. But for all of their supporters, people who are trying to help them, myself included, I honestly don't know what happened and therefore I've got to keep going, and as long as they want me to keep helping them then I'm happy to do that.

Stephen Nolan: Oh look, Kate and Gerry have recently said that they may need to face the fact that they may never face... they may never find their daughter.

Clarence Mitchell: Well, in their darker moments, of course, it was perfectly human, perfectly natural, to think that, but equally they're very rational and they think that until they know, they will keep ploughing all of their efforts into it. It's for Madeleine, it's their daughter for goodness sake and, of course, you or I would do the same, I would think. They've been very fortunate in having the resources and having the support because so many people have been kind enough to back them.

Stephen Nolan: When you get that world-wide attention, you see all different types of humanity because lots and lots of people are... are contacting you with information. And indeed some... some crazy people are contacting you with crazy information.

Clarence Mitchell: Anything that develops a profile, errr... as high as this case has, does attract all sorts of people. You're quite right. Errm... most of them, the vast majority, are well meaning and if information can be checked out and is credible or potentially credible then it goes through, not only to the British police, it goes through to the Portuguese police, and it goes through to the private investigators to be assessed; prioritised. It's very much a police operation. It's former British policemen that are working on it and then they will act upon it. Now amongst those, of course, there are the occasional slightly more lunatic things that are said.

Stephen Nolan: Did you get much nasty stuff?

Clarence Mitchell: There was a certain amount, errm...

Stephen Nolan: And what... what was that? People... people gloating that she'd been killed or what... what type of stuff was it?

Clarence Mitchell: I'm not going to talk about things that will lead inevitably, even now, to tabloid headlines about ghouls saying X, Y or Z. Some of the things that were said were awful, hurtful and, in cases where there was a direct threat, or any suggestion of anything happening, it went straight to the police and, in certain cases, which have never received publicity, police took action to stop it. To this day there is a very small but highly vocal minority online; the joys of the Internet. The Internet is a wonderful thing but it has its downside, as we all know. There is a very vocal but very small minority of people who believe Kate and Gerry were negligent and to this day they rail and rant against them. They are powerless, they know nothing and it... it's totally irrelevant. But we keep a... a weather eye on what they're saying and if action needs to be taken, in certain cases, then it is.

Stephen Nolan: So, share with me, what it is like for Kate and Gerry when there is this media onslaught suggesting that they might have killed their own children. What is that like?

Clarence Mitchell: Well... it... what do you think? It is just appalling. Errr... It is hurtful in the extreme but it... it is just dreadful. And, of course, what makes it all the more frustrating for them was that they knew that much of the coverage was based on either falsehoods, misunderstandings, deliberate leaks from certain quarters, that were then mistranslated, either through mistake or through deliberately. A story that would appear on a Monday in Portugal, saying something was possibly the case - which we knew wasn't true - would then become hardened up as fact on the Tuesday in the British press and then, on Wednesday, it would be repeated, 'as reported by the illustrious London paper X or Y'.

Stephen Nolan: And presumably, Clarence, you're on the phone to the editors of those newspapers warning them about legal threats. The lawyers are on the phone. You're on the phone trying to stop them doing this and continuing to do this?

Clarence Mitchell: I was trying to brief the reporters on the ground. There were three packs, if you like, of journalists at the height of it. There were journal... journalists on the ground in Praia da Luz - where we were - wanting... almost in tears some days, demanding lines because they were under pressure from their news desk to deliver a front page splash. And certain days we didn't have anything to say, or the police had asked us not to say anything, and I couldn't help them but the whole thing was a nonsense but it was driving sales of papers. I had a second group of journalists in Leicestershire, and in the UK, trying to get to Kate and Gerry's relatives, trying to dig up stories about them and what was going on back here. And then, I also had all the columnists who had... it had become, if you remember, almost the dinner party topic of choice, for a couple of summers. You know, obviously there were legitimate questions about child safety and, errr... parental responsibility. Absolutely fine for discussion, no problem with that at all. But occasionally the odd commentator would overstep the mark and say hurtful things. We would talk to journalists on the ground and we would talk to editors. It made a difference sometimes. Overall, in certain cases, it made not jot... not a jot of difference.

Stephen Nolan: I know... I know you'll understand the... the limitations as to how much we can talk about... about the... the Jo Yeates, errr... murder at the moment but there has been, errr... a... a man, Mr Jefferies, who has not been found guilty; is an innocent man in the eyes of the law. He's been released on bail. He has not been charged, and you will have seen the front page coverage on him, and he has not been found guilty. What are your thoughts?

Clarence Mitchell: I think, from a journalistic point of view, a lot of the coverage, in certain papers which I won't name, was... was very near the mark, in terms of breaching the Contempt of Court Act. The basic standard in law, quite rightly, is that any person is innocent until proven guilty and that is a matter for the police to prove.

Stephen Nolan: So, why is our media getting... doing this, and how are they getting away with it, Clarence?

Clarence Mitchell: There... there is this insatiable desire now to be first, to be fastest. The 24/7 machine, the monster that I used to work in, and you still work in, needs feeding all the time. And news desks, I'm not saying the BBC... the BBC, thank goodness, is one of the... is one of the most responsible organisations but some news desks almost fall over themselves and almost forget the law. At the end of the day, no matter what deadlines and yawning spaces of coverage you... you need to fill, there are still basic tenets of fairness and justice in this country and I'm very grateful they... they exist. They serve everybody's interest, not just the defendants but the journalists as well.

Stephen Nolan: It... it... it is his legal right that Mr. Jefferies is presumed to be innocent. That is his legal right. Do you feel sorry for him given the coverage that he has endured?

Clarence Mitchell: I feel sorry for anyone who finds themself, for whatever reason, at the centre of the media firestorm these days. It's always been bad. You don't... wouldn't want journalists on your door step, and that would have happened in the forties or the fifties, if necessary, but it was much more at a leisurely pace and was nothing like the onslaught that it is now with the competition.

Stephen Nolan: So, Clarence, what... what needs to happen? Does... does the PCC work, the Press Complaints Commission? Errr... Does there need to be a change of legislation? What needs to happen?

Clarence Mitchell: Well, we... we tried to resort to the PCC, at times, and they were very helpful in terms of logistical things, like keeping photographers away from the McCann's home. There were photographers camped outside their house, at the end of their drive, for six months. We even had paparazzi photographers, who normally do celebrity jobs in... in Los Angeles, turning up looking for them. And, you know, we had to patiently explain the McCanns were not celebrities, they didn't warrant this sort of intrusion and these photographers needed to be moved. Now the PCC were fantastic in that case, they were really helpful. But in terms of making the news desks and the editors in certain papers sit up and really listen, I'm afraid we had to, reluctantly, pick up the rather large hammer of defamation action and say, 'You will apologise, you will settle this, errr... on our terms, or we will go further'. And thankfully, after a lot of discussion - the Express group being the best example - finally agreed with us. Errm... But it was a reluctant action. You know, it shouldn't have got to that stage. But it wasn't of our making.

Stephen Nolan: It's interesting you talk about defamation because, of course, we see Nick Clegg very much pushing, errr... a bill and a proposal at the moment. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, obviously, in terms of relaxing, changing the defamation laws, errr... in... in this country.

Clarence Mitchell: Well, personal view, I... I think if anything there's... there's... there should be some argument for them to be slightly tightened up.

Stephen Nolan: Tightened up in the UK?

Clarence Mitchell: Well, because people... these days... or certainly there needs to be some sort of statutory reminder, not just to journalists but to all of your bloggers who are now online. These days a lot of people think, wrongly, that they can write what they like on a website. They are publishing that. It is a newspaper in all but name, an electronic version of it and the person responsible for distributing that material is legally responsible, certainly under British jurisdiction, for what they say in it.

Stephen Nolan: How on earth do you control the Internet? How does an Internet service provider know everything that's going onto their site and onto their channel? They don't, and that's the problem.

Clarence Mitchell: They don't.

Stephen Nolan: You can't control this beast.

Clarence Mitchell: This is... this is... this is the problem and this is what the politicians need to work out.

Stephen Nolan: So what would you do?

Clarence Mitchell: Well... hah... I... I would...

Stephen Nolan: Because you have been in the middle of one of the most high... prolific Internet campaigns that... that there will have been. So what would you do, given the experience you've had?

Clarence Mitchell: I would make it clear, if it's a... if it's a story around an... a crime. I would make it clear that the police, I think, from the first instance, have a remin... have a duty to remind journalists much more forcibly and clearly than they have done so far. In the Yeates case you mention, we saw the Attorney General having to come out and... and issue a warning around the coverage of Mr. Jefferies. Well, that's fine and absolutely proper but he should have done... that should have been done beforehand. A lot of young journalists are coming up through the ranks now who have not necessarily and this makes me sound like a bit of an old dinosaur but they have not necessarily come up through the... the traditional route of local newspapers, sitting in courts, watching juries, listening to verdicts. They don't necessarily know the finer points of defamation law, contempt of court, and I think a general reminder both in the journalistic industry, better training, errr... of the basic tenets of law and for the police, perhaps, in a high profile case, to sit down right at the outset and remind all of the covering media of their responsibilities. That won't stop online gossip. It won't stop tittle tattle. You're right. That can't be controlled. We watch what's said about Madeleine only when it enters the real world and goes beyond the keyboard and the screen in the middle of the night, then do we act. But in the... with responsible mainstream media I think there's a time for a reminder of some of the basics here that have... that have served journalism so well for generations.

Stephen Nolan: Just finally, Clarence, we... we understand that the McCanns obviously are releasing this book. Is this going to be, errm... a summary of everything we already know?

Clarence Mitchell: No, it's going to be Kate's story. Kate is writing it. Gerry, of course, is... is helping her but essentially it will be Kate's work. For... virtually from the first day it happened, errr... I was coming under pressure from various publishers, some of them very polite, but very persistent, saying they should write a book, or it should be ghost written. Kate and Gerry always said they didn't want to do that, they didn't feel the time was right, they had far more important things to do in the search for their daughter. They've now decided, and it's largely been driven by the need for funds for the... for the search to continue, that the time is right for the book to be written. Kate has been writing it for some months. She's probably finished about sixty to seventy thousand words and, errm... it's coming out on May 12th which is Madeleine's eighth birthday. It is designed to keep the search for her going. That is the simple reason.

Stephen Nolan: That's Clarence Mitchell talking to me earlier on tonight. That's it from the Nolan team for tonight. Thank you so much for your company. We'll be back tomorrow night, Saturday night, ten o'clock when you and I will talk about the big news stories of the day.

[Acknowledgement:  Nigel Moore founder of the now defunct mccannfiles.com]

Clarence Mitchell wrote:”I was the head of the government’s Media Monitoring Unit. Forty people work there and their function is to control what comes out in the media.”

Issues of Concern

Here we examine 21 of the many issues that have caused people concern about Mitchell’s role in the Madeleine McCann case. At the end of our leaflet we explain how to obtain more information on the Madeleine McCann case, including our 60-page booklet: ‘What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? – 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted’.
1. Allegedly being involved in tipping off the McCanns that the Portuguese police had been, or were going to, track their e-mails and ’phone calls

The McCanns were tipped off that the Portuguese police were monitoring their e-mails and ’phone calls. There was naturally concern over how this information leaked to them. A former Portuguese police officer has admitted working for the Spanish private detective agency, Metodo 3. He in turn had an inside contact in the Portuguese police who supplied Metodo 3 with information about the investigation. Clarence Mitchell was asked in an interview by Simon Israel on Channel 4 how the McCanns were tipped off. He refused to answer.

2. Being forced to deny the McCanns’ initial claim of a break-in

On the evening that Madeleine was reported missing, the McCanns claimed an abductor had broken into the children’s room by ‘jemmying open the shutters’. They repeated that claim many times – a claim the media reported extensively. But the managers of the Mark Warners resort where the McCanns were staying, and the police, soon discovered that the shutters had not been tampered with. This forcing the McCanns to dramatically change their story – one of many changes of story – to say: ‘the abductor must have walked in through an unlocked patio door”. Asked about this discrepancy, Mitchell was forced to concede on the record: “There was no evidence of a break-in. I‘m not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape. To do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily”. It is however most unlikley that an abductor could have ‘got out of the window easily’ leaving no forensic trace.

3. Smearing Robert Murat

A curious feature of the Madeleine case was the targeting of Robert Murat, a dual Portuguese-British citizen, as a suspect. A journalist who worked closely with Clarence Mitchell, Lori Campbell, suspected Murat of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance and reported him to the Police. Three of the McCanns’ close friends, the so-called ‘Tapas 7’, also reported seeing Robert Murat close to the McCanns’ apartment the evening Madeleine went missing, a claim he denied. The McCann camp made a concerted attempt, for whatever reason, to smear Murat. Clarence Mitchell himself played a key role in this: He said:

“An outcome similar to Holly and Jessica [Soham children murdered by Ian Huntley] is possible. I don’t want to, and I can’t, talk about Robert Murat, but some journalists who worked with me in Soham, and that were now in Portugal, saw resemblances between that case and Robert Murat. And I won’t say more”. He was very lucky that Murat did not sue him for libel, since in 2008 Robert Murat collected a reported £550,000 in libel damages from news media and journalists whom he claimed had smeared and libelled him.

4. Being forced to retract his claim that ‘Madeleine is probably dead’

During early 2008, Clarence Mitchell was forced to concede that ‘Madeleine is probably dead’. This caused grave embarrassment for the McCanns, who were determined publicly to maintain that Madeleine was still alive. His statement could also have had serious implications for the Fund, which can only continue to operate and keep asking for donations on this premise. Dr Gerald McCann was forced to publicly rebuke his PR chief by insisting on his blog two days later that they remained hopeful that Madeleine was still alive.

5. Failing to explain that the ‘Helping to Find Madeleine Fund’ was not a charity

Interviewed by James Whale, Mitchell repeatedly refused to correct Whale when he referred to the McCanns’ fund as a ‘charity’. In fact, the Helping to Find Madeleine Fund is registered as a ‘private trust’; its aims are not charitable and include making payments to the McCanns.

6. Asking people to send money in envelopes to ‘Gerry and Kate, Rothley’

Asked on the same James Whale show how people could contribute to the fund, Mitchell said: “Just put money into an envelope and send to Kate and Gerry McCann, Rothley, it’ll get there”. That was unprofessional – monies should have been directed to the registered office for the Fund, namely London Solicitors Bates, Wells & Braithwaite. For example, monies sent in the post could be stolen en route or would not be properly accounted for.

7. Claiming that the Fund was ‘independently controlled’

Pressed about control of the ‘Helping to Find Madeleine Fund’, Clarence Mitchell claimed that the Fund was ‘independently controlled’. This is untrue. The Trust’s Directors consist mainly of members of the McCann family and their friends or acquaintances.

8. Retreating on whether or not the McCanns would take a lie detector test

The McCanns were anxious to convince the world that they were telling the truth about how Madeleine had suddenly gone missing. To bolster their claim, Clarence Mitchell announced: “Kate and Gerry McCann would have no issue with taking a lie detector test”. However, two months later, he announced: “Of course they are not going to take any lie detector test”.

9. Making a film for TV about the McCanns’ distress ‘one year on’ whilst at the same time claiming the McCanns were not doing so

Clarence Mitchell told the media: “The McCanns don’t want to do anything about ‘woe is us a year on’. That is what the tabloids would like us to do, but we are not following their agenda, we are following our own agenda” (one of many references to ‘our agenda’). Weeks later, there was a two-hour long pre-recorded TV interview: ‘Madeleine McCann – One Year On’, clearly prepared long before his public statement, and certainly with his personal knowledge.

10. Issuing a ‘Crimewatch’-style video clip with a description of an abductor

It has always been the McCanns who have given out descriptions of a possible abductor. The Portuguese police from early on doubted the truthfulness of claims by Jane Tanner, one of the McCanns’ ‘Tapas 7’ friends, that she had seen an abductor. In early 2008, Clarence Mitchell announced that the McCann team were looking for a moustachioed man seen in Praia da Luz around the time Madeleine went missing. He did this in a widely-shown video clip in which he acted like a Crimewatch presenter. At a meeting at the London School of Economics on 30 January 2008, this performance, plus his commanding stance and choice of words, prompted one member of the LSE audience to ask: “Are you the police?” There was much laughter.

11. Claiming that “…whatever the Portuguese police might find in their investigation, the McCanns will have an innocent explanation for it”

To this bizarre statement, Mitchell added the equally strange comment: “There are wholly innocent explanations for any material that the police may or may not have found”, prompting many to ask: “How could the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell know in advance what the police might find and know that there would be ‘an innocent explanation’ for everything?

12. Claiming it didn’t matter if Dr Kate McCann changed her clothes on 3 May

One of the key issues in the Madeleine McCann case is whether the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 7’ friends have been telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the events of 3 May 2007, the day Madeleine was reported missing. In late 2008, a French journalist, Duarte Levy, claimed to have seen photos taken that evening conclusively proving that Dr Kate McCann had left the table during the evening and changed her clothes. That would blow a hole in her claim that she was at the Tapas bar the whole evening. She would have had to explain why she changed her clothes. Mitchell’s official response to these claims was: “So what if she did leave the table and change her clothes?” He refused to elaborate.

13. Saying that ‘none of the Tapas group’ were wearing watches the night Madeleine went missing – and then being forced to retract that statement

Clarence Mitchell had come under pressure from journalists to explain why there were so many major contradictions between the McCanns’ and the Tapas 7’s versions of events on 3 May 2007, when Madeleine ‘disappeared’. There were also many discrepancies in their timelines. Mitchell tried to explain, responding: “None of them were wearing watches or had mobile phones on them that night”. Those journalists then confronted him with the sheer unlikelihood that all nine had neither watch nor mobile ’phone, pointed out that the McCanns and others had used their mobile ’phones that night, and produced pictures of the McCanns and their Tapas 7 friends taken in Praia da Luz that week which showed that they were always wearing watches. Clarence Mitchell was forced into an embarrassing retreat, conceding: “Some of them were wearing watches and had mobile ’phones, some of them weren’t”. It is also now known from the McCanns’ statements to the Police, which have been publicly released, that the McCanns both had mobile ’phones with them that evening. As their official spokesman, Mitchell must surely have been briefed on this before he made his statement.

14. Falsely claiming that the McCanns had been ‘utterly honest and utterly open’

On 11 April 2008, Clarence Mitchell made this bold claim: “Kate and Gerry have been utterly honest and utterly open with the police and all of their statements from the moment that Madeleine was taken”. He later said, referring to himself and the McCanns: ‘We have nothing to hide’. When addressing a largely student audience during what were called ‘The Coventry Conversations’, Mitchell said: “We are always willing to co-operate with the Portuguese police”. These were astounding claims to make given that…

Dr Kate McCann was asked 48 questions by the Portuguese police when interviewed on 7 September 2007 and refused to answer any of them.
The McCanns had refused point blank to take part in a reconstruction of the events of 3 May 2007, the night Madeleine McCann was reported missing.
The McCanns’ statements contained changes of story, contradictions with the accounts of others, evasions and obfuscations.

15. Claiming it would be ‘hugely entertaining’ to devise a cast list for a proposed film about Madeleine going missing

On 7 January 2008 it was widely reported in the media that the McCanns and their advisers were in talks with media and film moguls IMG, who made the film ‘Touching the Void’, about a possible film about Madeleine’s disappearance. Clarence Mitchell was asked whether Gerry and Kate would play themselves in any film or if their roles would be played by celebrity actors. He said: “It may be hugely entertaining and a bit of fun to speculate on a cast list, but we are a million miles away from that sort of thing”. On another occasion, he said of Madeleine: “If she is dead, she is dead”. These and other comments made some wonder how much ‘feel’ or concern for Madeleine’s welfare and fate Mitchell really had.

16. Claiming it was a British cultural custom for parents to put children to bed early so they could enjoy the rest of the evening

Interviewed by Irish TV station RTE, Clarence Mitchell tried to explain why the McCanns left three young children under four on their own, several nights in a row, whilst on holiday, and out for the evening wining and dining. He told his TV audience: “There is a cultural difference between Britain and Portugal. It is a British approach to get your children washed, bathed and in bed early in the evening, if you can, so you can have something of the evening to yourself. That’s the British way of doing things. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It doesn’t mean it’s right”. Many British parents objected strongly to Mitchell’s description of them..

17. Trying to deny that the McCanns had left the children alone every night

In an interview with Jon Gaunt of TalkSport, Clarence Mitchell was trying to explain why the McCanns had left their children alone ‘that night’ (i.e. the night of 3 May when Madeleine was reported missing). He was quickly corrected by Gaunt who reminded him: ‘But they left them alone every night’. Mitchell had no answer.

18. Blaming Romany gypsies for abducting Madeleine

Clarence Mitchell on one occasion pointed the finger of suspicion at Romany gypsies for having abducted Madeleine. It appeared he had no basis whatsoever for smearing this group of people. He has never apologised for making it.

19. Using an image of Mari Luz without her parents’ permission

Months after Madeleine went missing, another child, Mari Luz, went missing, though in very different circumstances. Sadly she has since been found dead. The McCanns printed posters of Madeleine together with Mari Luz – without gaining the parents’ prior permission. Her parents were very upset, and complained. Clarence Mitchell reacted by stating: “It’s a shame that they are complaining about us in a press release. How can they be angry with is for wanting to help when all we’re trying to do is find their own daughter?”

20. Being ‘encouraged’ that Madeleine ‘may have been abducted by paedophiles’

In early 2008, stories were put about by an unknown Portuguese lawyer, Marcos Alexandre Aragao Correia, that Madeleine McCann had been abducted by paedophiles, raped, murdered and her body dumped in a dammed lake. At the time, a new drawing of a possible abductor was released, and part of the Arade Dam was searched. A friend of the McCanns was quoted as saying: “We fear that a group of two or three paedophiles may have been fishing around the apartments, casing them with a view to taking children”. Mitchell then commented:

“Developments such as this give Mr and Mrs McCann renewed hope. That is exactly the sort of call we want. We think the image is of such a quality that anyone who knows him will be able to identify him. Kate and Gerry are quite buoyant at the moment – every time we do something like this and move things forward it gives them strength. We’re very encouraged by this – putting all this information out, these images out, is helping Gerry and Kate in one way; simply by doing it we have got some momentum and are pushing the agenda forward on our side of the equation”. Many asked why Mitchell and the McCanns could use such words as ‘buoyant’ and ‘encouraged’ in relation to Madeleine’s having been raped and murdered. The use of the word ‘agenda’ once again prompted the question: What was their ‘agenda’?

21. Explaining why the McCanns deliberately left their three children alone again the night after Madeleine and Sean had been crying the night before

On SKY News, Clarence Mitchell was interviewed, following a pre-recorded interview with the McCanns in which they admitted, for the first time, that two of their children had been crying on the night before Madeleine went missing. There was public outrage that the McCanns were told by their children that they had been crying the previous night whilst they were out wining and dining, only to then leave them alone again the very next night. The SKY News presenter asked: “Why did Kate and Gerry choose to leave the children the same way the very next night?” Clarence Mitchell’s reply is instructive. Here it is in full:

“That is one interpretation. Let me put it in context. On the morning of May the 3rd, the day Madeleine later went missing, she came out, and said to Gerry and Kate at breakfast, very briefly as an aside, in no way was she unhappy or crying and then, in no way was she reprimanding her parents as some reports papers have wrongly, er, said. She simply said: “Why didn’t you come see – come and see me and Sean when we were crying, last night?”, and Kate and Gerry were puzzled by that, because in their checks – they had been checking her every 25/30 minutes, the same as they did the next night, when she went missing – they had found nothing to suggest that she was in any way distressed or upset, they found her asleep each time. There was nothing wrong. Rachel Oldfield, one of their friends, was in the apartment next door, in the room adjacent to Madeleine’s bedroom.

“She too was there all evening and heard no crying through the walls. There was nothing to suggest this had happened. So it was a puzzle to Kate and Gerry when Madeleine mentioned it. They tried to question her about it, and she just walked off laughing, and, er, happy, she was [note the past tense] a child and she and, and so, so she dropped it. Now they of course had a serious discussion about what had possibly gone wrong and they decided to check her more thoroughly that next night, and that’s what they did. And in the context of what happened later – her disappearance – they felt that that conversation, puzzling as it was, was very important to bring to the police’s attention. They wonder why, if she cried, why she cried. Was something, or someone already in that room to make her cry and they fled when she cried? Who knows? They can’t prove that, but they told the police in confidence – legally protected documentation has been in those files for 11 months – and why does it appear on the very day they were at the European Parliament? Somebody in the police doesn’t want Kate and Gerry to widen the agenda [that word again!], for whatever reason. It’s wrong. It’s illegal, and the Portuguese government needs to stop this…from happening in the future” [NOTE: The ‘leak’ came from a Spanish journalist known to be very sympathetic to the McCanns].

During this long reply, we see the master media manipulator at work. He makes light of two children crying while their parents were not with them. He justifies the McCanns’ decision to go out wining and dining and leaving all three children alone again the very night after the children told them of their crying. He claims, without evidence, that the Police leaked the story about the McCanns’ children crying on their own the night before. He claims the police have done something illegal. Some might admire him as a master of his craft, and indeed one writer has already said that the McCanns’ public relations campaign will for years to come be a textbook example of how to control the media and manipulate public opinion. But, we may ask, if this is true, whose interests has Clarence Mitchell been serving? Is he someone who helps us get to the truth? Or someone who does his best to stop us getting to the truth?


The Madeleine Foundation

I make no apologies for again uploading this abominable nonsense. A prime example of the lengths some will go to protect the name McCann - I only hope he can sleep at night.

Exclusive: 'Twice in the past ten years, I thought we'd found Madeleine McCann'

   Clarence Mitchell

28 April 2017 • 9:30pm

   A former BBC reporter, Clarence Mitchell was appointed to assist Kate and Gerry McCann as their media spokesman following the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine, in Portugal in 2007. Mitchell now works for a public relations company and continues to assist the McCanns when necessary. Here is his  incredible account of the youngster's disappearance, the police operation to find her and the  subsequent 10 years of anguish....

Twice in the ten years I have worked with the McCanns, I genuinely thought we were within reach of finding their missing daughter, Madeleine.

The first moment came very early on, just weeks after her disappearance on May 3, 2007. I had been sent by the British government to the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz to assist Kate and Gerry in dealing with the already huge media interest. Shortly after I arrived, I started to get phone calls, always at three o’clock in the morning, always the same ghostly man’s voice, repeatedly naming a farm where she was being hidden.

The British police recorded the calls and it turned out there was indeed a farm, fitting his description exactly, near Seville, over the border in Spain. As it was raided, and turned out to look exactly as he had painted it in those calls, I really felt we were on to something. But she wasn’t there, and those tip-offs – like so many others that we received from hoaxers, ransom seekers, conmen and psychics – were never explained.

The second came at the end of 2007. I was now being employed by Kate and Gerry as their press spokesman, and they were back at home in Leicestershire with their twins, Sean and Amelie. Spanish private investigators working on their behalf had found a blonde-haired girl who spoke English in a village in the Atlas Mountains of Morocco. All the information coming back to us suggested heavily that it could be Madeleine, so much so that an aircraft was put on stand-by, with its engines running, waiting to fly to pick her up.

Kate and Gerry sat tight. They had learned by that stage to be sceptical, not to give in to natural hope only for it to be dashed. They preferred to wait until the Moroccan authorities had checked it out. And when they did, it became clear she was not Madeleine.

On the tenth anniversary of her disappearance, I continue to assist Kate and Gerry as required, keeping a weather eye on reports and sightings, such as the “significant lead” that Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said this week that Scotland Yard’s Operation Grange is following up.

Beyond that, rightly, the Metropolitan Police do not go into operational detail publicly. So, wherever this latest lead may take them, be it Portugal or elsewhere, this time around, like Kate and Gerry, I will sit tight and simply let the authorities do their job before getting my hopes up.

I had spent 20 years as a BBC journalist before becoming a civil servant and helping the McCanns. I met Gerry first. It was some two weeks after Madeleine had gone missing, and he had flown back to England to collect some of her belongings and see members of their large, close extended family.

Obviously, he was distressed, but also very rational. As I have subsequently learnt by spending time with the couple at close quarters, Gerry deals with trauma by compartmentalising it and being in control. His emotions, then as now, are poured into what he can do practically to raise awareness of Madeleine’s disappearance.

In Portugal, I found Kate very friendly, grateful for the support I could offer, but already wary of the media attention. Even though she realised that it was invaluable in keeping awareness high, she – more so that Gerry – found it very intrusive.

That was before it turned into something altogether more cruel, with the McCanns becoming widely vilified for making a mistake in the way in which they chose to care for their children on that fateful night in Praia da Luz. They had left them in an unlocked holiday apartment, though still checking on them regularly, because there was no baby-listening service at their complex.

They were always the first to admit their mistake, but what a price they are still paying. God forbid it is a price they may have to pay for the rest of their lives. I was with them, in private, away from the cameras on many occasions, when they were in absolute grief and misery.

For all the doubters, they have never done or said anything at any time that has given me any cause for suspicion that they were anything other than the innocent victims of a dreadful crime. Before that first meeting with Gerry, I was briefed by British police working alongside the Portuguese on the case. They told me then, categorically, that they had “cleared the ground beneath their feet”.

In other words, the British authorities believed that Gerry and Kate were categorically not guilty of any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.

Yet the Portuguese police turned against them, naming them as arguido, a technical term conferring certain legal rights that is clumsily and misleadingly translated into English as “suspect”. You can become an arguido over the most minor traffic offence.

By that time, though, I had been called back by the government to London, but Kate and Gerry were ringing me at four in the morning saying: “We’ve been out here in Portugal too long, we’ve been stitched up, we’re about to be arrested, it’s all dreadful.”

Other than being sympathetic, I couldn’t do anything to help them. So when the offer came to work for them full-time, I took it in an instant.

What stands out, looking back over ten years, is the sheer lunacy of the accusations made against them.

There was, for instance, the theory entertained by the Portuguese police that their daughter had somehow been killed accidentally and that they then had used their hire car to remove her body and bury it in a secret location. I was there when the keys to that car were handed over to them, at their apartment; they hired it several weeks after Madeleine had disappeared.

Even if they had already got their daughter’s body out of the holiday apartment and stored it somewhere (a fridge was suggested, ridiculously), the police theory would mean that, in the full view of the world’s media, who were camped on their doorstep around the clock, the McCanns would have had to put her into the boot and then shaken off the ever-present paparazzi to dispose of her. It was as implausible as it was utterly offensive.

Later, in the autumn of 2007, when we were all back in England, a team of Portuguese police officers came to interview me about the times I had ridden in that car with Kate and Gerry. Did I notice any unusual smells in the hire car, they asked? It was beyond laughable. It also revealed, I felt, frightening ineptitude.

By then, a whole, vile cottage industry had grown around the case, with retired police officers who had nothing to do with the investigation appearing on Portuguese TV to suggest, for example, the McCanns had been at a swingers’ party on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance. It all compounded their pain.

Kate, in particular, got deeply angry. There was no shouting, sobbing or throwing things. It was more of a simmering but intense rage that things could be so misrepresented and so blatantly unfair.

Their real fury, though, was that such lazy reporting of wild untruths would actually mislead people and so hinder the search for Madeleine. That was why they took legal action against Gonçalo Amaral, the Portuguese police officer who wrote a very unpleasant book about them after being removed from the investigation. If people in Portugal, or elsewhere, believe the claims of an officer who never interviewed them, then Kate and Gerry feared that the public would simply assume Madeleine was dead and forget her.



The pressure would have broken other couples. Occasionally, I would catch them in tears, or hugging each other. But they seem to have coped. If anything, it has brought them together even more, rather than split them apart.

The McCanns are private people. I have never been privy to their innermost thoughts. It is not that sort of relationship. We haven’t even discussed politics. I am hoping to stand as a Conservative candidate in the forthcoming election, and my flag is blue; theirs, I’ve always believed, is red. It certainly didn’t affect our friendship.

They have thrown themselves into looking after the twins, trying as best to create a home where reminders of Madeleine are all around them, where she is still very much part of the family, and where they can shield Sean and Amelie against this constant gaze that the family is still under.

We have a good understanding with the British media that, until they are 18, the twins should never be photographed, but we can’t always enforce it. A local paper here or a foreign agency photographer there has occasionally managed to include them “by accident” in a photograph at a school sports day or other public event.

Despite the support they have received, there are still bills to pay. Before Madeleine’s disappearance, Kate was a locum GP, but she has never returned to work. Gerry continues as a senior cardiologist. (It is a tiny point, but symbolic of how almost every fact is twisted in this story. Gerry is not a surgeon, as often inaccurately reported. He is the man who keeps you alive and your essential tubes open when you are having your heart operation under the surgeon’s knife.)

Kate and Gerry hate being recognised. When I was with them, we would sometimes walk into a restaurant and the whole place would go quiet as they entered. People are mostly sympathetic. Many just don’t know what to say to them.

Nobody in my experience has ever been bold enough to accuse them of anything unpleasant to their faces. All of the worst, ugly nonsense is online – that Gerry is not Madeleine’s real dad, that paedophilia is somehow involved, that there’s a huge global government conspiracy to cover something up.

One of the most ridiculous and offensive theories I have come across online – and there are many – is that Madeleine had somehow been hidden at the church in Praia da Luz inside a coffin, beneath a body awaiting burial.

I continue to believe Madeleine was abducted for some reason. Kate is sure that, just short of her fourth birthday, Madeleine would not have been capable of wandering out of the apartment, closing the curtains, sliding doors and two small gates behind her.

And so the couple keep her bedroom in Leicestershire ready for her return, with the presents there for all the birthdays and Christmases with them that she has missed. It is very much a family-only place. In all my time in their house, that door has remained shut.

They hope and pray that, wherever she is, Madeleine is being looked after. What sustains them is that there is absolutely no evidence of physical harm coming to her. So they will always believe firmly that it is as logical to think she might be alive as it is illogical to assume the worst.

As told to Peter Stanford

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

Verdi wrote:I make no apologies for again uploading this abominable nonsense.  A prime example of the lengths some will go to protect the name McCann - I only hope he can sleep at night.

Clarence Mitchell talking about the crying "incident" is worthy of condemnation. His mentioning of Rachel Oldfield not hearing anything the night before Madeleine was reported missing is puzzling, in my opinion. Is he suggesting that Madeleine was lying about such serious episode? Why in God's name is Mitchell concluding how Madeleine felt in that moment?

"In no way was she unhappy."

Brother, you never even met Madeleine. How can you say with certainty how she was feeling?

Edgeley Park millionaire brings Maddie's dad to Stockport [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
30/1/2008
 
HEARTBREAK dad Gerry McCann took time out from the frantic search for his missing daughter Madeleine to watch Sale Sharks beat Harlequins at Edgeley Park on Friday.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
 
Mr McCann and his legal adviser Clarence Mitchell were guests of Sharks' millionaire owner Brian Kennedy.
 
Mr Kennedy, a previous owner of Stockport County, who sold the football club to the supporters' trust, has been a staunch supporter of the McCann family's campaign to find Madeleine.
 
The youngster's disappearance in Portugal last May, just days before her fourth birthday, sparked a worldwide hunt, and since then Gerry and his wife Kate have been at the centre of the media spotlight.

It has been widely reported that the McCann family's spokesman Clarence Mitchell's £75,000 salary, is being paid by Mr Kennedy and further help is being given by his lawyer Ed Smethurst.
 
Mr Kennedy told the Stockport Express yesterday: "Gerry McCann came out (to the match) for a couple of hours to help clear his mind. I wouldn't want this to compromise our campaign to find Madeleine. I remain absolutely committed to the campaign to find Madeleine and my support goes on."


[Acknowledgement:  Pamalam, gerrymccannsblogs]

Mr McCann and his legal adviser Clarence Mitchell were guests of Sharks' millionaire owner Brian Kennedy.

 Legal advisor ?

Verdi wrote:Edgeley Park millionaire brings Maddie's dad to Stockport [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
30/1/2008
 
HEARTBREAK dad Gerry McCann took time out from the frantic search for his missing daughter Madeleine to watch Sale Sharks beat Harlequins at Edgeley Park on Friday.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
 
Mr McCann and his legal adviser Clarence Mitchell were guests of Sharks' millionaire owner Brian Kennedy.
 
Mr Kennedy, a previous owner of Stockport County, who sold the football club to the supporters' trust, has been a staunch supporter of the McCann family's campaign to find Madeleine.
 
The youngster's disappearance in Portugal last May, just days before her fourth birthday, sparked a worldwide hunt, and since then Gerry and his wife Kate have been at the centre of the media spotlight.

It has been widely reported that the McCann family's spokesman Clarence Mitchell's £75,000 salary, is being paid by Mr Kennedy and further help is being given by his lawyer Ed Smethurst.
 
Mr Kennedy told the Stockport Express yesterday: "Gerry McCann came out (to the match) for a couple of hours to help clear his mind. I wouldn't want this to compromise our campaign to find Madeleine. I remain absolutely committed to the campaign to find Madeleine and my support goes on."


[Acknowledgement:  Pamalam, gerrymccannsblogs]

Mr McCann and his legal adviser Clarence Mitchell were guests of Sharks' millionaire owner Brian Kennedy.

 Legal advisor ?

Hi Verdi, UK "Reservoir Dogs", Gerry Not smirking there is HE, wrong type of Ball?

Carlos Anjos wrote:'He is a liar and a Machiavellian....

'He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth....

Clarence Mitchell and the McCanns:

21 Issues of Concern

Here we examine 21 of the many issues that have caused people concern about Mitchell’s role in the Madeleine McCann case. At the end of our leaflet we explain how to obtain more information on the Madeleine McCann case, including our 60-page booklet: ‘What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted’.

1. Allegedly being involved in tipping off the McCanns that the Portuguese police had been, or were going to, track their e-mails and ’phone calls
The McCanns were tipped off that the Portuguese police were monitoring their e-mails and ’phone calls. There was naturally concern over how this information leaked to them. A former Portuguese police officer has admitted working for the Spanish private detective agency, Metodo 3. He in turn had an inside contact in the Portuguese police who supplied Metodo 3 with information about the investigation. Clarence Mitchell was asked in an interview by Simon Israel on Channel 4 how the McCanns were tipped off. He refused to answer.

2. Being forced to deny the McCanns’ initial claim of a break-in
On the evening that Madeleine was reported missing, the McCanns claimed an abductor had broken into the children’s room by ‘jemmying open the shutters’. They repeated that claim many times - a claim the media reported extensively. But the managers of the Mark Warners resort where the McCanns were staying, and the police, soon discovered that the shutters had not been tampered with. This forcing the McCanns to dramatically change their story - one of many changes of story - to say: ‘the abductor must have walked in through an unlocked patio door”. Asked about this discrepancy, Mitchell was forced to concede on the record: “There was no evidence of a break-in. I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape. To do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily”. It is however most unlikley that an abductor could have ‘got out of the window easily’ leaving no forensic trace.

3. Smearing Robert Murat
A curious feature of the Madeleine case was the targeting of Robert Murat, a dual Portuguese-British citizen, as a suspect. A journalist who worked closely with Clarence Mitchell, Lori Campbell, suspected Murat of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance and reported him to the Police. Three of the McCanns’ close friends, the so-called ‘Tapas 7’, also reported seeing Robert Murat close to the McCanns’ apartment the evening Madeleine went missing, a claim he denied. The McCann camp made a concerted attempt, for whatever reason, to smear Murat. Clarence Mitchell himself played a key role in this: He said:

“An outcome similar to Holly and Jessica [Soham children murdered by Ian Huntley] is possible. I don't want to, and I can't, talk about Robert Murat, but some journalists who worked with me in Soham, and that were now in Portugal, saw resemblances between that case and Robert Murat. And I won't say more”.

He was very lucky that Murat did not sue him for libel, since in 2008 Robert Murat collected a reported £550,000 in libel damages from news media and journalists whom he claimed had smeared and libelled him.

4. Being forced to retract his claim that ‘Madeleine is probably dead’
During early 2008, Clarence Mitchell was forced to concede that ‘Madeleine is probably dead’. This caused grave embarrassment for the McCanns, who were determined publicly to maintain that Madeleine was still alive. His statement could also have had serious implications for the Fund, which can only continue to operate and keep asking for donations on this premise. Dr Gerald McCann was forced to publicly rebuke his PR chief by insisting on his blog two days later that they remained hopeful that Madeleine was still alive.

5. Failing to explain that the ‘Helping to Find Madeleine Fund’ was not a charity
Interviewed by James Whale, Mitchell repeatedly refused to correct Whale when he referred to the McCanns’ fund as a ‘charity’. In fact, the Helping to Find Madeleine Fund is registered as a ‘private trust’; its aims are not charitable and include making payments to the McCanns.

6. Asking people to send money in envelopes to ‘Gerry and Kate, Rothley’
Asked on the same James Whale show how people could contribute to the fund, Mitchell said: “Just put money into an envelope and send to Kate and Gerry McCann, Rothley, it’ll get there”. That was unprofessional - monies should have been directed to the registered office for the Fund, namely London Solicitors Bates, Wells & Braithwaite. For example, monies sent in the post could be stolen en route or would not be properly accounted for.

7. Claiming that the Fund was ‘independently controlled’
Pressed about control of the ‘Helping to Find Madeleine Fund’, Clarence Mitchell claimed that the Fund was ‘independently controlled’. This is untrue. The Trust’s Directors consist mainly of members of the McCann family and their friends or acquaintances.

8. Retreating on whether or not the McCanns would take a lie detector test
The McCanns were anxious to convince the world that they were telling the truth about how Madeleine had suddenly gone missing. To bolster their claim, Clarence Mitchell announced: “Kate and Gerry McCann would have no issue with taking a lie detector test”. However, two months later, he announced: "Of course they are not going to take any lie detector test”.

9. Making a film for TV about the McCanns’ distress ‘one year on’ whilst at the same time claiming the McCanns were not doing so
Clarence Mitchell told the media: “The McCanns don't want to do anything about 'woe is us a year on'. That is what the tabloids would like us to do, but we are not following their agenda, we are following our own agenda” (one of many references to ‘our agenda’). Weeks later, there was a two-hour long pre-recorded TV interview: ‘Madeleine McCann - One Year On’, clearly prepared long before his public statement, and certainly with his personal knowledge.

10. Issuing a ‘Crimewatch’-style video clip with a description of an abductor
It has always been the McCanns who have given out descriptions of a possible abductor. The Portuguese police from early on doubted the truthfulness of claims by Jane Tanner, one of the McCanns’ ‘Tapas 7’ friends, that she had seen an abductor. In early 2008, Clarence Mitchell announced that the McCann team were looking for a moustachioed man seen in Praia da Luz around the time Madeleine went missing. He did this in a widely-shown video clip in which he acted like a Crimewatch presenter. At a meeting at the London School of Economics on 30 January 2008, this performance, plus his commanding stance and choice of words, prompted one member of the LSE audience to ask: “Are you the police?” There was much laughter.

11. Claiming that “…whatever the Portuguese police might find in their investigation, the McCanns will have an innocent explanation for it”
To this bizarre statement, Mitchell added the equally strange comment: “There are wholly innocent explanations for any material that the police may or may not have found”, prompting many to ask: “How could the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell know in advance what the police might find and know that there would be ‘an innocent explanation’ for everything?

12. Claiming it didn’t matter if Dr Kate McCann changed her clothes on 3 May
One of the key issues in the Madeleine McCann case is whether the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 7’ friends have been telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the events of 3 May 2007, the day Madeleine was reported missing. In late 2008, a French journalist, Duarte Levy, claimed to have seen photos taken that evening conclusively proving that Dr Kate McCann had left the table during the evening and changed her clothes. That would blow a hole in her claim that she was at the Tapas bar the whole evening. She would have had to explain why she changed her clothes. Mitchell’s official response to these claims was: “So what if she did leave the table and change her clothes?” He refused to elaborate.

13. Saying that ‘none of the Tapas group’ were wearing watches the night Madeleine went missing - and then being forced to retract that statement
Clarence Mitchell had come under pressure from journalists to explain why there were so many major contradictions between the McCanns’ and the Tapas 7’s versions of events on 3 May 2007, when Madeleine ‘disappeared’. There were also many discrepancies in their timelines. Mitchell tried to explain, responding: “None of them were wearing watches or had mobile phones on them that night”. Those journalists then confronted him with the sheer unlikelihood that all nine had neither watch nor mobile ’phone, pointed out that the McCanns and others had used their mobile ’phones that night, and produced pictures of the McCanns and their Tapas 7 friends taken in Praia da Luz that week which showed that they were always wearing watches. Clarence Mitchell was forced into an embarrassing retreat, conceding: “Some of them were wearing watches and had mobile ’phones, some of them weren’t”. It is also now known from the McCanns’ statements to the Police, which have been publicly released, that the McCanns both had mobile ’phones with them that evening. As their official spokesman, Mitchell must surely have been briefed on this before he made his statement.

14. Falsely claiming that the McCanns had been ‘utterly honest and utterly open’
On 11 April 2008, Clarence Mitchell made this bold claim: “Kate and Gerry have been utterly honest and utterly open with the police and all of their statements from the moment that Madeleine was taken”. He later said, referring to himself and the McCanns: ‘We have nothing to hide’. When addressing a largely student audience during what were called ‘The Coventry Conversations’, Mitchell said: “We are always willing to co-operate with the Portuguese police”. These were astounding claims to make given that…

• Dr Kate McCann was asked 48 questions by the Portuguese police when interviewed on 7 September 2007 and refused to answer any of them.
• The McCanns had refused point blank to take part in a reconstruction of the events of 3 May 2007, the night Madeleine McCann was reported missing.
• The McCanns’ statements contained changes of story, contradictions with the accounts of others, evasions and obfuscations.


15. Claiming it would be ‘hugely entertaining’ to devise a cast list for a proposed film about Madeleine going missing
On 7 January 2008 it was widely reported in the media that the McCanns and their advisers were in talks with media and film moguls IMG, who made the film ‘Touching the Void’, about a possible film about Madeleine’s disappearance. Clarence Mitchell was asked whether Gerry and Kate would play themselves in any film or if their roles would be played by celebrity actors. He said: “It may be hugely entertaining and a bit of fun to speculate on a cast list, but we are a million miles away from that sort of thing”. On another occasion, he said of Madeleine: “If she is dead, she is dead”. These and other comments made some wonder how much ‘feel’ or concern for Madeleine’s welfare and fate Mitchell really had.

16. Claiming it was a British cultural custom for parents to put children to bed early so they could enjoy the rest of the evening
Interviewed by Irish TV station RTE, Clarence Mitchell tried to explain why the McCanns left three young children under four on their own, several nights in a row, whilst on holiday, and out for the evening wining and dining. He told his TV audience: “There is a cultural difference between Britain and Portugal. It is a British approach to get your children washed, bathed and in bed early in the evening, if you can, so you can have something of the evening to yourself. That’s the British way of doing things. It doesn't mean it's wrong. It doesn't mean it's right”. Many British parents objected strongly to Mitchell’s description of them..

17. Trying to deny that the McCanns had left the children alone every night
In an interview with Jon Gaunt of TalkSport, Clarence Mitchell was trying to explain why the McCanns had left their children alone ‘that night’ (i.e. the night of 3 May when Madeleine was reported missing). He was quickly corrected by Gaunt who reminded him: ‘But they left them alone every night’. Mitchell had no answer.

18. Blaming Romany gypsies for abducting Madeleine
Clarence Mitchell on one occasion pointed the finger of suspicion at Romany gypsies for having abducted Madeleine. It appeared he had no basis whatsoever for smearing this group of people. He has never apologised for making it.

19. Using an image of Mari Luz without her parents’ permission
Months after Madeleine went missing, another child, Mari Luz, went missing, though in very different circumstances. Sadly she has since been found dead. The McCanns printed posters of Madeleine together with Mari Luz - without gaining the parents’ prior permission. Her parents were very upset, and complained. Clarence Mitchell reacted by stating: “It’s a shame that they are complaining about us in a press release. How can they be angry with is for wanting to help when all we’re trying to do is find their own daughter?”

20. Being ‘encouraged’ that Madeleine ‘may have been abducted by paedophiles’
In early 2008, stories were put about by an unknown Portuguese lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia, that Madeleine McCann had been abducted by paedophiles, raped, murdered and her body dumped in a dammed lake. At the time, a new drawing of a possible abductor was released, and part of the Arade Dam was searched. A friend of the McCanns was quoted as saying: “We fear that a group of two or three paedophiles may have been fishing around the apartments, casing them with a view to taking children". Mitchell then commented:

“Developments such as this give Mr and Mrs McCann renewed hope. That is exactly the sort of call we want. We think the image is of such a quality that anyone who knows him will be able to identify him. Kate and Gerry are quite buoyant at the moment - every time we do something like this and move things forward it gives them strength. We’re very encouraged by this - putting all this information out, these images out, is helping Gerry and Kate in one way; simply by doing it we have got some momentum and are pushing the agenda forward on our side of the equation”.


Many asked why Mitchell and the McCanns could use such words as ‘buoyant’ and ‘encouraged’ in relation to Madeleine’s having been raped and murdered. The use of the word ‘agenda’ once again prompted the question: What was their ‘agenda’?

21. Explaining why the McCanns deliberately left their three children alone again the night after Madeleine and Sean had been crying the night before
On SKY News, Clarence Mitchell was interviewed, following a pre-recorded interview with the McCanns in which they admitted, for the first time, that two of their children had been crying on the night before Madeleine went missing. There was public outrage that the McCanns were told by their children that they had been crying the previous night whilst they were out wining and dining, only to then leave them alone again the very next night. The SKY News presenter asked: “Why did Kate and Gerry choose to leave the children the same way the very next night?” Clarence Mitchell’s reply is instructive. Here it is in full:

“That is one interpretation. Let me put it in context. On the morning of May the 3rd, the day Madeleine later went missing, she came out, and said to Gerry and Kate at breakfast, very briefly as an aside, in no way was she unhappy or crying and then, in no way was she reprimanding her parents as some reports papers have wrongly, er, said. She simply said: “Why didn’t you come see - come and see me and Sean when we were crying, last night?”, and Kate and Gerry were puzzled by that, because in their checks - they had been checking her every 25/30 minutes, the same as they did the next night, when she went missing - they had found nothing to suggest that she was in any way distressed or upset, they found her asleep each time. There was nothing wrong. Rachel Oldfield, one of their friends, was in the apartment next door, in the room adjacent to Madeleine’s bedroom.


“She too was there all evening and heard no crying through the walls. There was nothing to suggest this had happened. So it was a puzzle to Kate and Gerry when Madeleine mentioned it. They tried to question her about it, and she just walked off laughing, and, er, happy, she was [note the past tense] a child and she and, and so, so she dropped it. Now they of course had a serious discussion about what had possibly gone wrong and they decided to check her more thoroughly that next night, and that’s what they did. And in the context of what happened later - her disappearance - they felt that that conversation, puzzling as it was, was very important to bring to the police’s attention. They wonder why, if she cried, why she cried. Was something, or someone already in that room to make her cry and they fled when she cried? Who knows? They can’t prove that, but they told the police in confidence - legally protected documentation has been in those files for 11 months - and why does it appear on the very day they were at the European Parliament? Somebody in the police doesn’t want Kate and Gerry to widen the agenda [that word again!], for whatever reason. It’s wrong. It’s illegal, and the Portuguese government needs to stop this…from happening in the future” [NOTE: The ‘leak’ came from a Spanish journalist known to be very sympathetic to the McCanns].

During this long reply, we see the master media manipulator at work. He makes light of two children crying while their parents were not with them. He justifies the McCanns’ decision to go out wining and dining and leaving all three children alone again the very night after the children told them of their crying. He claims, without evidence, that the Police leaked the story about the McCanns’ children crying on their own the night before. He claims the police have done something illegal. Some might admire him as a master of his craft, and indeed one writer has already said that the McCanns’ public relations campaign will for years to come be a textbook example of how to control the media and manipulate public opinion. But, we may ask, if this is true, whose interests has Clarence Mitchell been serving? Is he someone who helps us get to the truth? Or someone who does his best to stop us getting to the truth?

[Acknowledgement: The Madeleine Foundation]

Former BBC royal correspondent shortlisted by Brighton Pavilion Conservatives

Posted On 24 Jul 2013 at 9:10 pm

By : Frank le Duc

The former BBC reporter who acts as spokesman for the family of missing Madeleine McCann has been shortlisted by Brighton Pavilion Conservatives.

Clarence Mitchell has represented Kate and Gerry McCann for almost six years after their daughter disappeared during a holiday in Portugal.

His previous jobs include heading the government’s Media Monitoring Unit and a 20-year career with the BBC.

He worked as a royal correspondent, political reporter and presenter during his time at the corporation, having trained as a reporter at the Westminster Press Training Centre in Hastings.

Since September 2011, Mr Mitchell, who was born in 1962, has been a managing director at public affairs firm Burson-Marsteller UK.

He is one of three candidates to have been shortlisted for the parliamentary seat. The winner will challenge Green MP Caroline Lucas for a place in the House of Commons at the next general election which is due to be held in May 2015.

One of Mr Mitchell’s rivals is Michelle Lowe, a marketing communications specialist and the deputy leader of Sevenoaks District Council.

The other is solicitor Jean-Paul Floru, who serves as a member of Westminster City Council. He is the author of What the Immigrant Saw, a book looking at Britain through the eyes of an immigrant from Belgium.

The Brighton Pavilion hustings are being held tomorrow (Thursday 25 July) and will be chaired by Councillor Ann Norman, who represents Withdean ward on Brighton and Hove City Council.

She said: “I’m delighted that our members have three excellent candidates to choose from.”

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

Who could possibly resist a former government media manipulator and ongoing spokesman for the prime suspects in the case of a missing three year old child - their own daughter, to represent the conservative party, Brighton and Hove constituency.

No contest!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Would I lie to you .... ?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Yes, I think you would .... !

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Would I lie to you .... ?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Yes, I think you would .... !

Trust me - it was THIS big ! 

There's an innocent explanation for anything I say !

sandancer wrote:

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Would I lie to you .... ?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Yes, I think you would .... !

Trust me - it was THIS big ! 

There's an innocent explanation for anything I say !

.... but it all started in May 2007 like this, then it kinda like got bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger ....

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