When did Clarence Mitchell arrange for the McCanns to see the Pope?

by **Tony Bennett** 02.01.11 9:43

Here's an article published in September 2007, when it was announced officially that Clarence Mitchell would be leaving the government and working full-time for the McCanns. The paragraph I am especially interested in is the one in blue below.

QUOTE

Mr Mitchell announced today that he was stepping down from his role as director of the media monitoring unit at the government's Central Office of Information to help the "innocent victims of a heinous crime".

The unit, which is responsible for providing 24-hour coverage and in-depth news briefings for press officers, policy officials, special advisers and ministers across all government departments, is based in the Cabinet Office in Whitehall.

Mr Mitchell joined the unit in April last year but this summer found himself in Portugal - at the request of the Foreign Office - advising the McCanns for around a month until the end of June.

While in Portugal he was reportedly behind the McCanns' visit to the Pope and their tour of Spain, Germany and Morocco.

Upon his return he went back to his former role; just last month he was pushing a new initiative at the MMU looking at an online monitoring product to track public debates from blogs.

UNQUOTE

The relevant facts are these.

It is reported thatt Clarence Mitchell flew out to Praia da Luz on Tuesday 22 May 2007.

The McCanns flew in Sir Philip Green's private jet to Rome to see the Pope the following Tuesday, meeting the Pope in a highly televised event the following day - Wednesday 30 May.

In a TV interview which I think has been published on YouTube, Clarence Mitchell openly boasts that it was he who arranged the visit to 'His Holiness', 'The Holy Father'. He had arranged it via then Roman Catholic Archbishop of England, Cormac Murphy O'Connor, who notoriously covered up the child sexual abuse of one of his priests in his former diocese covering Sussex - and arranged for the offender simply to be transferred to another parish.

The article above claims that 'while in Portugal' Mitchell was 'reportedly behind the McCanns' visit to the Pope'.

But can that be true?

Did he not, more likely than not, arrange this with Archbishop O'Connor well before he left the U.K. for Portugal? Spoke to the Archbishop, explained the need, arranged the date etc.? Are we expected to believe that all this was done on the 'phone frm Portugal?

And if in fact the visit to the 'Vicar of Christ' was arranged before his flight out to Praia da Luz on 22 May, when did Clarence Mitchell first really get involved in this case?

Given that he was the Head of the government's Media Monitoring Unit at the time, working at the heart of the Cabinet Office, is it not probable that he was actively involved in the public relations exercise in this case from Day One - Thursday 3 May 2007?

+++++++++++

ETA: I wonder how MItchell and his colleagues are getting on with this project: "...just last month he was pushing a new initiative at the MMU looking at an online monitoring product to track public debates from blogs".

by **PeterMac** 02.01.11 10:48

Good morning Tony, and Happy New Year.
This is very odd, and quite disturbing
It is very doubtful whether the visit to Rome could have been organised at such short notice. If we go with that, then you must be right when you argue that Mitchell was involved from much earlier.
If so, on whose instructions ? And why.
I have read a blog site which makes serious accusations against a senior member of the previous government on a matter not wholly unrelated to what the McCanns said had happened to their child. The site is still there, and has not been Carter-Rucked on behalf of that person.
This is all most perplexing, but raises another possibility.
Would it be possible for Mitchell to carry on with all those plans, go out to PdL, say the stupid things he did say, and so on, unless he had full knowledge of the facts. ? Will he, when the mystery is finally unravelled, be able to say he was the innocent victim, or will he be shown to have been a co-conspirator ?

by **Tony Bennett** 02.01.11 11:13

PeterMac wrote:Good morning Tony, and Happy New Year.

This is very odd, and quite disturbing

It is very doubtful whether the visit to Rome could have been organised at such short notice. If we go with that, then you must be right when you argue that Mitchell was involved from much earlier. If so, on whose instructions? And why?

I have read a blog site which makes serious accusations against a senior member of the previous government on a matter not wholly unrelated to what the McCanns said had happened to their child. The site is still there, and has not been Carter-Rucked on behalf of that person.

This is all most perplexing, but raises another possibility.

Would it be possible for Mitchell to carry on with all those plans, go out to PdL, say the stupid things he did say, and so on, unless he had full knowledge of the facts? Will he, when the mystery is finally unravelled, be able to say he was the innocent victim, or will he be shown to have been a co-conspirator?

Hallo PeterMac, thanks for the greetings, and a Happy New Year also to you and yours.

Just to recap re Clarence Mitchell...

...involved in reporting on the Rosemary West child murders and the Soham child murders

...closely co-operated with hackette Lori Cambell in the reporting of the Soham child murders, where the police Family Liaison officer was a paedophile

...may have helped Lori Campbell to develop her smears of Robert Murat in the press within days of Madeleine being reported missing

...was Head of the 40-strong government Media Monitoring Unit, based in the Cabinet Office, at the time of Madeleine's disappearance

...publicly claimed that he was 'assured that this was a clear-cut case of abduction' before 'agreeing' to be seconded to the Foreign Office and flying out to Praia da Luz

...was apparently allowed to retire from the civil service in September 2007 to take on a full-time role as the McCanns' chief public relations adviser

...was able to orchestrate countless press conferences and media stories about the McCanns over the past three-and-a-half years in a compliant media...and spoke publicly at various seminars and conferences about his good work for the McCanns (though obviously not about his success or progress in helping to find Madeleine)

...when he went part-time with the McCanns, was able to land a job working for Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law, Matthew Freud

...popped up as No. 2 to Andy Coulson, David Cameron's Head of Communications, 7 weeks before last year's General Election, Coulson having been Editor of the Murdoch paper 'News of the World'.

In addition to that, two sources, one of them a documentary film-maker, have assured me that they are certain that Clarence Mitchell is an MI5 employee with connections at the very heart of MI5 - and in that role would know about all the skeletons in the cupboard of anyone who is anyone in this country...worth also noting here that Goncalo Amaral in his book specifically mentions that he (Amaral) attended a meeting at which at least one MI5 officer was present.

In summary, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that one day Mitchell might find himself arraigned at a Magistrates Court hearing (probably Horseferry Road, Westminster) on a charge of 'conspiracy to pervert the course of justice'.

I think the maximum sentence for this is 14 years...

by Judge Mental 02.01.11 13:08

Petermac wrote: ''Would it be possible for Mitchell to carry on with all those plans, go out to PdL, say the stupid things he did say, and so on, unless he had full knowledge of the facts? Will he, when the mystery is finally unravelled, be able to say he was the innocent victim, or will he be shown to have been a co-conspirator?''

Tony Bennett wrote: ''In summary, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that one day Mitchell might find himself arraigned at a Magistrates Court hearing (probably Horseferry Road, Westminster) on a charge of 'conspiracy to pervert the course of justice'.

I think the maximum sentence for this is 14 years...''

This is not long enough.

by BoSelecta 02.01.11 13:15

Is there any proof MI5 were involved, other than hearsay. Be interesting if there was real proof...

by **PeterMac** 02.01.11 15:21

You don't get 'proof' of what MI5 or 6 do.
Officially they don't exist. Despite everyone else being able to see the enormous HQ on the Embankment

by Guest 02.01.11 15:24

PeterMac wrote:You don't get 'proof' of what MI5 or 6 do.
Officially they don't exist. Despite everyone else being able to see the enormous HQ on the Embankment

by **PeterMac** 02.01.11 16:30

To Tony
An impressive list of the "Angel of death"
In the West and Soham ones he seems to have been merely there as a reporter for the BBC or whoever.
It is the intimitate nature of his involvement in this one which is fascinating. He is acting "for" the prime suspects. On their behalf, and either on their instructions, or in some other capacity which may involve giving advice to them about long term strategy.
In that second scenario he becomes involved in the case itself, and would need to know many details, in order to decide which pieces of evidence he was and was not going to allow to be put into the public domain. Put simply, he would have to know more than he was letting on to.
Which makes him a conspirator IF it is shown that a crime other than a simply and obvious child neglect has been committed.
Or possibly ...
Section 4 Criminal Law Act 1967 (1) ...
The offence of assisting an offender ("the principal offender") is committed when:-
the principal offender has committed an arrestable offence [a relevant offence];
the accused knows or believes that the principal offender has committed that or some other arrestable offence [other relevant offence];
the accused does any act with intent to impede the apprehension or prosecution of the principal offender; and
the act is done without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

Examples of the type of conduct appropriate for a charge of assisting an offender include:-....
otherwise assisting a principal offender to avoid arrest;
lying to the police to protect principal offenders from investigation and prosecution;
(Wiki)

by Mickey 02.01.11 16:52

PeterMac wrote:You don't get 'proof' of what MI5 or 6 do.
Officially they don't exist. Despite everyone else being able to see the enormous HQ on the Embankment

I don't think that's quite right. Here is a link to the MI5 website - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

and here is a link to the MI6 website - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]