"Abduction - only an assumption" - Clarence Mitchell

by **Tony Bennett** 17.01.11 19:18

On another thread...

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

...I have reproduced a transcript of Clarence Mitchell's interview on Radio Hull about the McCanns' forthcoming 'very truthful' book.

In this interview, he says several very important things - but two which are perhaps especially significant.

He says that the McCanns 'knew' that Madeleine 'couldn't have' wandered off the night she was reported missing, so they can - QUOTE 'only assume' UNQUOTE that someone 'took' her.

Soon afterwards, Mitchell says that the private detectives have abduction as no more than a 'working hypothesis' - a phrase he uses twice in the same interview.

Some dictionary definitions (from the Concise Oxford):

ASSUME: "To take or accept as being true without proof, for the purpose of argument or action"

ASSUMPTION: “An act of or instance of accepting without proof..."

HYPOTHESIS: "A proposition as a basis for reasoning, without the assumption of its truth…a supposition made as a starting point for further investigation of known facts".

Now, Clarence Mitchell is not a man to accidentally drop the 'wrong' words into an interview:-

* He wasn't made up to Director of the government's Media Monitoring Unit for nothing.

* He wasn't appointed to head up the ongoing public relations operation for the McCanns without having earned a reputation for using the 'right' words at the 'right' time.

* Freud Communications would hardly have employed him as a PR Consultant if he had a reputation for accidentally coming out with the 'wrong' words.

* He wouldn't have a job now with Lewis PR Consultants if from time to time he didn't say exactly what he meant to say.

* And Prime Minister David Cameron would scarcely have appointed him to assist his Head of his Communications Unit during the recent General Election campaign if he had a reputation for making gaffes.

Moreover, Mitchell works for the McCanns and says, in the same interview, that he is in contact with them 'virtually every day', either in person, by e-mail or by 'phone. Thus he is hardly likley to blurt out anything contrary to his clients' instructions. And particularly so when he uses the words 'assumption'/'hypothesis' not once in the interview but three times.

Now, an assumption can be challeneged by anyone.

Similarly, if one person can develop a hypothesos, so can another, mentioning no names, Goncalo Amaral for example.

Equally, if someone has advanced a hypothesis, as happens frequently in the worlds of both science and criminal investigations, it is permitted for someone else to provide evidence for or against that hypothesis, presumably without fear of being taken to the cleaners for libel in the High Court by the U.K.'s 'most feared libel lawyers' (to quote the words of Carter-Ruck).

THEREFORE:

Let totally free discussion of the McCanns' assumption and the McCann detectives' working hypothesis commence, without further ado - and without any more threats of libel actions.

Clarence Mitchell has spoken.

by crikey 17.01.11 19:26

Maybe Clarences' grasp of the English language is not as good as yours, but personally him using two different words is not the smoking gun we need to convict the Kate and Gerry

by Judge Mental 17.01.11 19:43

crikey wrote:Maybe Clarences' grasp of the English language is not as good as yours, but personally him using two different words is not the smoking gun we need to convict the Kate and Gerry

It's a jolly good start though, one would have thought big grin

After all, Mitchell is one of the very closest people to the McCanns since David and Fiona Payne in May 2007. Mitchell knows them inside out and can virtually vouch for every breath they have ever taken by his own accounts. Surely if he is beginning to sound doubtful and moving the goal posts, there is plenty of room for others to begin making their manoeuvres?

by **Tony Bennett** 17.01.11 21:31

crikey wrote:Maybe Clarences' grasp of the English language is not as good as yours

REPLY: I suspect it is much better than mine, especially in terms of using the mass media to get over whatever message his various masters want him to get over to the public

, but personally him using two different words is not the smoking gun we need to convict the Kate and Gerry

REPLY: But the two words he used, quite deliberately, open the floodgates for those who want to discuss and publish every angle of this case, without fear of the consequences. So it's good news...and in earthquake terms, this shift of the tectonic plates must be about 7-plus on the Richter scale

by **PeterMac** 17.01.11 21:51

Careless words cost lives, as someone once said.
Mitchell's careless words have, in my view, made it almost impossible for Carter-Ruck to continue bullying anyone who dares to step outside the previously official line of
- Definitely an abduction, because we knew at once... - and - Our team of detectives are working to trace her, because there is no evidence that show has she has come to any harm - Though they will no doubt try, if they are paid enough, obviously. They are Solicitors. Bullying letters from C-R are enough to intimidate anyone who does not have infinite resources.
Now we are talking the language of "assuming things to be so, and operating on a mere 'working hypothesis' - which one normally does in the absence of anything else concrete to go on. And as has been observed, Mitchell is still their official and only spokeman. He boasts of being in contact either by phone or email every day. He has been in their presence for nearly 4 years, and is paid either by them or by a proxy. He therefore speaks for them and has only once had to be reined in, when he talked about Madelene's possible death early on.
I repeat a previous comment, that I can forsee a new booklet - "60 counters to the "Assumption" and a further 60 to the "Working hypothesis"". I look forward to its publication, because I do not see that either could now seriously be seen as libellous.

by candarel 17.01.11 21:59

Tony I am sure some of the sentences you have produced would send the richter scale off the moniter, so I don't think you should try to twist Clarences words. Do you honestly think that he is trying to say something against the Mccanns in those words?

by crikey 17.01.11 22:27

Tony Bennett wrote:...but personally him using two different words is not the smoking gun we need to convict the Kate and Gerry

REPLY: But the two words he used, quite deliberately, open the floodgates for those who want to discuss and publish every angle of this case, without fear of the consequences. So it's good news...and in earthquake terms, this shift of the tectonic plates must be about 7-plus on the Richter scale

Tony, you know I appreciate what you have done in the name of Madeleine and justice for her, but dissecting the words and saying he deliberately changed them is, in my opinion, reckless to say the least. Is there any evidence he meant to use the words, deliberately, or was it just he used different words at different times?

by Judge Mental 17.01.11 22:37

candarel wrote:Tony I am sure some of the sentences you have produced would send the richter scale off the moniter, so I don't think you should try to twist Clarences words. Do you honestly think that he is trying to say something against the Mccanns in those words?

Not that anybody is currently doing so, but why should Tony Bennett or anybody else refrain from twisting Mitchell's words? Has he not been deliberately twisting every single statement that the PJ and Amaral have ever made in connection with this case since the day it began? Is Mitchell not trying to twist what has recently been discovered in Wikileaks? Was it not Mitchell who told us that the Tapas 9 were not wearing watches, and that it is a somewhat integral part of British culture to regularly abandon tiny tots. when adults want their downtime at the end of a hard day's holidaying?

It was Mitchell himself who made the quite sinister remark about the gloves being off. Therefore, he started it! lol!

by **Tony Bennett** 17.01.11 23:01

crikey wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:...but personally him using two different words is not the smoking gun we need to convict the Kate and Gerry

REPLY: But the two words he used, quite deliberately, open the floodgates for those who want to discuss and publish every angle of this case, without fear of the consequences. So it's good news...and in earthquake terms, this shift of the tectonic plates must be about 7-plus on the Richter scale

Tony, you know I appreciate what you have done in the name of Madeleine and justice for her, but dissecting the words and saying he deliberately changed them is, in my opinion, reckless to say the least. Is there any evidence he meant to use the words, deliberately, or was it just he used different words at different times?

crikey, let's remember that Clarence Mitchell is one of the premier wordsmiths of our time. He thinks about and rehearses every statement he makes, every word he utters. He rehearses them. He advises people like two successive Prime Ministers (Labour and then Conservative) on what messages to put out, what precise words to use. Is there any evidence that he uses these words deliberately, you ask? Of course! He is the master of using words deliberately, as the history of his many statements in the McCann case amply demonstrate.

Let me tell you a story from the Stuart Lubbock/Michael Barrymore case about how a few words can represent a seismic shift.

For a year-and-a-half I battled together with Stuart Lubbock's father to get at the truth of how Stuart Lubbock died. We succeeded in getting a full Essex Police re-investigation and Barrymore and two others were arrested and questioned in June 2007 on suspicion of the murder of Lubbock.

One of the key issues in the case was the appalling set of injuries to Lubbock's anus, I will spare you the graphic details which came out at the Inquest.

Barrymore and his team had to accept that he had suffered these injuries, but maintained for years that they were possibly caused in hospital, maybe by a thermometer inserted roughly into his anus.

It was a preposterous theory, of course, but he and his team maintained it at every opportunity.

The News of the World serialised my book on the case in early 2007, during which I had many conversations with its then Associate Editor, Phil Taylor. After the book was serialised, Barrymore and one of his team met up with Taylor and a colleague to discuss the case, Barrymore by that time being desperate to recover his reputation.

In the conversation, Taylor put to Barrymore the overhwelming case that Lubbock's injuries must have occurred on his premises.

To that, Barrymore said that 'It might have happened whilst I was inside smoking a joint, but then again I can't see through walls'.

This I believe to have been another fabrication, I am sure Barrymore knows much, much more about what happened to Lubbock that night.

However, as Taylor pointed out to me next time I met him, he said: "Tony - this is huge! This is a major, major shift for Barrymore, believe me!"

And it was. After six years of maintaining that Lubbock suffered his appalling injuries in a hospital, now he was forced to concede by the weight of evidence that they could have occurred at his mansion.

And so I return to Mitchell's three references to 'assumptiomn' and 'hypothesis'.

There is most definitely a reason why this master wordsmith, spinner and media manipulator used those words.

Up until now, for nearly four years, we have had thrust down our throats the repeated statement that the abduction of Madeleine is a FACT.

Until recently, the media would commonly say: 'Madeleine was abducted on 3 May 2007'.

Now, increasingly, this is becoming rarer. More usual these days are: 'went missing' or 'vanished' or 'was reported missing' etc.

Until last week, the McCanns, their lawyers, Clarence Mitchell and the whole of the McCann Team presented a united front: "MADELEINE WAS ABDUCTED".

As Phil Taylor might say now: "THEY'RE SAYING THAT MADELEINE BEING ABDUCTED IS AN ASSUMPTION - A HYPOTHSIS? THAT'S A HUGE SHIFT".

Judge Mental wrote:Not that anybody is currently doing so, but why should Tony Bennett or anybody else refrain from twisting Mitchell's words? Has he not been deliberately twisting every single statement that the PJ and Amaral have ever made in connection with this case since the day it began?...It was Mitchell himself who made the quite sinister remark about the gloves being off. Therefore, he started it!

Judge Mental, I have not twisted Mitchell's words in the least.

I never twist people's words, that's never going to work, and you'll be caught out if you do.

On the contrary, I have supplied the ACTUAL words used by MITCHELL and then supplied the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of them.

Nothing could be more straightforward and honest than that.

There is not even the hint of a twist.

What I've done is to draw attention to what, for whatever reason, is without question a major change of emphasis by the McCann Team.

The abduction which was once trumpeted over the planet as a fact is now relegated to a mere 'assumption' or 'hypothesis'.

Mitchell's words, not mine.

Who knows, what once was considered a fact and is now held to be but an assumption or hypothesis may prove to be an incorrect assumption, an incorrect hypothesis.

From then on, it's but another short step to its being universally accepted as a fabrication.

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

by Judge Mental 17.01.11 23:04

''Now, an assumption can be challenged by anyone.''

Quite right, because it jolly well can.

Realising what Mitchell is now saying, rather reminds one of a very silly woman who was well past her sell by date, sitting on an East Midlands news programme advising that, ''Facts can be changed by anyone.'' Or some other such silly and nonsensical comment. Of course she sounded like a buffoon and was very wrong to say this, but to date, she has still not made a statement to apologise for misleading some of the British public with her shriekings.

One has to agree with Petermac when he says, ''I repeat a previous comment, that I can forsee a new booklet - "60 counters to the "Assumption" and a further 60 to the "Working hypothesis". I look forward to its publication, because I do not see that either could now seriously be seen as libellous''.

One has never seen any hypothesis in the McCann case which did not invite further speculation and scrutiny. To have slapped a label of libel and defamation on anybody for having the guts to pursue any of those hypotheses was folly, and only added further fuel to the debate around each individual hypothesis. Quite rightly so, or else people in the UK would still only have seen a Mitchell's eye view of the whole saga.

by Judge Mental 17.01.11 23:15

To that, Barrymore said that 'It might have happened whilst I was inside smoking a joint, but then again I can't see through walls'.

Barrymore should have sacked his joint and drunk whatever it was that the Tapas 9 were drinking. Then he would have been able to see straight across the swimming pool, through plastic sheeting; through dense shrubbery; directly through thick walls, and quite possibly have been able to see around corners. The way that they thought they were able to do.