Is Clarence Mitchell edging away from the McCanns?

by **Tony Bennett** 23.03.11 8:04

From days after Madeleine McCann was reported missing on 3 May 2007, the McCanns and their chief public relations offocer, Clarence Mitchell, appear to have been joined at the hip.

Are there however signs that there is a process of separation going on?

Back on 6 January this year, Mitchell told listeners to BBC Radio Humberside that the claim that Madeleine had been abducted was 'only' an assumption, or 'working hypothesis'. He didn't use these words once, he used them on three separate occasions. That is proof that his choice of words was no accident. And it ran wholly counter to the McCanns' claim that they 'knew instantly' that Madeleine had been abducted - and that the public must accept it as a fact, a point that their lawyers Carter-Ruck rammed down the throats of anyone who would disagree with them.

Then, on 18 February, following one of the most absurd Madeleine 'sighting' story ever - "Maddie may be in U.S. says Angolan-born bouncer-cum-basketball player-cum-'amateur sleuth'" - Clarence Mitchell appeared on SKY NEWS to tell SKY's viewers - quote:

"I am sceptical tghe claims...We should stress a note of caution here. These are claims that have been made to Spanish police, we understand...this information has to be investigated to establish if there is any truth or not”.

The fact that Mitchell can seemingly move effortlessly between top jobs in both the Labour government and then in the Conservatives' election campaign, and in between getting a job with Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law, has reinforced suggestions by some that he is paid by or close to the top of MI5, and in that capacity knows all there is to know about anybody who is anybody, which would indeed make him one of the most powerful people in the U.K.

If he is indeed close to the top of MI5, is it possible that the establishment right at the top has realised that one day, sooner or later, those involved in backing the McCanns will be come tainted by association? Are they 'reading the runes' - seeing perhaps that there is plenty of evidence that doubts over the McCanns' abduction claims are not going to go away? Do these people now see an upbeat Goncalo Amaral who is going to press ahead with his book sales, has a new book out, is not going to go away and realise that his book 'The Truth About A Lie' is one day going to go on sale in the U.K.?

The recent Sunday Express story also hints at a falling away of the hitherto 'closed ranks' of the British media regarding Madeleine McCann.

Analysing the Express story, it draws public attention to Goncalo Amaral's new book and even mentions his successful overturning of the ban on his first book. It goes on to say that Kate 'has been warned' to be careful about what she says about Goncalo Amaral.

It states that he 'resigned' from the PJ (not the usual 'sacked'), and that he's a successful author and appears on TV in Portugal. It politely mentions his wife by name, and her regard for his dedicated work.

This is a remarkable change of tone for the Express, painting Goncalo Amaral as someone who is successful, someone who is listened to, respected - whereas, by contrast, Dr Kate is merely someone who has been 'warned to watch her step', as it were.

This seems to mark a sea change, a reversal of projected status.

Did Clarence Mitchell have any say in approving this article? The change of emphasis in the air seems palpable.

If the McCanns' book bombs, as is now widely forecast, that could lead to more and more doubts being expressed about whether Madeleine's abduction might, after all, turn out to have been one gigantic hoax.

by **PeterMac** 23.03.11 8:17

Good Morning, Tony,
Another very neat analysis of the situation.
I wonder about Mitchell's legal position if the McCanns were ever to be shown to have made up the whole story. He has never, or rarely, used the usual solicitors' get out by prefacing what he said with "The MCCanns want me to say X Y Z" or "have authorised me to say" or "My clients position is such and such", or "On my instructions ..."
He has stated things as fact. As if he knew the full story, and was merely letting the world know those bits which he chose.
Indeed it is also clear that on some occasions he may have commented without having had time to speak in detail to the McCanns, simply acting on their presumed behalf.
It would be salutory to see him brought low, and I don't think backtracking at this stage is going to help him, any more than resigning as a Trustee of the 'Fund' is going to help those who so negligently handed out millions of publicly donated money to dodgy detectives and overt fraudsters all those years ago.
Perhaps a full and frank admission might mitigate.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.03.11 8:25

PeterMac wrote:Good Morning, Tony,
I wonder about Mitchell's legal position if the McCanns were ever to be shown to have made up the whole story. He has never, or rarely, used the usual solicitors' get out by prefacing what he said with "The McCanns want me to say X Y Z" or "have authorised me to say" or "My clients position is such and such", or "On my instructions ..."
He has stated things as fact.

Yes Good morning Peter and thanks for the comments.

Do you recall this from the Daily Mail 31 January 2008 (which incidentally includes a fascinating photo of the 'Mitchell and the McCanns trio ensemble')?:-

British police 'clear' McCanns of involvement in Madeleine disappearance

Last updated at 11:51 31 January 2008

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

British police and child protection officers do not suspect Madeleine McCann's parents of involvement in her disappearance, the couple's spokesman said.

Clarence Mitchell said officials had assured him in private briefings that they were treating the case as one of "rare stranger abduction".

He was speaking last night as he launched an outspoken attack on the 'appalling' standards of some media coverage of the disappearance of Kate and Gerry McCann's daughter in Portugal in May.

REST SNIPPED

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

by Guest 23.03.11 8:36

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

Definitely a shift of the way things are now being reported. As you say Mr Amaral is now no longer the "disgraced" detective etc., and the mentioning of his new book, and the McCanns losing their appeal, would never have been mentioned. Something is definitely happening.

I

by theolivebranch 23.03.11 14:47

Tony, I hope you could be correct about this removing of his pink presence. His attachment has been , for me, sycophantic.

Funny this, I asked hubby how to spell sycophantic and he spelt it out, then asked if I knew it was a polite word for ar@& @&$!*. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes, I do.

by Autumn 23.03.11 15:12

Hi theolivebranch

Thats a very appropriate word to use laugh

Will be interesting to see if he makes any appearances with the McCanns when they do their round of book launch interviews. Does anyone have a link to the interview during which Clarence made a remark about Kate in a swimsuit - it was a very strange thing to say and have wondered if it was said more as a warning to Gerry to keep him on the pay roll. Think it was around the time when the McCanns were getting more blase and there was talk that they were considering cutting Clarnece's work hours.

by theolivebranch 23.03.11 15:22

Autumn wrote: Hi theolivebranch

Thats a very appropriate word to use [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Will be interesting to see if he makes any appearances with the McCanns when they do their round of book launch interviews. Does anyone have a link to the interview during which Clarence made a remark about Kate in a swimsuit - it was a very strange thing to say and have wondered if it was said more as a warning to Gerry to keep him on the pay roll. Think it was around the time when the McCanns were getting more blase and there was talk that they were considering cutting Clarnece's work hours.

Yes Autumn I thought it was an appropriate word, haha. I have just been onto Google to see if I could find anything re the swimsuit and if you have a look be very careful what you click on. There are some very iffy links to Kate McCann in a swimsuit. So I will look no further [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Autumn 24.03.11 0:14

theolivebranch wrote:
Autumn wrote: Hi theolivebranch

Thats a very appropriate word to use [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Will be interesting to see if he makes any appearances with the McCanns when they do their round of book launch interviews. Does anyone have a link to the interview during which Clarence made a remark about Kate in a swimsuit - it was a very strange thing to say and have wondered if it was said more as a warning to Gerry to keep him on the pay roll. Think it was around the time when the McCanns were getting more blase and there was talk that they were considering cutting Clarnece's work hours.

Yes Autumn I thought it was an appropriate word, haha. I have just been onto Google to see if I could find anything re the swimsuit and if you have a look be very careful what you click on. There are some very iffy links to Kate McCann in a swimsuit. So I will look no further [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thanks for the warning - brings to mind the Crimewatch catch phrase 'Don't Have Nightmares' affraid

If I could remember which paper it was in I could probably find it in archives unless its been whoosh clunked. No way am I going to google Clarence Mitchell Swimsuit - dread to think what would come up - probably my dinner

:puke:

by Autumn 24.03.11 1:29

Here it is

Extract from Clarence's 'I Am A Decent Human Being' Interview - The Independent 1st March 2009

In media terms, he says, Madeleine was "a perfect storm: her age, her appearance, the location, the parents..." Columnists wrote about "people like us". Picture editors loved Kate, to an extraordinary degree. "It would be sad if it wasn't laughable: Kate was finding herself in Nuts or whatever lads' magazine's top 10. You think, 'This is ridiculous.' But they can't help how they look."

There's no truth, then, in the report that he tried to get Kate to be photographed in a swimsuit? "Utter bollocks." Gerry suggested it without realising the implications, he says, and was then persuaded otherwise

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

by **PeterMac** 24.03.11 7:38

Thanks for that link. I had missed it.
But another interesting quote is this
"When the Foreign Office sent him to assist the McCanns – as he insists it would have helped any family in that situation – he asked difficult questions. "I was assured that from the perspective of the British authorities, this was a rare case of stranger abduction.""
.....from the perspective of the British Authorities ??? Why would the British Authorities have any perspective at all ? Why would they not simply take note of the fact that a British child had been reported missing and that the authorities on the country involved were taking appropriate steps to find her.
Most mysterious. And combined with his quote about being told in private discussions, all slightly sinister.

by aiyoyo 24.03.11 8:06

Tony Bennett wrote:

Clarence Mitchell said officials had assured him in private briefings that they were treating the case as one of "rare stranger abduction".

He was speaking last night as he launched an outspoken attack on the 'appalling' standards of some media coverage of the disappearance of Kate and Gerry McCann's daughter in Portugal in May.

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

Good grief! I didnt realise CM said that.
That's a very self-incriminating statement ie that he was involved with 'officials' who had their hands in the mccanns' case - very heavy sinister tone indeed.

Which 'officials' really? Couldnt have been the PT Police?
His reference to 'officials' could only mean UK side? Who? HMG or Police?
which begs the question: why did they (UK officials) see the need to haul CM in for a private briefing ahead of official shelving announcement just to assure CM (who incidentally official capacity is only that of a spokesperson of mccanns) just to tell him that the case was treated as ' rare stranger abduction'.

I wonder whether CM knew he'd committed a v. silly mistake in incriminating himself by that silly statement.
Also, let's face it - if they didnt know who took Maddie, what did he mean by 'rare stranger'?
A stranger's a stranger, how can a stranger be rare? As in alien? No wonder the police couldnt find any trace of evidence to support abduction.