Clarence Mitchell: Presence of McCanns in Lisbon was an error

SOS Madeleine McCann 19/01/2010

Clarence Mitchell, the communications expert who has acted as spokesperson for Kate and Gerry McCann since Maddie's disappearance, informed the couple of the risk, in terms of image, which could be presented by their presence in the courtroom at Lisbon's Civil Court, where the process relating to the injunction banning the sale of Gonçalo Amaral's book took place.

According to a source close to Clarence Mitchell, the communications specialist warned Kate and Gerry McCann that their presence in court would encourage the British media to descend en masse on Lisbon, which could lead to the disclosure in England of arguments presented by the defence for the former PJ coordinator, which was the case.

Live updates from television companies (British, Spanish and Portuguses) during the first day of the hearing, and front pages of British newspapers the following day, ended up confirming Clarence Mitchell's fears that the couple's presence would only cause more problems. (Shown above: the front page of the Daily Express on Wednesday morning with the headline, "MADDIE 'DIED' IN APARTMENT.")

Clarence Mitchell: spokesman looks to become an MP.


According to the same source, Clarence Mitchell maintains an amicable relationship with Madeleine McCann's parents, but he is no longer as available to participate in the McCanns' actions. He was conspicuously absent from the media machine covering Kate and Gerry McCann's presence in Lisbon, forcing Claudia Nogueira, Public Relations officer for Lift Consulting - the Portuguese company supporting the couple's campaign - to increase contact and information-sharing with the journalists attending the court (patiently available, she took care to speak to all the journalists one by one). She incidentally denied that her British counterpart was opposed to Madeleine's parents' journey.

Lift Consulting is a strategic consulting company, working in the areas of communication, reputation management, public relations and management of relations with the press.

Clarence Mitchell's lack of availability, according to the same source, is explained by his professional and political obligations - the spokesman for Madeleine's parents is planning for his entry into the British parliament at the next elections as a Conservative MP.

A former journalist, he left the ranks of the BBC to direct the Media Monitoring Unit in Tony Blair's government (first Prime Minister to help the McCanns) Clarence Mitchell was the driving force of the McCanns' campaign and link between the couple and the two Labour Prime Ministers. (Labour Party)

Sent to Portugal at the request of Tony Blair, Mitchell directed the international campaign for Maddie's parents, using his official contacts in the British government to gain access for Kate and Gerry to, amongst other places, the Vatican and the European Parliament.

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

This is very interesting. Looks like Clarrie has deserted the sinking McCann ship. Thought it strange that he wasn't in Lisbon with them.

oh boy! is this for real?

Think you will find that Clarence Mitchells contract had run out. Oh well never mind the truth.

Can one Believe Anything Levy says? And Knowing his Connections, would Mitchell speak to Him? I find This Quite Hard to Believe.

nemesis wrote:Think you will find that Clarence Mitchells contract had run out. Oh well never mind the truth.

It's the first para I'm more interested in. Why would Clarence want to bring this 'error' to the public's attention? It does sound rather as though his loyalties may be changing.

Mitchell was On American TV today Speaking as the McCann's spokesperson IN Rothley.

This article is Made up Crap by a Charlatan.

A Charlatan who's attended the Fund-raising Dinner?
I do hope he's paid for his dinner. Double!

Clarence Mitchell, the communications expert who has acted as
spokesperson for Kate and Gerry McCann since Maddie's disappearance,
informed the couple of the risk, in terms of image, which could be
presented by their presence in the courtroom at Lisbon's Civil Court,
where the process relating to the injunction banning the sale of
Gonçalo Amaral's book took place.

According to a source close to
Clarence Mitchell, the communications specialist warned Kate and Gerry
McCann that their presence in court would encourage the British media
to descend en masse on Lisbon, which could lead to the disclosure in
England of arguments presented by the defence for the former PJ
coordinator, which was the case.



Nothing like stating the bleeding obvious.

how can anyone read anything in to this - it's so vacuous that it has to repeat the same information several times using different words in order to actually have more than one paragraph.

Think they are keeping away from the next and ensuing hearings then? Imho I think they are unlikely to show up especially considering the last fiasco; also only two witnesses this time - hardly worth a special trip seeing winning is not guaranteed by presence anyway.

Mitchell doesn't say their presence would be an error, the opening statement is trying to put spin on this statement. What he is saying imo is that it will be diificult. lot's of things in life are difficult but we have to do them. I think the trial has gone well for the McCanns, the book is still banned and despite his claims Amaral has brought nothing new to court. I think it's going to get a lot worse for Amaral, he has very little support, perhaps 50 posters from the whole of europe on the Morais blog, yet the McCanns continue to enjoy massive support in the UK.

Yeah, it went so 'well' for them that GM stormed home even thought CM had announcement they would be there throughout the hearing.

The massive support in UK amounts to a handful of yesteryear people attending the recent gala; and for all people know they were probably there for the other two charities and not mccanns. SRB and JKR snubbed the event. Yeah, if that's the sort of massive support they have in UK, I dont want to know what you will call it when their supporters are down to just CM and maybe BK.

I hardly think he stormed home Aiyoyo.

It went about as well as it's ever going to go, dragging your dirty laundry through a court room.

I think that in the general public there is an apathy about the case. I've never met anyone with a strong opinion in either direction off of the forums. People seem to be quite neutral about the whole thing.

People have lives to get on with, and Madeleine and her parents aren't part of most peoples lives.

did anyone 'snub' the event, or are you presuming it from the fact they weren't shown as being there? I haven't read of any snubbing going on. (who is SRB??)

The hearing for Mr Amaral's request for lifting the injunction agianst him in the libel case is in recess until next month - until the judge has reached a verdict, the book remains banned.
Amaral brought his impressive witnesses to the court and, so far, I think things are going very well for him.
I think you will find that Mr Amaral has much support in Portugal and, as more information from the PJ files that has been previously suppressed by our press comes to light, he will gain support wordwide.

As for the McCanns' massive support in the UK, dont make me laugh. Most people couldn't care less about them but, recently, there have been signs that the general public are starting to view them with suspicion. The 'star-studded' event the other evining appears to have been a bit of damp squib and the few celebs who turned up were probably there to support the two charities.

He was hardly likely to have bought unimpressive witnesses with him Autumn

If he wins I don't imagine he'll receive worldwide support. In the same way that if he loses I don't imagine he'll receive worldwide condemnation.

Whose Amber?

Sorry Autumn - I have a head full of confused usernames today. have amended.

OK, thanks Bren (only joking)

Autumn wrote:OK, thanks Bren (only joking)

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

aiyoyo wrote:Yeah, it went so 'well' for them that GM stormed home even thought CM had announcement they would be there throughout the hearing.

The massive support in UK amounts to a handful of yesteryear people attending the recent gala; and for all people know they were probably there for the other two charities and not mccanns. SRB and JKR snubbed the event. Yeah, if that's the sort of massive support they have in UK, I dont want to know what you will call it when their supporters are down to just CM and maybe BK.

I ss you don't comment on the support for Amaral or the fact he left the courtroom several times. Let's see what happens in court next, I reckon Amaral is finished.

Amaral appeared to be his usual calm and dignified self. He doesn't throw temper tantrums like some. As for Amaral being finished, I reckon hes just started - McCanns will rue the day they ever crossed swords with him.

jack wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:Yeah, it went so 'well' for them that GM stormed home even thought CM had announcement they would be there throughout the hearing.

The massive support in UK amounts to a handful of yesteryear people attending the recent gala; and for all people know they were probably there for the other two charities and not mccanns. SRB and JKR snubbed the event. Yeah, if that's the sort of massive support they have in UK, I dont want to know what you will call it when their supporters are down to just CM and maybe BK.

I ss you don't comment on the support for Amaral or the fact he left the courtroom several times. Let's see what happens in court next, I reckon Amaral is finished.

Firstly is this OP or debate about Amaral?


Secondly, it wasn't Amaral but GM who was enraged enough and decided to throw a tantrum by giving an impromptu press conference then stormed off in thunder.

Next, Let's see IF the mccanns will show up for the next round - at the lighting speed GM fled with his tail tuck in between.....

Let's see....but remember...as yet we have only heard Amaral's witnesses and one of them said that there is a fifty fifty chance Maddie is still alive, so he doesn't think much of the dog's evidence.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think that the McCanns' witnesses were heard behing closed doors, in Amaral's absence. Not sure why that should be but it would appear that Amaral's witnesses can be heard by the McCanns.

I have no idea. I didn't think anything else was being heard until Feb.

If the judge decided to allow them to give evidence out of the public glare then who are we to argue?

jack wrote:Let's see....but remember...as yet we have only heard Amaral's witnesses and one of them said that there is a fifty fifty chance Maddie is still alive, so he doesn't think much of the dog's evidence.

50/50 was what stuck in my head. Forget all the trumpet blowing and old boys network.....the 50/50 is the important thing. It's the only thing that actually involved Madeleine's welfare.

Imo even if the AG thought the evidence weights heavily on Maddie is dead ...he would still have played safe by saying 50/50 in order to appear to stay objective on the case.

Either there is evidence Maddie is dead or there isnt. What does it mean by a half-half...maybe dead maybe not? My take is he is saying she is dead but we'll need a break into the irrefutable proof.

If there wasnt any evidence of that he would have said so.
IF there was evidence of abduction he would also have said so.

To say 100% then shelved the case is to appear ridiculous. 50/50 in this case, imo, meant she is dead but he couldn't possibly quantify it as 100% because the evidence is not yet 100% but good enough to show she is dead.

He could have presumed her dead by the hands of her parents, or he could have presumed her dead at the hands of a third party. These would be fair assumptions to make based on the time she's been missing for.

In my opinion she is probably dead. But then again in my opinion Jaycee Lee Dugard and Natascha Kampusch were probably dead too.

I hope he was staying objective.....it might be the child's only chance.

I couldn't agree more Vaguely.
Nobody would have blamed him if he'd said it's a 70/30 or 90/10 chance she's dead, considering the time that's passed since she disappeared.
If she's still alive, men (and women) like him are her only chance to be found.

Inyx wrote:I couldn't agree more Vaguely.
Nobody would have blamed him if he'd said it's a 70/30 or 90/10 chance she's dead, considering the time that's passed since she disappeared.
If she's still alive, men (and women) like him are her only chance to be found.

I actually included a long list of 60/40, 70/30 etc in my post and scrubbed it.... I couldn't work out where I was going with it. But the point is, 50/50 is pretty good odds given the circumstances. It means it could go either way and there's no bias towards one outcome.