Clarence Mitchells' statement

CARTAS ROGATORIAS (FILE 5)
1 to 2—Witness statement of Clarence Eden Mitchell 2008.04.28

Thanks for putting up the PT text, I should coco. Here's the translation:

Leicestershire Police Force
Witness Statement

Statement by Clarence Eden Mitchell

This statement consists of two pages, signed by me, is truthful and in accordance with my understanding.

Date 28th April 2008

I am the person referred to above, resident at the address previously provided to the police. Today, officers from the Leicestershire police force questioned me about some of the aspects related to the Madeleine McCann inquiry. I was informed that these questions were raised and officially requested by the Portuguese authorities. I am aware that my statement will be subject to the Portuguese Penal Code, as well as to Church law.
These are the replies that I can make to the following questions. In relation to how I met Gerry and Kate McCann and what my relationship with them is: I met Gerry at the end of May 2007 when he returned to the UK after his daughter’s disappearance. It was a circumstantial meeting atLeicestershire Police station. At the time I was working as part of the Consular Assistance Group, representing the foreigners department. I as asked to return to Portugal with Mr McCann, where I met his wife. Later I became the McCann family’s representative and I developed a good personal and professional relationship with them.

As regards my travel to Portugal; I travelled on the 22nd May 2007 and remained in Portugal until the middle of June. Since then, there was no need to return.

As regards my accommodation in Portugal, I stayed in a Mark Warner apartment in the Ocean Club, near to the apartment occupied by the McCann family. I did not notice anything strange in the apartment.

With regard to the moments that I spent with Kate and Gerry; I was with them daily for various hours, whilst I was in Portugal.
After my return to the UK I continued to be in daily contact with them and we would meet two or three times a week.

With regard to Kate and Gerry’s behaviour; Their behaviour has been entirely of constant anguish, typical of parents who have lost their daughter in tragic circumstances. Everything that they said or did leads me to believe that they are completely innocent of involvement in the disappearance ofMadeleine.

With regard to the various questions about the Renault Scenic: I often saw the car but I do not remember whether I was only inside the Renault Scenic once. I travelled as a front seat passenger on the night that we went to the charity concert in Lagos. Gerald McCann was the driver. The vehicle was packed with other family members.
I did not notice anything strange about the vehicle nor any unpleasant or intense smell.

I do not think that Kate or Gerry could have hidden Madeleine or transported her body anywhere in the car. In my opinion this is a ridiculous suggestion, given that they as well as the car were the object of intense observation by the media, day and night, during the whole time that I was with them. The car was always parked in front of a multitude from television channels and photographers. The car was always followed by photographers during the whole time.

I cannot think of any more information or explanations that could be relevant or that could help the investigation in any way.

This statement was made by me and is truthful in accordance with my understanding.

sharonl wrote:CARTAS ROGATORIAS (FILE 5)
1 to 2—Witness statement of Clarence Eden Mitchell 2008.04.28

In relation to how I met Gerry and Kate McCann and what my relationship with them is: I met Gerry at the end of May 2007 when he returned to the UK after his daughter’s disappearance. It was a circumstantial meeting at Leicestershire Police station. At the time I was working as part of the Consular Assistance Group, representing the foreigners department.

Why would the Head of the Media Monitoring Unit just happen to be a Leicester Police station to be able to have a "circumstantial" (interesting choice of word) meeting with Gerry. Is he trying to say they were supposed to meet or it was it unplanned? If planned doesn't why not in London as Gerry went there to get his CEOP material (and his wallet stolen). Also I am sure Kate says that Gerry met Clarrie in London - could someone check as kindle gone awol.

With regard to Kate and Gerry’s behaviour; Their behaviour has been
entirely of constant anguish, typical of parents who have lost their
daughter in tragic circumstances. Everything that they said or did leads
me to believe that they are completely innocent of involvement in the
disappearance ofMadeleine.

Why did he see the need to state his belief of their coupability one way or another? Did the police ask him?
Was he pre-empting or being defensive of them? Often times interviewee with something to hide rumbles on (inherent defence mechanism) and says too much without realising inadvertently giving interviewer plenty good valuable information.

That statement reflects he knew the true circumstances of Maddie disappearance and saw the need to cover himself.
To me, he tripped himself up there.
Else he didn't have to offer his view on that unless he was specifically asked his opinion of their involvement.
Someone ignorant of the whole fact of the disappearance (even though he represents them or be it people were mccanns' family or friend) would or should have said was "they appeared normal (as in their behaviour was) of parents in that sort of circumstances".

No casual person or even person associated to mccanns as witness interviewed should have to qualify their belief of mccanns involvement or not unless they are in the know and help to cover up or had to cover up to save their own arse.
Only investigators working on the case or crime experts analysing or examining the case have a need to come up with their working view/theory of the mccanns coupability.

By CM's statement one could deduce he was deep in it up to his thick brass lying neck!

Gillyspot wrote: Also I am sure Kate says that Gerry met Clarrie in London - could someone check as kindle gone awol.

This is very odd.
Chapter 10, heavily snipped
"10
MEETING THE PJ
  On Sunday 20 May, Gerry left for the UK. It was the first time we’d been apart since coming to Portugal and it was an emotional separation for us both. Going back to Leicester alone, with Madeleine gone, made it particularly hard for Gerry. He had decided not to stay at our house. It would have been too distressing at this stage and, from a practical point of view, there is no doubt that the media would have set up shop outside. In the end he spent both nights with friends who had so far managed to steer clear of the media searchlights, which was much better for him. I was fine, too. Trish and Sandy were there and I had Amelie and Sean. And Cuddle Cat.
At Monday’s meeting with the British police, Gerry was told about plans to launch an appeal in the UK aimed at holidaymakers who had been in the Algarve in the weeks leading up to Madeleine’s abduction. SNIP
It was later the same day that Gerry met Clarence Mitchell for the first time. SNIP
Gerry hit it off with Clarence straight away. He was also struck very quickly by Clarence’s professionalism and expertise in dealing with the media. Gerry wanted to go to Rothley to see the thousands of messages, flowers and cuddly toys that had been left for Madeleine in the centre of the village. Clarence sprang into action immediately, apparently. Within seconds he was on the phone to the police and talking to the media on the ground about how this could be arranged to give Gerry some space and at the same time allow the press access to his visit. "

But surely they were in the Police Station, so why did he have to phone ?

With respect to you, PeterMac, where does it say that they were at the police station?

Xavier.



If you read the actual statement (first post) given to the Police, Clarence says


" I met Gerry at the end of May 2007 when he returned to the UK after his daughter’s disappearance. It was a circumstantial meeting atLeicestershire Police station."

sharonl wrote:As regards my travel to Portugal; I travelled on the 22nd May 2007 and remained in Portugal until the middle of June. Since then, there was no need to return.

With regard to the moments that I spent with Kate and Gerry; I was with them daily for various hours, whilst I was in Portugal. After my return to the UK I continued to be in daily contact with them and we would meet two or three times a week.

What is Mitchell trying to say here? Is he saying that even though he returned to the UK, he would fly back out there to meet with them? I'm confused.

Gillyspot wrote:Xavier.



If you read the actual statement (first post) given to the Police, Clarence says


" I met Gerry at the end of May 2007 when he returned to the UK after his daughter’s disappearance. It was a circumstantial meeting atLeicestershire Police station."

Ah yes - thank you Gilly. Apologies PeterMac - need to go to specsavers (again).

Xavier wrote:
If you read the actual statement (first post) given to the Police, Clarence says " I met Gerry at the end of May 2007 when he returned to the UK after his daughter’s disappearance. It was a circumstantial meeting atLeicestershire Police station."
Ah yes - thank you Gilly. Apologies PeterMac - need to go to specsavers (again).

No need. We have to read both statement together to find that out. The book just says "Later the same day". with the implication that G was still at the police station, though he might easily not have been. Mitchell makes it clear, but then confuses the issue by saying it was "circumstantial".
So he just hangs around Police Headquarters in case someone who has lost a child in another country wanders in ?
But that still does not cover why Mitchell had to ring the police, when he was standing in Police HQ.

Sorry, Clarence, that is "Ludicrous". That meeting was planned and set up and arranged and scheduled.
Quite why it had to be in Leicester is something of a mystery.
Why not London, where Mitchell is based, and G had his wallet stolen by that cheerful friendly and benevolent Disney pickpocket, who sent it back. Allegedly !

Like almost everything in this story, none of it actually makes sense when we start to pick it apart.

So Clarence had a "circumstantial" meeting with Gerry McCann on the 21st then flew back to the Algarve with him on the 22nd?



"Daily Mail wrote that Gerry meeting with Leicestershire Constabulary was intended to see how they were coordinating their inquiries, as they were the police force in charge of cooperating with the Portuguese police. On May 22, Clarence Mitchell and Gerry McCann flew back to Algarve."



http://clarencemitchell.webs.com/apps/blog/show/2691695-clarence-mitchell-how-i-met-gerry-and-kate-mccann-

He lied.

CM's statements made the whole situation for the McCanns 1100% worse IMO. Getting a "pro" to speak on ones behalf gives the impression one cannot be trusted to say the right thing.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:CM's statements made the whole situation for the McCanns 1100% worse IMO. Getting a "pro" to speak on ones behalf gives the impression one cannot be trusted to say the right thing.

Not ony that. The way he has phrased what he said is unlike a lawyer, who prefaces the remark with "I am advised that..." or "On my instructions..." or "My client says ..."
Mitchell, right from the start has spoken as if he really knows what happened. He has done this probably to add a spurious air of authority, but I think, and fervently hope, that it will come back to bite him. If the truth comes out, he will find it difficult to recant and to argue that he was not part of a conspiracy.
But perhaps that is why he seems no longer to be the official mouthpiece. Perhaps he has realised that to distance himself would be a good policy.

Gillyspot wrote:So Clarence had a "circumstantial" meeting with Gerry McCann on the 21st then flew back to the Algarve with him on the 22nd?



"Daily Mail wrote that Gerry meeting with Leicestershire Constabulary was intended to see how they were coordinating their inquiries, as they were the police force in charge of cooperating with the Portuguese police. On May 22, Clarence Mitchell and Gerry McCann flew back to Algarve."



[url=http://clarencemitchell.webs.com/apps/blog/show/2691695-clarence-mitchell-how-i-met-gerry-and-kate-mccann-

http://clarencemitchell.webs.com/apps/blog/show/2691695-clarence-mitchell-how-i-met-gerry-and-kate-mccann-[/quote[/url]]



Their meeting and Clarence going to Portugal the next day must have been set up some days beforehand. Who can meet someone you didn't know anything about one day then suddenly decide to go to Portugal with them the next day, especially someone like Clarence who had a family, business contacts etc. Did he just drop everything and told his wife "bye, bye darling I may see you in about 6 months or so", did he rush home to London to pack a suitcase, did he book his own flight that same day, how did he know there would be a seat available on Gerry's flight?

It's all b.s. if you ask me.

Just a thought. I think the word "circumstantial" may be being read in the wrong context? Another definition is: 'Complete and particular; full of detail': Example: a circumstantial report about the debate.

So therefore was it arranged that Clarrie was sent to Leicestershire to meet Gerry even though Gerry was going to London anyway to see CEOP?

Gillyspot wrote:So therefore was it arranged that Clarrie was sent to Leicestershire to meet Gerry even though Gerry was going to London anyway to see CEOP?

It looks that way to me. I could be wrong but I think it's too big of a coincidence for them to have met at the police station accidently.

I think Clarrie uses the word "circumstantial" with deliberate ambiguity.

PeterMac wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:CM's statements made the whole situation for the McCanns 1100% worse IMO. Getting a "pro" to speak on ones behalf gives the impression one cannot be trusted to say the right thing.

Not ony that. The way he has phrased what he said is unlike a lawyer, who prefaces the remark with "I am advised that..." or "On my instructions..." or "My client says ..."
Mitchell, right from the start has spoken as if he really knows what happened. He has done this probably to add a spurious air of authority, but I think, and fervently hope, that it will come back to bite him. If the truth comes out, he will find it difficult to recant and to argue that he was not part of a conspiracy.
But perhaps that is why he seems no longer to be the official mouthpiece. Perhaps he has realised that to distance himself would be a good policy.

Exactly! And the bit where he famously said there would be an innocent explanation for any FUTURE evidence/findings, well how ridiculous was that? He didn't /doesn't have the foggiest what happened, like everyone else! Suppose the forensics had unearthed various incontravertible items that could not have been planted in any way, he'd have wound up looking like a real chump! It was like he was placed into the mix to stand between the McCann and whatever source of robust questioning may come their way. I wouldn't be surprised if his "mission" was to prevent the police doing the job the way they wanted, but to put pressure on them to do as they were told.



If everything really did go the way that the McCanns are asserting it did, then by goodness their advisors, PR, spokespeople and everyone else has failed them inasmuch as everyone who has spoken to me about this over the years thinks the "team" (which no other parent of a missing child has EVER had, they are just left to get on with it) has actually been very damaging to the McCanns reputation, because they question why the heck it would be necessary in the first place. I really hope someone has the courage and tenacity to let the "team" know that metaphorically trying to crack a walnut with a sledgehammer just looks ....dodgy!

With regard to Kate and Gerry’s behaviour; Their behaviour has been entirely of constant anguish, typical of parents who have lost their daughter in tragic circumstances.

I travelled as a front seat passenger on the night that we went to the charity concert in Lagos. Gerald McCann was the driver.

Somehow these two statements from Clarrie just don`t fit. Do devasted parents of a lost child usually attend charity concerts? Shouldn`t they have been concentrating on finding Madeleine?

sharonl wrote:With regard to Kate and Gerry’s behaviour; Their behaviour has been entirely of constant anguish, typical of parents who have lost their daughter in tragic circumstances.
I travelled as a front seat passenger on the night that we went to the charity concert in Lagos. Gerald McCann was the driver.
Somehow these two statements from Clarrie just don`t fit. Do devasted parents of a lost child usually attend charity concerts? Shouldn`t they have been concentrating on finding Madeleine?

"Shouldn`t they have been concentrating on finding Madeleine?"
They should have been, of course. But only if they thought that she was capable of being found.
And very obviously they, by which I mean the McCanns AND Mitchell, KNEW that there was no point.
Madeleine Beth McCann was beyond being found. Alive or dead.
Mitchell is in this up to his neck.
Or as we say in Spain "hasta las narices" which translates as - 'right up to the nostrils'. Think of being buried in sand at the low water mark.
Or better, to help you sleep, think of Mitchell being ...

PeterMac wrote: Think of being buried in sand at the low water mark.
Or better, to help you sleep, think of Mitchell being ...

Thank you Petermac

Sweet dreams

slight o/t. Since he suspected his phone was hacked, why didnt he apply to be 'core participant' in the hack inquiry is anyone guess.
By contrast his infamous clients, who he purported weren't hacked, made themselves 'core participants'. "Confusion is good" as gerry mccann said.