The Leveson Inquiry: Crone, Myler and Sanderson give evidence

candyfloss wrote:There is also another question, if the NotW where going to pay a journalist for the diary in Portuguese, and the McCanns said it was ok to print it, then why didn't they just print her copy in English, and avoid the translation costs and the cost to the journalist, which Sanderson mentioned.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to propose that it was requested or suggested it should be done this way (i.e. purchased from the Portuguese source rather than direct from the McCann's) to put distance between the Team / Mitchell and the "leak" of this document.

EDIT

Let's not discount the more obvious answer. It's entirely possible that they only told Clarence they planned to run with it AFTER they'd already bought it and wrote up the article. The issue of getting it directly was then out of the window.

All this smells of another way of making money for the fund via libel means. All the confusion, twisted stories, contradictions, which one is saying the truth etc but the end result is the fund earned money

Me wrote:

candyfloss wrote:There is also another question, if the NotW where going to pay a journalist for the diary in Portuguese, and the McCanns said it was ok to print it, then why didn't they just print her copy in English, and avoid the translation costs and the cost to the journalist, which Sanderson mentioned.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to propose that it was requested or suggested it should be done this way (i.e. purchased from the Portuguese source rather than direct from the McCann's) to put distance between the Team / Mitchell and the "leak" of this document.

EDIT

Let's not discount the more obvious answer. It's entirely possible that they only told Clarence they planned to run with it AFTER they'd already bought it and wrote up the article. The issue of getting it directly was then out of the window.

I hear what you are saying. But the question remains IF they were not going to run this story unti they had KMs permission, why on earth spend 20k plus euros. Especially as Sanderson said they were treating it as a fake, and cross referencing with their archive to check dates. If it was all above board and they had cleared it with Mitchell, why not simply ask him?

No, if you want to kow who is lying, then my money is on NOTW.

Xavier, you think NoW are lying. Why would they? They had already apologised in their papers to the MCanns and given a substantial donation to the fund. Why would they need to lie now if they had already done that. It was already out in the open, They would have simply held up their hands and admitted to it at the inquiry, cos they had already said and published that they must have made a mistake before. Why are they so adamant that Clarence Mitchell knew, and that Edmonson was almost in daily contact with him. Why not simply say we made a mistake got our wires crossed and we tried to right it with the public apology and donation. But no, both Myler and Sanderson say that the McCanns or at least their PR rep knew what they were doing. They kept repeating it. This is what I find so odd about the whole thing, it would have been much easier to come on and say yes we messed up, we apologised and we paid the McCanns for our mistake. What benefit would it have for them to lie now and say Clarence Mitchell knew. Why would they involve him . Doh, I think I'm going round in circles, .......I know what I mean though

Xavier wrote:

Me wrote:

candyfloss wrote:There is also another question, if the NotW where going to pay a journalist for the diary in Portuguese, and the McCanns said it was ok to print it, then why didn't they just print her copy in English, and avoid the translation costs and the cost to the journalist, which Sanderson mentioned.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to propose that it was requested or suggested it should be done this way (i.e. purchased from the Portuguese source rather than direct from the McCann's) to put distance between the Team / Mitchell and the "leak" of this document.

EDIT

Let's not discount the more obvious answer. It's entirely possible that they only told Clarence they planned to run with it AFTER they'd already bought it and wrote up the article. The issue of getting it directly was then out of the window.

I hear what you are saying. But the question remains IF they were not going to run this story unti they had KMs permission, why on earth spend 20k plus euros. Especially as Sanderson said they were treating it as a fake, and cross referencing with their archive to check dates. If it was all above board and they had cleared it with Mitchell, why not simply ask him?

No, if you want to kow who is lying, then my money is on NOTW.

I hear what you are saying also but we do not know how much they paid for it. I have seen a figure of 3000 euros bandied around, and either figure in the general scheme of a paper that size, is mere pocket money.

Perhaps they through they had to buy it to get the scoop and then worry about running it past the Team after they’d secured it and taken it off the market and away from their competitors?

Perhaps Clarence got wind of it in advance of print or at the time they bought it and wanted to try and limit the damage based on what he knew they had?

I would agree with you about the money being on NOTW lying had Clarence (who’s not under oath remember) NOT actually stated he knew they had a diary. That’s the killer fact that Clarence has admitted to which dramatically changes the balance of probability in relation to truthfulness. Both Cone and Myler have stated under oath remember that they believed Mitchell approved it.

Why then did Clarence admit to knowing about a diary, when he’s not under oath?

The only conclusion must be that there is a paper trail that he simply can’t refute (as alluded to by Michael Jay) because if there wasn’t any physical evidence he would have been able to easily deny any knowledge of a diary.

He hasn’t, he has admitted to knowing of it and that leaves his version of events wide open.

It’s glaringly obvious as soon as diary was mentioned in Mitchell's conversation to Edmondson that it could have only belonged to one person, given the fact that Clarence states he was told that the diary the NOTW held had been previously leaked in the press in Portugal. That narrows it down to the point that it could only belong to Kate.

The NOTW staff, under oath, stated they told Mitchell they had Kate’s diary and wer eplanning to run it. Mitchell himself has admitted to being told they had a diary that had been previously leaked in Portugal that they were planning to run.

The accounts given by those NOTW staff then are corrorborated by Mitchell's own words. Aren't they? What Clarence is trying to say is that he didn't know it was Kate's diary, but as we know the information Clarence said he was told can only point to it being hers and hers alone.

Based purely on the facts and statements made so far, clearly the only conclusion which can be drawn is that it is Mitchell who is being untruthful and not the NOTW.

Agree?

In my opinion Mitchell's denial centres on not knowing they were going to run it in the big way that they did. This is because he keeps, rather unnecessarily, mentioning being told it would run on the inside pages (what difference would that make. And that clearly is not the same as denying that he knew the existence of the diary.

Forget what the NOTW staff have said because based only on what Mitchell himself has said so far it clearly shows he knew of a diary and to whom it belonged.

Xavier wrote:

Me wrote:

candyfloss wrote:There is also another question, if the NotW where going to pay a journalist for the diary in Portuguese, and the McCanns said it was ok to print it, then why didn't they just print her copy in English, and avoid the translation costs and the cost to the journalist, which Sanderson mentioned.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to propose that it was requested or suggested it should be done this way (i.e. purchased from the Portuguese source rather than direct from the McCann's) to put distance between the Team / Mitchell and the "leak" of this document.

EDIT

Let's not discount the more obvious answer. It's entirely possible that they only told Clarence they planned to run with it AFTER they'd already bought it and wrote up the article. The issue of getting it directly was then out of the window.

I hear what you are saying. But the question remains IF they were not going to run this story unti they had KMs permission, why on earth spend 20k plus euros. Especially as Sanderson said they were treating it as a fake, and cross referencing with their archive to check dates. If it was all above board and they had cleared it with Mitchell, why not simply ask him?

No, if you want to kow who is lying, then my money is on NOTW.

Well its no surprise to me that you believe the NOTW are the ones lying, Xavier.
But as candyfloss has just said, what on earth have NOTW got to gain by stating they thought they had permission? They've already apologised and given blood money to the 'Fund'

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Xavier wrote:

Me wrote:

candyfloss wrote:There is also another question, if the NotW where going to pay a journalist for the diary in Portuguese, and the McCanns said it was ok to print it, then why didn't they just print her copy in English, and avoid the translation costs and the cost to the journalist, which Sanderson mentioned.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to propose that it was requested or suggested it should be done this way (i.e. purchased from the Portuguese source rather than direct from the McCann's) to put distance between the Team / Mitchell and the "leak" of this document.

EDIT

Let's not discount the more obvious answer. It's entirely possible that they only told Clarence they planned to run with it AFTER they'd already bought it and wrote up the article. The issue of getting it directly was then out of the window.

I hear what you are saying. But the question remains IF they were not going to run this story unti they had KMs permission, why on earth spend 20k plus euros. Especially as Sanderson said they were treating it as a fake, and cross referencing with their archive to check dates. If it was all above board and they had cleared it with Mitchell, why not simply ask him?

No, if you want to kow who is lying, then my money is on NOTW.

Well its no surprise to me that you believe the NOTW are the ones lying, Xavier.
But as candyfloss has just said, what on earth have NOTW got to gain by stating they thought they had permission? They've already apologised and given blood money to the 'Fund'

Ah rainbow-fairy, you understood what I meant

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Xavier wrote:

Me wrote:

candyfloss wrote:There is also another question, if the NotW where going to pay a journalist for the diary in Portuguese, and the McCanns said it was ok to print it, then why didn't they just print her copy in English, and avoid the translation costs and the cost to the journalist, which Sanderson mentioned.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to propose that it was requested or suggested it should be done this way (i.e. purchased from the Portuguese source rather than direct from the McCann's) to put distance between the Team / Mitchell and the "leak" of this document.

EDIT

Let's not discount the more obvious answer. It's entirely possible that they only told Clarence they planned to run with it AFTER they'd already bought it and wrote up the article. The issue of getting it directly was then out of the window.

I hear what you are saying. But the question remains IF they were not going to run this story unti they had KMs permission, why on earth spend 20k plus euros. Especially as Sanderson said they were treating it as a fake, and cross referencing with their archive to check dates. If it was all above board and they had cleared it with Mitchell, why not simply ask him?

No, if you want to kow who is lying, then my money is on NOTW.

Well its no surprise to me that you believe the NOTW are the ones lying, Xavier.
But as candyfloss has just said, what on earth have NOTW got to gain by stating they thought they had permission? They've already apologised and given blood money to the 'Fund'

Also wasn't Sanderson at pains to state several times that NOTW made sure to check that all stories were true? As the McCanns' were in the headlines daily it wouldn't be difficult for anyone (even after 4.5 years) to make up a diary. The only way he would know that the diaries were truly written by Kate McCann was if he or someone at NOTW had received official confirmation from the McCanns or Mitchell of at least that fact. Remember the fraudulent Hitler diary?

Xavier as you seem to know the McCanns feelings, could I ask you why Kate McCanns diary being Published in Portugual didn't make them feel like suing the Portuguese papers. It is the same as with Amaral's book they only seem interested in stopping it being printed in english.

Just my thoughts.

Candyfloss, I certainly did understand you! Its certain other poster's intentions I don't quite understand...!
Gillyspot, very well said...

Gillyspot wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Xavier wrote:

Me wrote:

candyfloss wrote:There is also another question, if the NotW where going to pay a journalist for the diary in Portuguese, and the McCanns said it was ok to print it, then why didn't they just print her copy in English, and avoid the translation costs and the cost to the journalist, which Sanderson mentioned.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to propose that it was requested or suggested it should be done this way (i.e. purchased from the Portuguese source rather than direct from the McCann's) to put distance between the Team / Mitchell and the "leak" of this document.

EDIT

Let's not discount the more obvious answer. It's entirely possible that they only told Clarence they planned to run with it AFTER they'd already bought it and wrote up the article. The issue of getting it directly was then out of the window.

I hear what you are saying. But the question remains IF they were not going to run this story unti they had KMs permission, why on earth spend 20k plus euros. Especially as Sanderson said they were treating it as a fake, and cross referencing with their archive to check dates. If it was all above board and they had cleared it with Mitchell, why not simply ask him?

No, if you want to kow who is lying, then my money is on NOTW.

Well its no surprise to me that you believe the NOTW are the ones lying, Xavier.
But as candyfloss has just said, what on earth have NOTW got to gain by stating they thought they had permission? They've already apologised and given blood money to the 'Fund'

Also wasn't Sanderson at pains to state several times that NOTW made sure to check that all stories were true? As the McCanns' were in the headlines daily it wouldn't be difficult for anyone (even after 4.5 years) to make up a diary. The only way he would know that the diaries were truly written by Kate McCann was if he or someone at NOTW had received official confirmation from the McCanns or Mitchell of at least that fact. Remember the fraudulent Hitler diary?

Xavier as you seem to know the McCanns feelings, could I ask you why Kate McCanns diary being Published in Portugual didn't make them feel like suing the Portuguese papers. It is the same as with Amaral's book they only seem interested in stopping it being printed in english.

Just my thoughts.

Exactly so Gillyspot. Many of the things in the diary couldn't have been verified on the internet and Media sources, they were personal thoughts and feelings. A fake diary could be made of of true stuff and not so true. It would need to be verified I would have thought.

"At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate's diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did."

What does this mean? Did Clarence know that they had the diary but he expected them to publish it in a *little* way?

"At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that they had purchased a version of Kate's diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did."


How do you spell out anything uncategorically? Was Mitchell told well we may have purchased the diaries and are thinking of printing them?

To spell out - To make explicit and clear

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spell+out

That extra unecessary word shows Clarrie could well be being deceptive IMO

candyfloss wrote:

Gillyspot wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Xavier wrote:

Me wrote:

candyfloss wrote:There is also another question, if the NotW where going to pay a journalist for the diary in Portuguese, and the McCanns said it was ok to print it, then why didn't they just print her copy in English, and avoid the translation costs and the cost to the journalist, which Sanderson mentioned.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to propose that it was requested or suggested it should be done this way (i.e. purchased from the Portuguese source rather than direct from the McCann's) to put distance between the Team / Mitchell and the "leak" of this document.

EDIT

Let's not discount the more obvious answer. It's entirely possible that they only told Clarence they planned to run with it AFTER they'd already bought it and wrote up the article. The issue of getting it directly was then out of the window.

I hear what you are saying. But the question remains IF they were not going to run this story unti they had KMs permission, why on earth spend 20k plus euros. Especially as Sanderson said they were treating it as a fake, and cross referencing with their archive to check dates. If it was all above board and they had cleared it with Mitchell, why not simply ask him?

No, if you want to kow who is lying, then my money is on NOTW.

Well its no surprise to me that you believe the NOTW are the ones lying, Xavier.
But as candyfloss has just said, what on earth have NOTW got to gain by stating they thought they had permission? They've already apologised and given blood money to the 'Fund'

Also wasn't Sanderson at pains to state several times that NOTW made sure to check that all stories were true? As the McCanns' were in the headlines daily it wouldn't be difficult for anyone (even after 4.5 years) to make up a diary. The only way he would know that the diaries were truly written by Kate McCann was if he or someone at NOTW had received official confirmation from the McCanns or Mitchell of at least that fact. Remember the fraudulent Hitler diary?

Xavier as you seem to know the McCanns feelings, could I ask you why Kate McCanns diary being Published in Portugual didn't make them feel like suing the Portuguese papers. It is the same as with Amaral's book they only seem interested in stopping it being printed in english.

Just my thoughts.

Exactly so Gillyspot. Many of the things in the diary couldn't have been verified on the internet and Media sources, they were personal thoughts and feelings. A fake diary could be made of of true stuff and not so true. It would need to be verified I would have thought.

Yes, I agree totally.
And for me, it just doesn't wash that Clarrie would let this get past him. Why? Well, let's not forget the famous phrase 'I'm responsible for what comes out in the UK media' - and he didn't know? He didn't know my a**e!

Why did Clarence feel the need to say "spell out categorically"

To spell out is to make explicit and clear

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spell+out

Why the extra word "categorically"

I have read a number of criminal profiling books and they state using unnecessary extra words for emphasis is usually a red flag to them.

Me wrote:

It’s glaringly obvious as soon as diary was mentioned in Mitchell's conversation to Edmondson that it could have only belonged to one person, given the fact that Clarence states he was told that the diary the NOTW held had been previously leaked in the press in Portugal. That narrows it down to the point that it could only belong to Kate.

In my opinion Mitchell's denial centres on not knowing they were going to run it in the big way that they did. This is because he keeps, rather unnecessarily, mentioning being told it would run on the inside pages (what difference would that make. And that clearly is not the same as denying that he knew the existence of the diary.

Forget what the NOTW staff have said because based only on what Mitchell himself has said so far it clearly shows he knew of a diary and to whom it belonged.

CM was employed by mccanns full time at that time, and Edmondson was talking to him because of his capacity as spokesperson for the mccanns. When he admitted 'Portugal" and "diary" were mentioned and NOTW planned to do IT in a BIG way, if he didn't think it was kate's why then did he subsequently say to Edmondson doing a piece on his employer is ok so long as it is a positive piece? That pretty much narrowed it down to the Ts he knew it was kate's diary and kate's story they were doing in a BIG way.

As an experienced media controller he knew Edmondson was clearing "that" with him and he did not object.

I know who is lying because NOTW must have docs or even transcript to prove their statements as Jay alluded to.

CM should be summoned before the Inquiry.

And if Leveson does not do so, it makes a mockery of his Inquiry. He's turning his inquiry into mccanns show.

Despite what everyone says, feels, or what they interperate....There is only one fact here....the fund made money

jd wrote:Despite what everyone says, feels, or what they interperate....There is only one fact here....the fund made money

JD there is another fact. NOTW did only print "positive" parts from Kate's diary. There are less than complimentary bits still available to read on a Portuguese press website.

Aiyoyo wrote. "I know who is lying because NOTW must have docs or even transcript to prove their statements as Jay alluded to."

In which case it should be a very simple matter to clear this up, and for Edmundson to be off the hook, and Mitchell called before the enquiry to answer questions.

Xavier wrote:Aiyoyo wrote. "I know who is lying because NOTW must have docs or even transcript to prove their statements as Jay alluded to."

In which case it should be a very simple matter to clear this up, and for Edmundson to be off the hook, and Mitchell called before the enquiry to answer questions.

The NOTW executives stated under oath that they believed that Mitchell knew of and approved publication of the diary.

In response Mitchell, not under oath, stated:

"He led me to believe that they were looking to do a positive story on an inside page based on leaks in the Portuguese press of quotes in an alleged diary that had already appeared in Portugal in previous days."

Can you please explain, given the words quoted, how you arrive at the conclusion that the NOTW executives are lying?

Putting this here as well as new thread about PJ not having the diary which is in latest news thread...

Friday, 16 December 2011
Ambiguous or Equivocal?... Or just tongue in cheek.

Taken from the statement of Daniel Sanderson who appeared at the Leveson Inquiry on 15th December 2011


I believe 18,000 Euros were paid to the Portuguese journalist (the P J). It was paid in two parts; 9,000 Euros up front and 9,000 Euros on publication. I can’t be certain of this figure, but it is certainly a fairly accurate estimate. I am aware of the approximate figure because that is the price that had been agreed with the PJ in my initial phone conversations with the PJ. The PJ set the price, which I had communicated to Mr Edmondson. Mr Edmondson then authorised both payments to the source. The PJ then contacted me after publication to organise the second payment, which was authorised by Mr Edmondson.


For the benefit of the Leveson Inquiry...
PJ = Portuguese Journalist


For the benefit of the rest of the astute world...
PJ = Policia Judiciara (Portuguese police)


I assume that Mr Sanderson is well aware (him being a journalist, like) that the Portuguese police are referred to worldwide as the 'PJ'. Surprised he would use such wording on an official statement?


Some pertinent questions people would like answers to...


Who was the Portuguese journalist involved?
Where is the original Portuguese copy now?
Who were the London-based translation service?
What is the proof that the Portuguese police were the original source?
Was there another diary - pre 3rd May?
If so, which diary did the police really want?


And one final question...


What is the relationship between Gerard Couzens, the diary picker upper and Tom Worden, the 8 new leads leaker? Which may be answered by putting their names into a Google search.


**thanks to the smarties online for spotting the 'PJ' gaffe.

Posted by Me, Myself, Moi... at 13:53 Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.com/2011/12/ambiguous-or-equivocal.html?spref=tw

Me wrote:

Xavier wrote:Aiyoyo wrote. "I know who is lying because NOTW must have docs or even transcript to prove their statements as Jay alluded to."

In which case it should be a very simple matter to clear this up, and for Edmundson to be off the hook, and Mitchell called before the enquiry to answer questions.

The NOTW executives stated under oath that they believed that Mitchell knew of and approved publication of the diary.

In response Mitchell, not under oath, stated:

"He led me to believe that they were looking to do a positive story on an inside page based on leaks in the Portuguese press of quotes in an alleged diary that had already appeared in Portugal in previous days."

Can you please explain, given the words quoted, how you arrive at the conclusion that the NOTW executives are lying?

Semantics. And someone has been cuaght out. I do not think, on balance, that it was Mitchell. And my reasoning is as follows:

Mitchell was obviously aware that Kates diary had been leaked (aside from this, the question still remains - how did a copy of the diary, translated into Portuguese, and apparently bearing markings indicating that it was an official translation - come to be in the hands of a Portuguese journalist. This is a very serous matter - criminal in fact).

He was also aware, it seems, that NOTW was advsing him that they were doing a low key, supportive story about the leaked diary.

Did they tell him that they had a copy of the diary and were going to print excerpts from the actual diary? That is an entirely different matter. And I repeat - if they were happy to get Mitchell or the McCanns to confirm that they were happy for NOTW to print extracts - why pay for a (possibly fake) portuguese copy and have it transalted? Why not just KM or CM to pop a copy in the post?

And why, when caught out, did they make a payment to the fund? Especially if they had the evidence?

One or two members of the NOTW team have said that they have email corrrespondence confirming their side of the story. Producing that evidence would clear this up once and for all. But they have not. Very strange. There is a general principle in court hearings - written evidence always trumps verbal. NOTW say that have evidence - they need now to produce it.

sharonl wrote:If I remember correctly and please correct me if I am wrong, the PJ suspected that the diary was a plant, something that had been deliberately written up during that week and left for the PJ to find. If this is true, then it would be in the McCanns interest to have it published. Having made reference to where they were or were not at certain times, Kates maternal relationship with Madeleine, the heartbreak etc. etc. etc. , they are then able play the victim card and gain public sympathy when her innermost thoughts and feelings are exposed.

Aside of all the "noise" about who said what, what they printed etc., etc." - I think this is quite important .

Begin at the beginning : A Meeting of Heads

Kate writes a Diary - fair enough, as "sharonl" says it works well from a defence point of view/purpose achieved.

It would be also something to keep for reference and for possible Book - money/achieved purpose on one front at least.

The fact that it was leaked (or was it) to the Portuguese Press is a definite plus. Its bound to reach the UK somehow and what do the McCanns do successfully - control the Press.

CM has good relationship with NOTW - we know this. So NOTW supposedly publish with permission. Kate professes violation and gains apology and compensation.

The question is was there monetary gain from the "supposed agreed publishing"?

LI looms so Kate reiterates violation and NOTW then says they had permission. But Kate has got her sympathy exposure and possible fund contributions rise - money/purpose achieved.

[quote="Xavier"]

Me wrote:

Xavier wrote:Aiyoyo wrote. "I know who is lying because NOTW must have docs or even transcript to prove their statements as Jay alluded to."

In which case it should be a very simple matter to clear this up, and for Edmundson to be off the hook, and Mitchell called before the enquiry to answer questions.

The NOTW executives stated under oath that they believed that Mitchell knew of and approved publication of the diary.

In response Mitchell, not under oath, stated:

"He led me to believe that they were looking to do a positive story on an inside page based on leaks in the Portuguese press of quotes in an alleged diary that had already appeared in Portugal in previous days."

Can you please explain, given the words quoted, how you arrive at the conclusion that the NOTW executives are lying?

Xavier wrote:Semantics. And someone has been cuaght out. I do not think, on balance, that it was Mitchell. And my reasoning is as follows:

Not semantics at all. Someone has indeed been caught out. The key difference is the Myler & Cone stated their version under oath, Mitchell hasn't.

Who has more to lose by lying as a result of this?

Xavier wrote:Mitchell was obviously aware that Kates diary had been leaked (aside from this, the question still remains - how did a copy of the diary, translated into Portuguese, and apparently bearing markings indicating that it was an official translation - come to be in the hands of a Portuguese journalist. This is a very serous matter - criminal in fact).

The question does still remain who leaked and translated it? Has it been proven yet that it was an official document? Has it been proven it was leaked by authority of the PJ? Was it leaked before or after a judge ordered all copies be destroyed? Again speculation is turning into fact with no evidence to support.

As it stands at the moment there is a rush to assume in some quarters that this was all that nasty Gonc's fault, with no evidence to support or prove that.

Xavier wrote:He was also aware, it seems, that NOTW was advsing him that they were doing a low key, supportive story about the leaked diary.

Did they tell him that they had a copy of the diary and were going to print excerpts from the actual diary? That is an entirely different matter. And I repeat - if they were happy to get Mitchell or the McCanns to confirm that they were happy for NOTW to print extracts - why pay for a (possibly fake) portuguese copy and have it transalted? Why not just KM or CM to pop a copy in the post?

Mitchell has said, i repeat again - not under oath- that he knew the story was about the diary and its contents. Are you seriously suggesting he would have been plamed off with such vague, unspecific information without question, given the nature of his methods, and the close working relationship he had with Edmondson and others at the NoTW?

Are you saying he wouldn't have asked the very same questions to Edmondson that you have asked in your post? As a seasoned PR operator i fail to accept that after hearing Edmondson's information he would not immediately have asked: what have you got, what are you planning to use?

He would have known or asked, and i believe has admitted, that he knew they had or were going to run with parts of the leaked diary.

How would he, having been told that they were going to run a positive piece based on the leak of an alleged diary, expect the NOTW to do so without printing parts of that diary. It makes no sense that Clarence, or anyone else for that matter, knowing the subject matter of tha article would not expect the diary to be used in it.

In relation to why they didn't get it direct from the McCann's then as i have previously stated there are a number of valid reasons. The most obvious one is given the days they contacted Mitchell, the Friday and Saturday, in advance of publication on the Sunday, they will have already bought the diary and written up the story. Why pay a second time for it, and why pay the McCann's a fortune for it when you've already bought the thing on the cheap from a Portuguese journalist?

Xavier wrote:And why, when caught out, did they make a payment to the fund? Especially if they had the evidence?

Well Mitchell has been at pains to point out that he was told the story would be a low key affair. I believe that his objection lies not with the fact they had it per se but with the scale of how they ran with it. It wasn't as low key as intimated and this to me appears to be one of the reasons why they made a payment. Perhaps the McCann's also objected to the particular excerpts used rather and also perhaps the NOTW felt worried about their exposure on the source of the diary and the way in which it was obtained once the MCcann's objected. For the sake of the meagre donation far better to pay up and apologise rather than run the risk of an expensive and high profile legal case against the Saint Mccann's. Bad for publicity, bad for business.

It's also possible that the MCann's rasied objections on the strength of public feeling following publication. Mitchell highlighted the fact he was told it would be a positive piece. It wasn't, or the public reaction wasn't, and after publication objections may have been raised about how positive the article was.

Xavier wrote:One or two members of the NOTW team have said that they have email corrrespondence confirming their side of the story. Producing that evidence would clear this up once and for all. But they have not. Very strange. There is a general principle in court hearings - written evidence always trumps verbal. NOTW say that have evidence - they need now to produce it.

And the, QC Jay, said that the documentation he saw this week "broadly supported" the view that NoTW had evidence they had permission (and ran to 4 pages, rather more than Mitchell's suggested "brief conversation").

i'd also suggest verbal evidence under oath trumps verbal evidence made to a newspaper.

What I don't understand is the alledged "mental rape" - a powerful statement - in light of certain inclusions in the book, most notably p129. I can actually imagine Kate being pretty furious if indeed, the diaries were published without any warning (something I find hard to believe if revelations at the LI are indeed true), but going so far as to say it was mental rape, which holds the implication of an unforgiveable crime, seems overly dramatic for someone who has sought the case to have as much publicity as possible and made £1m from a book about it.

As with most things regarding the McCanns, it is the desire to run first with the hounds and then with the fox that is extremely perplexing. They need the media to be on their side, yet they risk invoking the wrath of the press with their accusations, they need the police on their side, yet accuse them of everything from inaction to leaking untrue information. It's a bit like inviting guests over for dinner then halfway through the main course asking them to leave the house immediately.

So what next? If the McCanns want to raise awareness for the 5th anniversary of the "disappearance", do they really expect the press to print the story? What, if after the LI concludes, the press embark on a pact of silence, and totally blank the McCanns? They've had four and a half years of maximum coverage, good and bad, far and away more than any other ordinary people. Perhaps now is the time for the Mc's to be totally stonewalled by the media. That course of action would do everyone a favour.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Perhaps now is the time for the Mc's to be totally stonewalled by the media. That course of action would do everyone a favour.

Would it though? Because every time they appear on TV or in the newspapers they reveal more of their lies and agenda. Trouble is the more they carry on and the more they are protected and allowed to carry on with this money-making scam the more likely it will be that someone will get angry enough to take action one day. I think Kate said that if they were arrested there would be riots in this country

Yeah right. More likely riots might happen if something is not done about them. How much longer is the British public (and other countries) going to have these scam artists thrust down our throats?