Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

by jd 01.06.12 14:29

I heard somewhere that clarence mitchell gave his evidence privately. Not sure how true this is though

by Guest 01.06.12 14:36

jd wrote:I heard somewhere that clarence mitchell gave his evidence privately. Not sure how true this is though

I don't think that can be right, otherwise they would all choose to do that wouldn't they, instead of being on the telly in front of millions, being grilled and squirming in their seats. Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth? - Page 3 110921

Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth? - Page 3 110921

by jd 01.06.12 14:44

candyfloss wrote:
jd wrote:I heard somewhere that clarence mitchell gave his evidence privately. Not sure how true this is though

I don't think that can be right, otherwise they would all choose to do that wouldn't they, instead of being on the telly in front of millions, being grilled and squirming in their seats.

I know, but I am sure they said it on the BBC News 24 that he just submitted his so called 'evidence' and was never called up to appear. I just remember thinking how corrupt this was. I could well be wrong but I am sure this is what they said...unless I dreamt it

by friedtomatoes 01.06.12 19:35

http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1116614/Clarence-Mitchell-speaks-following-Leveson-Inquiry/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH

Mitchell, who is Burson-Marsteller's MD, added that he did not rule out being called up to speak in the inquiry in the future.

though further down it says:

W Communications founder Warren Johnson added: ‘The appearances of Max Clifford and Clarence Mitchell before the Leveson inquiry have highlighted the surprisingly low turn out from the rest of the PR industry.
-------
I think he has not been called, just made comments

by jd 01.06.12 19:44

What I am sure I heard on News 24 was over the last 10 days

by Guest 01.06.12 19:44

I'm sure I read that Pinky [for insiders] Clarence Mitchell HAS testified, but not before camera.
Cannot find a link at the moment, sorry.
Or, maybe, I've just misunderstood at the time and reference with was to his witness statement ...

by Guest 01.06.12 20:07

Here are all the people with initial M for surname that have given evidence.........

m

DI Mark Maberly	Murdoch MacLennan	Lisa MacLeod	DCI John Macdonald
Lord Macdonald QC	Kelvin Mackenzie	Deputy Commissioner Craig Mackey	Mahzer Mahmood
Mazher Mahmood	Make Justice Work	Manish Malhotra	Kit Malthouse
Lord Mandelson	David Mannion	Andrew Marr	Ian Marratt
Sharon Marshall	Sharron Marshall	Dr Rob Mawby	Theresa May MP
Peter McCall	Gerry McCann	Kate McCann	Maria McGeoghan
Ian McGregor	Paul McKeever	John McLellan	Paul McMullan
Media Standards Trust	Media Wise Trust	Kip Meek	Professor Maire Messenger Davies
Metropolitan Police Service	Sir Christopher Meyer	Frederic Michel	Microsoft
T/ACC Russell Middleton	Migrant and Refugee Communities Forum	Andrew Miller	Sienna Miller
Heather Mills	Thomas Mockridge	Dominic Mohan	Dr Martin Moore
Gareth Morgan	Gary Morgan	Piers Morgan	Neil Morrissey
Max Mosley	Vincent Moss	Will Moy	Mark Moylan
John Mulholland	John Mullin	Andrew Mullins	James Murdoch
Rupert Murdoch http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/evidence/	James Murray	Colin Myler

by jd 01.06.12 20:09

Châtelaine wrote:I'm sure I read that Pinky [for insiders] Clarence Mitchell HAS testified, but not before camera.
Cannot find a link at the moment, sorry.
Or, maybe, I've just misunderstood at the time and reference with was to his witness statement ...

Yes this is what I am sure I heard them say on News 24. It rings a bell that I have knowledge we will never see him testify on camera

by ShuBob 01.06.12 22:12

During the testimony of McCann supporter Sir Christopher Meyer at the Leveson Inquiry, he did respond to a question by saying he understood (or was it believed?) Clarence Mitchell WOULD also be testifying at the inquiry. It is common knowledge that certain witnesses have elected to give evidence "off camera" for a variety of reasons and their names are not listed as witnesses.

by Guest 01.06.12 22:19

ShuBob wrote:During the testimony of McCann supporter Sir Christopher Meyer at the Leveson Inquiry, he did respond to a question by saying he understood (or was it believed?) Clarence Mitchell WOULD also be testifying at the inquiry. It is common knowledge that certain witnesses have elected to give evidence "off camera" for a variety of reasons.

So how would that work then I wonder? How can that be fair to those who are on camera. Some have gone through intense grilling sessions, namely the Murdochs and Rebecah Brooks and a lot more in front of the millions of viewing public. Did they get a choice, and if they didn't why not? How could some ask not to be on camera? Surely that is not a fair way to conduct proceedings?

by **Tony Bennett** 01.06.12 22:23

ShuBob wrote:During the testimony of McCann supporter Sir Christopher Meyer at the Leveson Inquiry, he did respond to a question by saying he understood (or was it believed?) Clarence Mitchell WOULD also be testifying at the inquiry. It is common knowledge that certain witnesses have elected to give evidence "off camera" for a variety of reasons and their names are not listed as witnesses.

ShuBob, IF it is the case that some can give evidence ON camera, whilst others can give it OFF camera, I do not for one moment think that they can simply 'elect' - choose - to do so.

It's far more likely, surely, that certain people have applied for - and been given - PERMISSION to give evidence off camera.

Perhaps citing something like 'security reasons'?

If Colin Myler, former NOTW editor, can give evidence about conversations with Clarence Mitchell ON camera, though, I don't see why Clarence Michell should be able to get away with not being challenged about HIS evidence ON camera as well

by ShuBob 01.06.12 22:28

I have no idea Candyfloss. I do believe in the case of certain journalists, they feared censure from their employers and only agreed to testify anonymously. I don't see how that particular argument would apply to Clarence Mitchell but there you go. Having said that, he may or may not have appeared at the inquiry but I suspect he has.

by bobbin 01.06.12 22:30

ShuBob wrote:During the testimony of McCann supporter Sir Christopher Meyer at the Leveson Inquiry, he did respond to a question by saying he understood (or was it believed?) Clarence Mitchell WOULD also be testifying at the inquiry. It is common knowledge that certain witnesses have elected to give evidence "off camera" for a variety of reasons and their names are not listed as witnesses.

If there is a police/political view that the McCanns have not been cleared but that a future court case might be pending, some time, then perhaps, since Clarence claimed his phone had not been hacked, there was no valid reason for calling him. He had not been attacked at any time by the press, nor made fun of. Only in the real world was he nicknamed pinky.

The authorities might be letting the McCanns show themselves and do not want to press Pinky in case he blows the chances of a conviction by letting crucial information be drawn from him.

They are perhaps keeping him for desserts....pink blancmange, pink semolina. Look how the police let the revolting show of the philpotts go on screen.

Give them enough rope.

by ShuBob 01.06.12 22:32

Tony Bennett wrote:
ShuBob wrote:During the testimony of McCann supporter Sir Christopher Meyer at the Leveson Inquiry, he did respond to a question by saying he understood (or was it believed?) Clarence Mitchell WOULD also be testifying at the inquiry. It is common knowledge that certain witnesses have elected to give evidence "off camera" for a variety of reasons and their names are not listed as witnesses.
ShuBob, IF it is the case that some can give evidence ON camera, whilst others can give it OFF camera, I do not for one moment think that they can simply 'elect' - choose - to do so.

It's far more likely, surely, that certain people have applied for - and been given - PERMISSION to give evidence off camera.

Perhaps citing something like 'security reasons'?

If Colin Myler, former NOTW editor, can give evidence about conversations with Clarence Mitchell ON camera, though, I don't see why Clarence Michell should be able to get away with not being challenged about HIS evidence ON camera as well

Yes. I didn't put my point across well. That's what I should have said.

by Liz Eagles 27.11.12 10:08

With the recent newspaper report on Hewlett, I think this thread is worth reading through from the start.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.11.12 10:13

aquila wrote:With the recent newspaper report on Hewlett, I think this thread is worth reading through from the start.

Yes, the substantial proportion of people who voted 'Definitely not' in the poll seem to be being proved right!

by Guest 27.11.12 10:42

You have to log in and read - this from Mark Watts, Journalist, broadcaster and author. Editor-in-Chief of Exaro, the investigative website.

exaronews.com

Mark Watts‏@MarkWatts_1

Overlooked by media, News International’s lobbying + political interference re police review of Madeleine #McCann case. http://www.exaronews.com/articles/4727/news-international-lobbied-david-cameron-over-police-review …

ExaroNews‏@ExaroNews

Lord Harris, former chairman of Metropolitan Police Authority: #McCann review is eg of “direct political interference”. http://www.exaronews.com/articles/4727/news-international-lobbied-david-cameron-over-police-review …

Mark Watts‏@MarkWatts_1

Revealed: how News International strong-armed David Cameron into ordering police review of Madeleine #McCann’s case. http://www.exaronews.com/articles/4727/news-international-lobbied-david-cameron-over-police-review …

by **Tony Bennett** 27.11.12 14:01

Well, following candyfloss's discovery of the ExoraNews website, I have registered and logged in.

It does not seem possible, however, to copy and paste any of the four articles relating to Operation Grange, nor even to print them off. So here's a quick summary of what I found there:

+++++++++++++++++++++

The website is called Exaro News.

Its strapline is 'Holding Power to Account'.

A Mr Mark Watts is its Editor-in-Chief

The wesbite features FOUR articles, all dated today, by a comhibation of these three journalists: David Hencke, Frederica Whitehead, and Hui Shan Khoo.

David Hencke was long-time correspondent on health, welfare and social issues for The Guardian newspape, and very much respected for his work, winning several awards.

Exora and its journalists seem to have homed in on the strange issue of how the UK's Prime Minister, David Cameron, was bounced into announcing a very expensive review into the Madeleine McCann case on the very day that Dr Kate McCann published her book, 'madeleine'.

These items emerge in one or more of the four articles:

* Lord Harris, former Chairman of the Met Police, said the review was set up 'because of political interference'

* Lord Harris queried why the Met volunteered to do this review as 'the case had no connection with London'

* Lord Harris said that at the same time as News International bounced the police into carrying out this review, Cameron was stressing how Police and Crime Commissioners and Chief Constables should be ‘operationally independent’

* Len Duvall, a recent Chairman of the Met Police Authority, asked the question: if they want an extension to the review, do they actually have worthwhile new leads to follow up?

* The McCanns say they did not participate in News International’s lobbying (which they admit they did do) of David Cameron to get a review – but after two Home Secretaries refused to hold a review, the McCanns said that News Interrnational’s involvement ‘tipped the balance’

* Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation ,said: "It’s up to the officers to decide whether to go on" i.e. it's now an operational decision

* Gerry McCann told Leveson he’d had a 'couple of meetings' with Rebekah Brooks and Will Lewis from News International

* John O’Connor (regularly appears to give comment on crime to SKY, takes the Murdoch shilling) said: “It would be criminal to abandon the investigation if they have good leads”

* Leveson received a ‘confidential briefing’ about NI’s private lobbying of David Cameron

* Rebekah Brooks of News Internatioanl said that News International ‘persuaded’ Cameron to set up the Madeleine McCann Review, they did not threaten him

* Cameron told Leverson: “I do not remember any specific pressure being put on me”.

* Rebekah Brooks and Dominic Mohan spoke to Theresa May, Home Secretary, shortly before she agreed to persuade the Met Police to hold a review. That matter had been discussed within ACPO for some time.

by **HiDeHo** 27.11.12 14:42

Did Rebekah Brooks THREATEN David Cameron? - McCann Scotland Yard Review -

Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth? - Page 3 Reply

by Liz Eagles 27.11.12 15:28

How many erms, errs, and, and, ands have we seen before? Educated, supposedly erudite people just crumble when asked to tell the truth. It really ought to have a caption competition..think bubbles in synch with what comes out of the mouth.

by Guest 27.11.12 17:37

The strangest thing is that RB 'couldn't remember' how much was paid to the McCanns for the serialisation of the book...when Robert Jay suggested £1 million pounds she denied saying half a million maybe - I cannot remember. Such a huge amount being paid out yet she couldn't remember????

Mark Watts‏@MarkWatts_1

@Bridgiew @MarkWatts_1 Far be it from me to give away Leveson team's confidential source. But strange that Rebekah could not remember.

Mark Watts‏@MarkWatts_1

@Bridgiew @MarkWatts_1 Robert Jay QC suggested to Rebekan Brooks £1m. She denied, saying: "Half a million, maybe. I cannot remember."

by aiyoyo 28.11.12 2:24

Would Jay put that across to her if he didn't have a very reliable source? I don't think so!

For Rebekah to first deny, then came up with a much lower figure is bare face lying IMO.

You either remember the sum, be it whatever it be, or you don't. No two ways about it.
If she can remember the figure, 1/2mil is nonetheless a hugh sum, she should have said so definitively. Then her "I don't remember" is not necessary - it's thrown in just to cover her lie. Preparing a fall back for herself so to speak.

I believe Jay is not fooled.

by roy rovers 06.03.13 23:58

What has become of Operation Grange? I see the home secretary Theresa May is being touted as a potential leader of theTories if they fail to win the next general election. She'll not want anything too controversial on her watch now so will probably kick it into the long grass.

by roy rovers 27.03.13 23:08

It's starting to annoy me now this Operation Grange business. What is going on - public spending cutbacks left, right and centre and this review just cruises along with no sense of urgency or finality whilst consuming taxpayer's millions.

by jd 27.03.13 23:39

roy rovers wrote:It's starting to annoy me now this Operation Grange business. What is going on - public spending cutbacks left, right and centre and this review just cruises along with no sense of urgency or finality whilst consuming taxpayer's millions.

The wider agenda

Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Is Operation Grange a no-holds-barred search for the truth re Madeleine?