Latest interview with Dr Amaral - copied from Joana Morais - with thanks

Kate, page 348 of Madeleine: "Goncalo Amaral has been convicted of falsifying statemtns and has coordinated investigations into the disappearance of two little girls, neither of whom has been found. .....

She also makes another reference in her book to this case and the fact that 'no body was ever found'. Can't find it right now. 

But both Kate and Gerry have repeatedly flagged up the fact that no body has been found. 

"Find the body and prove we killed her" Gerry McCann.

aiyoyo wrote:

BlueBag wrote:So... the Clarence Mitchell question....

Hmmm...blue bag, you are getting there.....slowly but surely....

How did he get the McCann job?

By kissing McCanns asses.

Did he work his notice period from his Government media manipulating job?

Didn't look it, too sudden a departure.

Did he get paid more or less in his new job?
Dunno what he got in old job, but it was reported he got paid £70K/year in new job and his role is to lie through as many teeth he has in his mouth.  An easy job, so very overpaid by money collected from old age pensioners and school children pocket money savings.


Did he get paid?
 What, now?  
Oh gawd,.....must be, can't see him doing it just for a jolly FOC.


How many other missing child cases have ever had an (ex) Government man appointed as Spokesman/media manipulator/PR guru?

Now then.....now then.....don't ask naughty question.....when you already know or guess the answer.......


Anyone who thinks there is not some involvement from above need to ask themselves about Clarence Mitchell.

I think there is involvement from the "ABOVE",  undeniably plenty evidence of that, not conspiracy imv but in their mistaken belief that doctors and a bunch of professionals needed help in a foreign country little realising their aiding were abetting unwittingly  'mom and dad' LIE.  

Maybe I'm mistaken and Clarence is an altruist?

He went beyond professional, he got personal, and got dragged into their cesspit.
It's a career suicide but probably not by choice but by mistake initially, now it's just free fall voluntarily into it.

I would be unsurprised to find out one day that the generous financier who paid CM was not closely involved with NI. Every caricature of Murdoch plays on his desire to sell the news by knowing what its going to be and to have moles and informants placed close enough to events for him to be sure of the inside skinny. CM is smart enough to know that he already has a book and tv appearance deals to set him up for life. He will either sell the story of how he committed espionage and helped bring the dastardly duo down, or he'll sell the story of how his goodness was duped by deceivers, or he'll be selling the story of his help exonerating them.

dantezebu wrote:

aquila wrote:

BlueBag wrote:So... the Clarence Mitchell question....

How did he get the McCann job?

Did he work his notice period from his Government media manipulating job?

Did he get paid more or less in his new job?

Did he get paid?

How many other missing child cases have ever had an (ex) Government man appointed as Spokesman/media manipulator/PR guru?

Anyone who thinks there is not some involvement from above need to ask themselves about Clarence Mitchell.

Maybe I'm mistaken and Clarence is an altruist?

These snips from the mccannfiles might answer a couple of questions - although they are Clarrie's quotes so take from that what you will.



Mr Mitchell said his job in the Cabinet Office as head of the media monitoring unit was "untenable" from the moment he accepted an invitation from the family, supported by their legal team and financial backers, to represent them.

 

"More importantly, I have [resigned] because I feel so strongly that they are innocent victims of a heinous crime that I am prepared to forego my career in government service to assist them."

[color:ce96=000000]............................................................................................


Mr Mitchell was reported to have been earning around £70,000 in his post at the Central Office of Information.

 

Later he told Sky News that his new job was being paid for by a "generous financial backer who wishes to remain anonymous". He was not receiving money from Mr or Mrs McCann or the Find Madeleine appeal.

[color:ce96=000000].........................................................................................

[color:ce96=000000][size=7][size=13][color:ce96=000000]"Every time that a British subject has problems abroad Consular assistance is offered. As it was regarding a missing child and not the theft of documents, the help provided by the Consul of Portimão was greater. Since the case dominated the media, The Foreign Office, in London, thought of me because I had experience as a reporter and I knew key English people. It wasn't Tony Blair nor the present Prime minister, Gordon Brown, that sent me. I am not their spokesperson nor do I call them asking for advice.[color:ce96=000000]"

[color:ce96=000000]...............................................................................................

[color:ce96=000000]There's a very interesting E[color:ce96=000000]xpresso interview on the link

[color:ce96=000000]http://www.mccannfiles.com/id255.html


[/size][/size]

But how did Clarrie know that the McCann job would not end any minute with the finding of Madeleine?
Either he was given a very substantial retainer to cover this eventuality.  Or he knew she would not be found.

The former. PR's don't keep killers out of jail. They keep the public from lynching.

At the rate, AR & Grange 'produce' new 'witnesses', even ones now that can SEE a person SPEAKING English, everyone in PDL, will have 'seen' the nastyman, carrying Madeleine about town.Their 'evidence' will be put in the big box, at Belgravia, marked 'new witnesses, QUITE urgent'

aiyoyo wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:So this mysterious financial backer had their own personal interests in seeing things spun or the media?

How can you jump from one paid job into another job where you dont know if you're going to get paid or how long your services will be required? Unless it was planned out fully before he jumped ship.

Very good point SMQ.

If Maddie were to be found shortly after he started with the McCanns he would soon find himself out of job.

It does not  make sense to accept a job to represent two unknown individuals (vs not a corporation) in a missing child case, unprecedented in many aspects, with too many unknown factors.  

No long term job security and definitely no prospects of advancement/promotion in any shape or form.
She could be found  alive relatively quickly and he would out of job.
She could be found dead also relatively quickly or 7 years later and he would still be out of a job.

For a job with the McCanns, where would his office be I wonder.
I can't imagine Rothley's garden shed being his office, so where did he go to report in for work to earn his £70K/year salary.

I think they call it "freelance". You tend to work from home, teleconference, commute where necessary, but its kind of a job that you define. 

And playing devil's advocate a moment, these people were operating in a vacuum of information at the time. No PJ files, no dogs, no investigation. We don't know what stories athe Mc's were telling everyone they recruited. They could have been saying 'something' s happened, it isn't us, but it will look like us, we need a fair crack at persuading the public so that we can prove our innocence.'

He might be a tepid slimy turd, but he might have started out believing a plausible lie in a vacuum of information. He may be bought into the account still. Or this may just be a sacrifice that is worth the compromise for a golden paycheck.

The Rooster wrote:I don't understand why Mr Amaral would want to undermine in such a public and thoroughly unprofessional manner the efforts of the Portuguese Authorities and the British Police.  I believe there is a proper investigation going on, so do many others on the forum with some very good posts published by cynicAL, the person with Ireland in their name and someone else who's name escapes me (sorry).

He seems to have lost his cool.  He's entitled to his opinion of course but it's the manner of delivery that's inconsistent with his previous persona.

I completely agree with that.

It's very strange.

And thanks from me also to CynicAl for his common sense.

Edited to add a capital C to his name!

canada12 wrote:Regarding coverup, whitewash, protection of someone higher up...
Just a thought, but how do we know that Clarence Mitchell wasn't there at that time Madeleine disappeared?
Perhaps Clarence Mitchell is the reason for the "coverup" and for all the "protection".
Perhaps Clarence Mitchell was quietly let go of his job with the government, and found himself in a bit of a tight spot.
IMO, the only reason Clarence Mitchell would know that a PR job for the McCanns would be long term is if he was part of the original problem and KNEW exactly what was going on.
And the best way to protect himself would be working as spokesman for the McCanns, to control everything coming out of Rothley, TM, and the press.
Idle speculation, just an opinion. But as valid as any other speculation right now.

I'm sorry, but saying "Mickey Mouse did it" is not as 'valid' as any other speculative suggestion. The point of intelligent debate is to be rational and thoughtful, objective and logical. It isn't to pull out the wildest assumptions to try to contort them to create a narrative which fills in all the blanks of what we don't know and aren't actually entitled to be privy to. 

I think we're taking the 'democratic citizen' demands a bit too seriously. We are NOT entitled, even as taxpayers, to read every word of an interview, every detail of an investigation or to know every fact. To fill in the perceived blanks with wild, irrational speculations to make the dots connect doesn't serve to do anything but discredit the act of speculating out of dissent with official reports. 

We've gone from the wild theory of massive cover up and whitewash to protect a high level cabinet minister who was there banging Mrs McCann and her friends, to a similarly high, extreme form of protection to protect clarence Mitchell... 

I kid you not, if Mitchell had compromised himself in PDL it would not be a short queue of government figures who'd happily flush the toad, rather than move hell and high water to protect him. We're talking about the unlawful death of a child here in the highest profile case in decades - even if those high level politicos were cold enough to not care and get involved anyway, they're not stupid enough to know the risks of becoming an accessory and conspiring to pervert the course of justice and the scandal of being exposed. There is nothing that can be plausibly put on the table which puts forward anything which is worth that kind of risk.

CynicAl wrote:We are NOT entitled, even as taxpayers, to read every word of an interview, every detail of an investigation or to know every fact.

No we're not but perhaps we should be. The Portuguese are, or at least their criminal justice system provides for it.

ETA

CynicAl wrote:I kid you not, if Mitchell had compromised himself in PDL it would not be a short queue of government figures who'd happily flush the toad, rather than move hell and high water to protect him. We're talking about the unlawful death of a child here in the highest profile case in decades - even if those high level politicos were cold enough to not care and get involved anyway, they're not stupid enough to know the risks of becoming an accessory and conspiring to pervert the course of justice and the scandal of being exposed. There is nothing that can be plausibly put on the table which puts forward anything which is worth that kind of risk

I can think of one thing.

Don't forget the course of justice continues to be perverted by senior people in the case of the former Conservative cabinet minister accused of paedophilia and rape so its not as far fetched as you make out

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5262/rapist-ex-cabinet-minister-named-in-tom-watson-s-dpp-letter

CynicAl wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:So this mysterious financial backer had their own personal interests in seeing things spun or the media?

How can you jump from one paid job into another job where you dont know if you're going to get paid or how long your services will be required? Unless it was planned out fully before he jumped ship.

Very good point SMQ.

If Maddie were to be found shortly after he started with the McCanns he would soon find himself out of job.

It does not  make sense to accept a job to represent two unknown individuals (vs not a corporation) in a missing child case, unprecedented in many aspects, with too many unknown factors.  

No long term job security and definitely no prospects of advancement/promotion in any shape or form.
She could be found  alive relatively quickly and he would out of job.
She could be found dead also relatively quickly or 7 years later and he would still be out of a job.

For a job with the McCanns, where would his office be I wonder.
I can't imagine Rothley's garden shed being his office, so where did he go to report in for work to earn his £70K/year salary.

I think they call it "freelance". You tend to work from home, teleconference, commute where necessary, but its kind of a job that you define. 

And playing devil's advocate a moment, these people were operating in a vacuum of information at the time. No PJ files, no dogs, no investigation. We don't know what stories athe Mc's were telling everyone they recruited. They could have been saying 'something' s happened, it isn't us, but it will look like us, we need a fair crack at persuading the public so that we can prove our innocence.'

He might be a tepid slimy turd, but he might have started out believing a plausible lie in a vacuum of information. He may be bought into the account still. Or this may just be a sacrifice that is worth the compromise for a golden paycheck.

I'm not having this.

Why did the Government think a media manipulator was required as a priority?

He was there next day!

BlueBag wrote:I'm not having this.

Why did the Government think a media manipulator was required as a priority?

He was there next day!

Was he there the next day? I thought Sheree Dodd was the first person sent by the Government.

MissDaisy wrote:

BlueBag wrote:I'm not having this.

Why did the Government think a media manipulator was required as a priority?

He was there next day!

Was he there the next day? I thought Sheree Dodd was the first person sent by the Government.

Oh yeah.. that's right.

First to arrive in Portugal was a former Mirror journalist and long-term government spokesperson called Sheree Dodd. In an unprecedented move, the Government took over news-handling on behalf of the McCann..

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/SPOKESPERSONS.htm


Then they sent Clarence.

My memory of Government priorities is fading after 7 years.

Because what the McCanns really needed was a Government media person.

Clarence turned up.. when?

For what it's worth, my view is a sort of mix of what Amaral's saying and also Blacksmith. 

I think the 11 pm call on 3rd May by John Buck, British ambassador to Ribeiro, head of the PJ who interrupted a private dinner to take it, was probably a result of PE (nephew of MH, Labour politician) being in PdL at the time.  He must've made a call to Aunty Margaret.  Similarly the report  in the Daily Telegraph after 2 hours.

The next day PE left the country - is there anything sinister in that?  Not in my opinion - why? cos that's what rich people do....would you hang around when there was a tragedy like that unfolding before your eyes, involving people you didn't know, when you were supposed to be on holiday?  If you could get the hell out of there, wouldn't you?  All the middle-class Warner crowd on their package deals had to hang around cos their flights weren't until the weekend, with the helicopters overhead and the place swarming with police.  Rich people don't have to put up with that. They can just steer a wide berth of strangers' messy lives.

What happened next? Well, never underestimate how lazy and sloppy people can be - that goes for journalists, politicians and doctors.  Politicians - first Labour, then Tory, latched on to the idea of being the pivotal figure to "bring Madeleine home" because they thought it would bring them popularity and votes.  Ditto Rebekah Brookes who thought it would sell more of Rupert Murdoch's unpleasant newspapers.  The traditional deference which the British insist on showing toward doctors, no matter how poorly they perform their work, means that the politicos and the journos went along with the story without bothering to check out the facts. 

Plus, the McCanns had some very well-placed Scottish friends in 2007 - remember Kate's friend Gill Renwick, who just conveniently happened to bump into Gordon Brown's brother John, who lived on the same street as her, and Gill Renwick's pal who nipped round and knocked on the door of Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark etc. etc. 

So the urge to bask in the reflected glory of tracing the working class made good doctors, who managed to bring home their little girl was just too good a chance to miss.  Once the Establishment realised that not was all as it seemed and there were some murky areas lurking underneath the facade, it was too late to turn back, without losing face.  So they have to push on, supporting the McCanns regardless. Hence the involvement of MI5 and possibly the 'inconclusive' results from the lab following Eddie and Keela.

The arrogance of Blair, Brown, Cameron, Lord Leveson and the Murdoch press astounds me.  They think they can make an accurate judgement of character and the circumstances without checking out the facts and studying the case properly.

Remember Deep Throat's famous lines in 'All the President's Men' when he tells Woodward to 'follow the money' - 

Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

For me, there's no big, clever cover-up. Leveson, Brown, Cameron etc. are not very bright guys and things got out of hand - now they've got to engineer an outcome so they don't lose face.

BlueBag wrote:

MissDaisy wrote:

BlueBag wrote:I'm not having this.

Why did the Government think a media manipulator was required as a priority?

He was there next day!

Was he there the next day? I thought Sheree Dodd was the first person sent by the Government.

Oh yeah.. that's right.

First to arrive in Portugal was a former Mirror journalist and long-term government spokesperson called Sheree Dodd. In an unprecedented move, the Government took over news-handling on behalf of the McCann..

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/SPOKESPERSONS.htm


Then they sent Clarence.

My memory of Government priorities is fading after 7 years.

Because what the McCanns really needed was a Government media person.

Clarence turned up.. when?

He was not there literally next day, but not far off, within first week of disappearance if I am not wrong.

aiyoyo wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

MissDaisy wrote:

BlueBag wrote:I'm not having this.

Why did the Government think a media manipulator was required as a priority?

He was there next day!

Was he there the next day? I thought Sheree Dodd was the first person sent by the Government.

Oh yeah.. that's right.

First to arrive in Portugal was a former Mirror journalist and long-term government spokesperson called Sheree Dodd. In an unprecedented move, the Government took over news-handling on behalf of the McCann..

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/SPOKESPERSONS.htm


Then they sent Clarence.

My memory of Government priorities is fading after 7 years.

Because what the McCanns really needed was a Government media person.

Clarence turned up.. when?

He was not there literally next day, but not far off, within first week of disappearance if I am not wrong.

Yep - wasn't he the person who organised the trip to see the Pope? Gotta find the link......

From the date it was announced that Gordon Brown would take over from Tony Blair as Prime Minister on 27 June 2007 he was desperate to paint himself as a multi faceted man of the people not just a policy 'wonk' and numbers man. He only had a partial term in office before the general election. The Madeleine McCann case was a perfect opportunity for him to be seen to be pro-active, firm, caring, involved etc etc. He just chose the wrong subject. Being in reality a stubborn control freak he had to avoid looking foolish as the election started looming into view. Instead of assisting the PJ and having the McCanns arrested Brown's personal intervention and the later actions of his government gave the McCanns the vital breathing space to assemble and promulgate their version of events etc. It suited Brown and his party well when the popular press took up the cause.
If this case is cracked before the next election on Teresa May's watch I suspect the Tories will use it to mock Brown's then right hand men Milliband and Balls. All IMHO.

roy rovers wrote:From the date it was announced that Gordon Brown would take over from Tony Blair as Prime Minister on 27 June 2007 he was desperate to paint himself as a multi faceted man of the people not just a policy 'wonk' and numbers man. He only had a partial term in office before the general election. The Madeleine McCann case was a perfect opportunity for him to be seen to be pro-active, firm, caring, involved etc etc. He just chose the wrong subject. Being in reality a stubborn control freak he had to avoid looking foolish as the election started looming into view. Instead of assisting the PJ and having the McCanns arrested Brown's personal intervention and the later actions of his government gave the McCanns the vital breathing space to assemble and promulgate their version of events etc. It suited Brown and his party well when the popular press took up the cause.
If this case is cracked before the next election on Teresa May's watch I suspect the Tories will use it to mock Brown's then right hand men Milliband and Balls. All IMHO.

all very true Roy.  (I'm afraid.....I speak as a lifetime Labour Party member)  

@ CynicAl today 12:33 pm



No doubt many people agree with your description of Clarence Mitchell but his appearance and personality are irrelevant, his professional position is the point in question so perhaps you could now answer the question posed originally by Hicks? Not forgetting his predecessor Sheree Dodds.



While your at it, perhaps you can also give your view as to the level of diplomatic presence at camp pdl.

View-from-Ireland wrote:


Personally, I feel that the fact that this happened on Portuguese soil is a complicating factor. Had Madeleine disappeared from her own bedroom in Rothley and the same scenario been presented by the Tapas crew and the McCanns we'd be looking at a very different case. I think the fact that government became involved in any shape in the early days had everything to do with the fact that the family were seen as British holidaymakers to Portugal who had been victims of a terrible crime. Also, because it happened 'out foreign', I'd imagine the British public were more conditioned to sympathise with the family than ask the type of questions that would have come to mind had it happened on British soil.

I know a lot of people read negatively into the statement in OG's remit that they aim to investigate 'the abduction as if it happened in the UK', but I take a far more positive interpretation.  I think what is being hinted at is that if the MCs had called up in a panic and said their bany had just 'disappeared' from their house with no trace of a break in, and engaged in all the behaviour they subsequently engaged in when it happened in Portugal,  it would have been investigated very differently.  If you ignore the word abduction that's how it reads to me. In fact it seems to be saying 'if this 'abduction' had happened in the UK it wouldn't be classed as an abduction'. All my super positive take on it ofc

ShuBob wrote:

Gollum wrote:@ CynicAl

FFS, an intelligent high level conspiracy would have sent them a female PR, to empathise with KM and have people thinking 'an attractive, modern woman in PR would definitely never cover up a crime like this.'


Justine McGuiness for example?

The general consensus on the forums when Ms McGuiness was at the helm of the McCann PR machine was that she was inept. If only we'd known then what Clarence Mitchell would become!

IMO she didn't help the couple at all and I got the impression she wasn't a fan of Gerry's. Remember after she left she sued when a "source close to the McCanns" told a Sunday newspaper she had effectively fleeced them of fund money and she also wrote a not-so-helpful article about her time with the couple.

I recall she skulked off under a cloud but she managed to stay the course didn't she, taking over from Mitchell in June 2007 and not leaving their side until they returned to England in September 2007 and Mitchell was back in the driving seat.  Having said that, she was only another pawn in the game wasn't she?

@ JackieL - "The next day PE left the country - is there anything sinister in that?  Not in my opinion - why? cos that's what rich people do....would you hang around when there was a tragedy like that unfolding before your eyes, involving people you didn't know, when you were supposed to be on holiday?  If you could get the hell out of there, wouldn't you? "

When did he realise there was a tragedy unfolding though ? Obviously well before the early evening of the 3rd because he had told another couple who were dining near him that he was leaving the next day. (Can`t remember the couple`s name but its in their statement).   Which means he got the tip-off during Thursday 3rd, or even before that.

JackieL wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

MissDaisy wrote:

BlueBag wrote:I'm not having this.

Why did the Government think a media manipulator was required as a priority?

He was there next day!

Was he there the next day? I thought Sheree Dodd was the first person sent by the Government.

Oh yeah.. that's right.

First to arrive in Portugal was a former Mirror journalist and long-term government spokesperson called Sheree Dodd. In an unprecedented move, the Government took over news-handling on behalf of the McCann..

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/SPOKESPERSONS.htm


Then they sent Clarence.

My memory of Government priorities is fading after 7 years.

Because what the McCanns really needed was a Government media person.

Clarence turned up.. when?

He was not there literally next day, but not far off, within first week of disappearance if I am not wrong.

Yep - wasn't he the person who organised the trip to see the Pope? Gotta find the link......

Clarence Mitchell interviewed by Expresso September 2007

Q: It was enough that you called certain people so that Kate and Gerry were granted an audience with the Pope.

A: And I am a Protestant! When I was in the Algarve on behalf of the Foreign Office I kept in touch with the British Embassies, the Vatican's inclusive. Through Cormac Murphy O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, I knew that Maddie's disappearance had not gone un-noticed by the Vatican. He suggested that we asked for an audience with the Pope. It was I that wrote that email, since Gerry and Kate did not want any special treatment.

Woofer wrote:@ JackieL - "The next day PE left the country - is there anything sinister in that?  Not in my opinion - why? cos that's what rich people do....would you hang around when there was a tragedy like that unfolding before your eyes, involving people you didn't know, when you were supposed to be on holiday?  If you could get the hell out of there, wouldn't you? "

When did he realise there was a tragedy unfolding though ? Obviously well before the early evening of the 3rd because he had told another couple who were dining near him that he was leaving the next day. (Can`t remember the couple`s name but its in their statement).   Which means he got the tip-off during Thursday 3rd, or even before that.

P.E said he had photo's of his boys on the day of M's disappearance. With M in the background.

They never saw the light of day.

Strange.

Gollum wrote:
I recall she skulked off under a cloud but she managed to stay the course didn't she, taking over from Mitchell in June 2007 and not leaving their side until they returned to England in September 2007 and Mitchell was back in the driving seat.  Having said that, she was only another pawn in the game wasn't she?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t9668-justine-mcguinness?highlight=justine+mcguinness

http://truthformadeleine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=626

Not so sure. In the beginning, maybe, but she certainly left a few question marks over her commitment to the McCause by the end. Needs further exploration, this, imo.