Clarence Mitchell: The "complete mystery" of Madeleine McCann

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



THE TRANSCRIPT


Clarence Mitchell (1):


Well, Kate and Gerry are very pleased and relieved that the judge has done absolutely the right thing - er - in their view by agreeing to their demand for the injunction to stay in place against Mr Amaral’s so-called ‘work’ - er - it was causing serious ongoing disruption and damage to the search for their daughter because if people, if they believed what he’d written, would think that she was dead, and wouldn’t even bother to look for her, or pursue any information, if they came across it. That is absolutely wrong - there is no evidence at all to suggest that she’s been harmed, let alone killed, and every reason for the search to continue. And that’s what Kate and Gerry now want - the focus to come back on to the search for their daughter.


Reporter:


I mean, don’t the public have the right to make their own mind about them - if what he says about them is completely untrue, um, and that is obviously provable - shouldn’t he be allowed to say it, and the public make up their own minds?


Clarence Mitchell (2):


Yeah, but under the laws of defamation, as a journalist, as you will know, that if you allege somebody is, in effect, responsible for the death of their child and, and have in effect has covered it up, that is prima facie defamatory of your good name, and therefore they not only, but they, they not only have to take action on that basis, but, more importantly, than the damage to their own reputation, the damage that it was doing to the wider family…they felt it was important to stop people - stop believing this, because it would mean that the search for Madeleine was hindered. So this was a clear case of defamation, regardless of the rights and wrongs. Yes, you have the freedom of speech to say what you want, within the rule of law.


Reporter:


Obviously, this isn’t the end of proceedings Kate and Gerry McCann face on this issue. Mr Amaral says he’s going to take his case and make a request to the European Court of Human Rights…


Clarence Mitchell (3):


That’s obviously his right and he’s perfectly entitled to do that - and if that legal process starts, I - in due course, well, then, well - er - that will be dealt with at that time, but for now, Kate and Gerry feel that the strength of their case is very strong - er - they felt that this was an absolute injustice against them and indirectly against Madeleine herself. And as a result they are very pleased, and as I say, relieved, that the judge has agreed with them and has made it, er, clear that this injunction has to stay in place, but that Mr Amaral does not benefit from his, his, this ‘work’.


Reporter:


Returning to the search for Madeleine, I mean, with this ruling this morning in mind, does this make the search for Madeleine easier?


Clarence Mitchell (4):


Well, hopefully it will do, yes, hopefully people will see this, and see that his particular attack on them, um, has been ended and, as a result, they need to focus on the key message, if you like, that we want to get across today and that is that the judge has effectively agreed that, that this, this is, it should, it should be about Madeleine from now on. What came out during those case were, were - there were two broad areas: (1) there is no evidence at all to suggest she’s been harmed and (2) no police force anywhere is actively looking for her. Shockingly, even when presented with new information and leads, as the Portuguese have been, these were dismissed as, as - not relevant to the investigation. Well, the private investigators would like to look at much of that information, to establish if - if indeed there may be any relevance in there. The search for Madeleine will not stop. Kate and Gerry will not give up until they know what’s happened to their daughter, and, at the moment, it remains a complete mystery - and they are conducting as best an investigation as they can, on their own limited resources, at present. It’s incumbent on both the British and Portuguese police now to mount as effective and credible an investigation as they can, and if that involvers some sort of independent review of the evidence, and potential leads, then so be it, but the search for Madeleine needs to be the focus from now on - not noises off stage from the likes of Mr Amaral.


Reporter:


It’s been a long time now since Madeleine disappeared - can Kate and Gerry McCann feel…


Clarence Mitchell (5):


It’s been nearly three years…


Reporter:


…are they still hopeful that she can be found?


Clarence Mitchell (6):


Kate and Gerry have always drawn strength from the fact that there is no evidence to suggest she’s been harmed, in any way, whatsoever. Yes, of course, nearly three years on, it’s appalling that they’re still having to hope. They would have wanted her home, er, from the very first day - but in the absence of that evidence, to, to tell us - any of us - what has happened to her, they will continue to believe, as best they can, that there is hope - and every time there is, even if, even if they begin to doubt that, every time something like Jaycee Lee Dugard happens - in California, in America, where someone is - is discovered - in her case, eighteen years after she went missing, and was long presumed dead, it can happen - it’s rare. Kate and Gerry will keep going on that basis.


Reporter:


And with ruling like today’s, do you think Kate and Gerry are swaying public opinion in their favour?


Clarence Mitchell (7):


Er, well, that’s a matter for the public, really, isn’t it? I mean, Kate and Gerry will keep going. They didn’t start this legal action. They didn’t want to appear to be litigious for the sake of it. They’re not. They didn’t write this book. They didn’t write this DVD. Mr Amaral did. And what he said in it was fundamentally wrong, and damaging to the search, and that’s why they took the action. Yes, they hope that people - fair-minded people - will see this, and see the agony that’s been heaped on their shoulders on top of the loss of Madeleine, and will hopefully be with them in the search for Madeleine from now on.


Reporter:


We've learned that Robert Murat is - has a legal complaint against one of the friends of Kate and Gerry, over things she said about his alleged involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Presumably if he gets the same kind of ruling that Kate and Gerry got today, they’ support him?

Clarence Mitchell (8):


I'm not going to comment on any details on what Mr. Murat or his legal representative are doing,. Suffice it to say that Jane Tanner never directly named Mr. Murat as the man she saw, and you can go back to the Portuguese police files that were released in 2008 and see that for yourself. She never actually named Mr. Murat as the prime suspect.


Reporter:


Un, with, last question, I think. A lot of people would say that quite a lot of money has been made from Madeleine’s disappearance, with various court cases. How much has been made, and is this being used to fund legal actions like this one we see in Portugal?


Clarence Mitchell (9):


The - er - Fund is there to assist Kate and Gerry in whatever way is necessary. There are a number of other backers as well, outside the Fund who, er, who also assist at times. Um, the bulk - in fact all of the public money that came in the early stages was all spent entirely properly on the search for Madeleine, on the investigative costs, and everything else around that. Um, most of the monies that are still in the fund now are actually there from either the settlements against the Express Group Newspapers and other media outlets that have also defamed them - and so that is money, if you like, that was brought in through court action, not the public. And on top of that, the most recent monies that have come in have been through supporters kindly donating, or a fund-raising event - and again, they would be more than happy as supporters to see the money spent in any way that assists Kate and Gerry and the wider family, and their investigators, in the search for Madeleine.


Reporter:


Last question: in fact, obviously the ruling today upheld a temporary injunction. As well, what steps, or how far away are the McCanns from getting a permanent injunction?


Clarence Mitchell (10):


That’s a matter for the lawyers in Portugal. They’ll assess the, the verdict, they’ll be examining it in detail, seeing exactly what the judge has said today, we, and they no doubt will, um, move to, towards that goal at some stage in the future. I don’t know the exact timetable, but clearly there’s not much point going for a temporary injunction if it doesn’t become permanent, er - and that will happen, but I’m quite sure that any appeal by Amaral’s side will possibly delay that, but that, as I say, is purely a matter for the lawyers to decide in due course.


ENDS

"...there is no evidence to suggest that she has been harmed, in any way, whatsoever."

Makes my blood boil.

This is a very instructive interview and it's easy to see why the Head of the PJ's professional association, Carlos Anjos, once described Mitchell as "lying with every tooth in his mouth".

I want to draw attention to one specific and very significant part of this interview - it occurs at just after 5 minutes where the well-briefed reporter causes Mitchell obvious discomfort by asking him about the possibility of Robert Murat suing Jane Tanner for wrongly identifying him.

Here is the extract:

Reporter:

We've learned that Robert Murat is - has a legal complaint against one of the friends of Kate and Gerry, over things she said about his alleged involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Presumably if he gets the same kind of ruling that Kate and Gerry got today, they support him?

Clarence Mitchell (8):

I'm not going to comment on any details on what Mr. Murat or his legal representative are doing. Suffice it to say that Jane Tanner never directly named Mr. Murat as the man she saw, and you can go back to the Portuguese police files that were released in 2008 and see that for yourself. She never actually named Mr. Murat as the prime suspect.



This is an absolutely classic evasion, deception and half-truth by a master liar.

One of the absolutely central features of this case was Jane Tanner 'adamantly' (per Goncalo Amaral) insisting that Robert Murat, who she saw walking past a police van through a two-way mirror, on the afternoon of Sunday 13 May 2007, was the man she said she had seen. Two days later, Murat was pulled in for questioning and made an arguido, triggering Martin Smith into saying he and his famiy had seen someone, but not Robert Murat.

Earlier that afternoon, before she made her identification of Murat, she had been briefed by Det Chief Supt Bob Small of Leicestershire Police and IIRC by two staff from Control Risks Group. If we knew what these men advised Jane Taner to do and say, we would all understand this case a lot better.

No doubt it is true that Jane Tanner never 'named' Murat. In effect, Mitchell told a whopping lie. The public who watched this interview would assume that Jane Tanner did not identify Murat.

When clearly she did.

Jane Tanner's actions are one of the clearest evidences that there was a high-level plot by members of the McCann Team together with senior members of our police and security services to make Murat the chief suspect for Madeleine's disappearance.


See also my two posts on the same subject on page 7 of this thread:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]