What McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell really thinks happened to Madeleine
 

When Clarence Mitchell picked up the phone at work one morning,
he expected yet another routine conversation.

But it was a phone call that plucked him from the mundane life of a civil service job
and dropped him right in the heart of one of the biggest missing children’s cases the
world has ever seen.

An ex BBC reporter, Mitchell was by then working in a government-led arm on media monitoring,
but had asked ex-colleagues to keep him in mind for any big stories that broke. “I thought it
might be something like bird flu, or foot and mouth. A general crisis that flares up from time
to time,” explains Mitchell.

But this was May 2007, and a three-year-old Madeleine McCann had just been snatched from her
hotel room in Praia du Luz, Portugal, taken from her bed while her parents dined in a nearby restaurant.

“The ambassador [to Portugal] had sent a couple of press officers down there, but they were overwhelmed
by the media response. He asked for some extra help from London,” Mitchell recalls.

“I was sent out and told it would just be a fortnight or so." But almost 12 years on, Mitchell is still
helping the family. Fascination with Madeleine's case has never abated - a new Netflix series, The Disappearance
of Madeleine McCann, was released two weeks ago - and Mitchell has been handling Gerry and Kate's media dealings ever since.

“Some of the coverage had been very negative, and so I thought this was a chance to help them," the 57-year-old says.




“We have a good working relationship. Friendly but professional," he adds.
"We do not socialise, it is not necessarily appropriate, but the media coverage
is still pretty intrusive and they see me as a part of dealing with it."

Mitchell had to consider the impact that taking on such a case would have on him -
his own children were 10, eight and one at the time. “I could not help but think
of my kids when I was at the height of it... I was away from home a lot of the time as well," he recalls.

“That said, I treated it as a job. Although it was upsetting, and I could see the pain
it was causing the family, I could not afford to get emotionally attached to the situation.
I just had to look at the set of facts in front of me, and treat it as dispassionately as possible."

He admits that it was "upsetting," but adds that, "without being callous, I had to keep the
actual emotion to one side. Not wanting to sound cold-hearted, but I do not think it has
affected me particularly badly. I tried to be as impartial as possible, and still try to this day.”

Over the years, the McCanns have faced a great deal of criticism over their parenting, and
perceived role in Madeleine’s disappearance. “A lot of it is misinformed, misguided and based
purely on assumptions or lack of knowledge," Mitchell says. Mostly, though, it is "prejudice.
People deciding that they don’t like the McCanns.”

https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img...x/m-393008.jpg

Mitchell estimates that "thousands" of people have told him they have seen the little girl in a dream -
including a lot of psychics - while "one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories I have heard was
that Madeleine was born as the result of a government cloning project.

“People also assumed the worst. That [the McCanns] were getting drunk, that they were having fun and
that they did not care about their children."

Further criticism of Gerry and Kate has labelled them "neglectful. There is even those who say that
the parents know what happened. They don’t. It is just not true. But try explaining that in the noise
of social media and general coverage.”

The McCanns' restrained emotional response to the cameras in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's
disappearance provoked questions: how could they be so contained after something so terrible had happened?

“One of the reasons they were so controlled was because they were told very early on that often,
in the case of paedophilic kidnaps, the perpetrators watch media coverage and enjoy seeing the distress
that they have caused," Mitchell explains.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/...eg?imwidth=500



“So, the police told them not to cry. Not to show any over-emotion. Kate and Gerry, both doctors and both logical, were not going to let that b------ have that satisfaction and so were very rigid.

He understands, though, that “for someone who does not know that, they might think it looks a bit suspicious. It is almost like the public were expecting the parents to react in a certain way.”

Things were worsened still by what he calls "a spin-cycle of madness." The papers were full of "McCann fury", he remembers; "the tabloids exaggerated and distorted the information." He is also critical of the Portuguese authorities, as "there would be certain bits of information that could have only come from interviews with the Portuguese police, who wouldn't then confirm anything due to Portuguese laws prohibiting the discussion of legal cases.”

Since the McCanns entered the public eye in 2007, they have received mountains of abuse; Mitchell, too, has had his fair share of online trolls.

“I get slammed online all the time for defending them," he says, adding that while he ignores it as best he can, "it is hurtful and it is unnecessary. The McCanns ignore the online negativity and so do I. We only act if there are specific, actionable threats which are always reported to the police.”

Certain tabloids have cashed in on public fascination with Madeleine, Mitchell believes, as "every time they put [her] on the front page, circulation would go up" - whether there really were new developments in her case or not. Front page apologies from a number of red tops followed, while "substantial damages" were paid.


https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/mul...n_2609907b.jpg



A major source of ill feeling towards the McCanns has been the considerable funding the case has received. The Find Madeleine Fund was established in 2007, made up of public donations as well as settlement money from the Express newspaper group, and proceeds from Kate McCann's book.

“The family asked for help in finding their daughter, as anybody would, and the Government chose to support them," Mitchell says, "I do agree though, what do you say to the parent of another missing child? The mother of Ben Needham, for example, has occasionally been upset that the McCanns' case gets so much coverage.”

It is our digital age, however, that Mitchell believes has made all the difference.

“Madeleine has been, arguably, the most high-profile missing child case in the internet era. It was not a decision of our making.”

Nowadays, he does little work with the McCanns, and remains uncertain over Madeleine's fate. “I asked the British authorities what they think happened and if there was any family involvement, and they assured me it was just a rare case of stranger abduction.

“It’s very rare, but it can happen." A sexual motive, he says, is an "obvious" possibility. Kate and Gerry remain hopeful that, as per "other cases, where a missing child has been found alive after many years," there remains hope: that, coupled with "the complete absence of any evidence that Madeleine has been physically harmed," gives them the sense that their eldest daughter may well still be alive.

Though Mitchell hopes the mystery "could all end on one phone call tomorrow, so far, it hasn’t.

“A child was taken to order from that room.”


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/p...ned-madeleine/

Clarence Mitchell is their PR Spokesman......... I think I'll take his thoughts with a pinch of salt thanks :laugh:

Though Mitchell hopes the mystery "could all end on one phone call tomorrow, so far, it hasn’t.

“A child was taken to order from that room.”

But my old fruit, how do you explaine, the dogs finding traces of a dead person in the room and hire care.

:think:

yes I wonder how Scotland Yard missed that but people who watched some random youtube video spotted it?


Its a mystery :shrug:

Lmao yeah

Over the years, the McCanns have faced a great deal of criticism over their parenting, and
perceived role in Madeleine’s disappearance. “A lot of it is misinformed, misguided and based
purely on assumptions or lack of knowledge," Mitchell says. Mostly, though, it is "prejudice.
People deciding that they don’t like the McCanns.”

:rolleyes:

But those two have never showed an ounce of emotion!

Seen people get more choked up about losing hamster than they have about that poor girl.

"The McCanns' restrained emotional response to the cameras in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's
disappearance provoked questions: how could they be so contained after something so terrible had happened?

“One of the reasons they were so controlled was because they were told very early on that often,
in the case of paedophilic kidnaps, the perpetrators watch media coverage and enjoy seeing the distress
that they have caused," Mitchell explains."

Come on lt, it’s been a long time since that night.

look at the anguish here

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSUgr3CUMAAZIf4.jpg

Oh so they never let the kids (I say kids but babies is more accurate) alone in an unlocked apartment and went out drinking then?

if they had not gone to dinner it would have been next day in the supermarket, or on the beach, they never stood a chance if dedicated people wanted to steal a child.

If they had not gone to dinner and left the children alone, they would have not opened themselves up to the condemnation from good parents who would never leave their children unattended in a foreign country, at night, whilst they went out on the piss. If they had not gone to dinner, the other attempts could have been thwarted if the children were properly supervised as they should have been at that age.

LT, it's morally questionable to perv over a woman in distress you know :nono:

Welcome to the world of guilty even if innocent.!!:hehe:

I'm not buying it LT. I'm agnostic on the parent's involvement at this point BUT, if she was kidnapped to order, it's because someone knew that there were children being left in apartments, regularly, at predictable times and the act was planned around that fact. There's a reason it happened after they had followed the same routine for several nights (people knew they'd be at the bar, and the kids would be alone) and there's a reason that the Tapas crew's story has changed repeatedly (they BLATANTLY were not checking every 20 minutes and most likely were leaving the kids alone for several hours, recklessly assuming they were safe).

I mean... you say it "would" have happened the next day at the beach or in a store... but realistically the chances of grabbing a child in public and getting away at all - let alone without someone seeing your face - are small at best. I'm sure it happens but it's a massive risk to take.

But you're looking to steal a little blonde child and someone has tipped you off that there's one sleeping in an unlocked apartment - unattended - every night, for hours at a time? You don't think that makes her an easy target? :think:


Fact is, there's no excuse for them leaving the kids like that and even they know it, which is why the Tapas folks have all agreed not to tell the truth about the timeframe. The idea that it is (or ever was) "normal for parents" or "normal for British parents" to leave toddlers unsupervised whilst out for dinner is utter nonsense.

Regardless of what happened I really wish they'd taken responsibility for that aspect. They didn't have to be hung, drawn and quartered but they'd probably have a lot MORE public sympathy if they had ever said "We were really reckless to leave her, that was a terrible mistake, PLEASE don't leave children alone like we did." ... but, they never have. The narrative has always been that that part of the story was all fine :umm2:. As has been pointed out - if it was Bob and Kelly from a council estate in Manchester leaving the kids at home and popping to the pub at the end of the road, and someone broke in and harmed them, they would be absolutely slaughtered in the media, by public opinion, and probably face legal consequences to boot.

judement by hindsight is just judgement with hindsight, all parents have left their child unattended enough for an abduction to take place. It can take 5 seconds to whip a child away. When i was wee all children were left outside shops in prams whilst their mums shopped inside.

They are as guilty as sin, they care more about money then Madeline

Again LT whilst that may be true you have to put it in historical context, and claiming that it was usual or normal to leave children alone in an apartment and go out for dinner 12 years ago is simply flat out false.

Also as I said above; an "opportunity snatch" is a RISK for any predator at best, whilst sneaking a child away when you know they're going to be unattended for several hours is far less of a risk. They weren't checking on them or were checking infrequently at best, witness statements from several other people at the resort confirm that they weren't observed to be checking every 20 minutes, ONLY the Tapas people claim it was that often, and if you're right and she was stolen to order it's because (excuse the crass terminology) she was "low hanging fruit" and someone had been watching and knew that.

Sorry but that's so ridiculous, you shouldn't need hindsight to know you don't leave babies alone in an unlocked (or locked) apartment we'll you go out on the piss. Give me a break

perhaps but the fault lies firmly with the abductor or you end up blaming women for being raped for wearing tits out tops and getting drunk at night, or taking cabs home after a club etc

what they did was perfectly safe and millions do it

Exactly. I watched a documentary one time where they actually interviewed thieves, as in house burglars. They always targeted the houses with the least security, no alarms, no dogs etc because guess what?? risk of being caught was significantly lowered

No you don't LT, the parents at the very least are guilty of neglect/failing to protect their children. How on earth is that comparable to a girl wearing a low cut top?

and you would blame your neighbour for being burgled for not having a dog?


:umm2: