Here we examine 21 of the many issues that have caused people concern about Mitchell’s role in the Madeleine McCann case.
1.
Allegedly being involved in tipping off the McCanns that the Portuguese
police had been, or were going to, track their e-mails and ’phone calls
The
McCanns were tipped off that the Portuguese police were monitoring
their e-mails and ’phone calls. There was naturally concern over how
this information leaked to them. A former Portuguese police officer has
admitted working for the Spanish private detective agency, Metodo 3. He
in turn had an inside contact in the Portuguese police who supplied
Metodo 3 with information about the investigation. Clarence Mitchell was
asked in an interview by Simon Israel on Channel 4 how the McCanns were
tipped off. He refused to answer.
2. Being forced to deny the McCanns’ initial claim of a break-in
On
the evening that Madeleine was reported missing, the McCanns claimed an
abductor had broken into the children’s room by ‘jemmying open the
shutters’. They repeated that claim many times – a claim the media
reported extensively. But the managers of the Mark Warners resort where
the McCanns were staying, and the police, soon discovered that the
shutters had not been tampered with. This forcing the McCanns to
dramatically change their story – one of many changes of story – to say:
‘the abductor must have walked in through an unlocked patio door”.
Asked about this discrepancy, Mitchell was forced to concede on the
record: “There was no evidence of a break-in. I‘m not going into the
detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that
somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as
their means of escape. To do that they did not necessarily have to
tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily”. It is
however most unlikley that an abductor could have ‘got out of the window
easily’ leaving no forensic trace.
3. Smearing Robert Murat
A
curious feature of the Madeleine case was the targeting of Robert
Murat, a dual Portuguese-British citizen, as a suspect. A journalist who
worked closely with Clarence Mitchell, Lori Campbell, suspected Murat
of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance and reported him to the
Police. Three of the McCanns’ close friends, the so-called ‘Tapas 7’,
also reported seeing Robert Murat close to the McCanns’ apartment the
evening Madeleine went missing, a claim he denied. The McCann camp made a
concerted attempt, for whatever reason, to smear Murat. Clarence
Mitchell himself played a key role in this: He said:
“An outcome
similar to Holly and Jessica [Soham children murdered by Ian Huntley] is
possible. I don’t want to, and I can’t, talk about Robert Murat, but
some journalists who worked with me in Soham, and that were now in
Portugal, saw resemblances between that case and Robert Murat. And I
won’t say more”. He was very lucky that Murat did not sue him for libel,
since in 2008 Robert Murat collected a reported £550,000 in libel
damages from news media and journalists whom he claimed had smeared and
libelled him.
4. Being forced to retract his claim that ‘Madeleine is probably dead’
During
early 2008, Clarence Mitchell was forced to concede that ‘Madeleine is
probably dead’. This caused grave embarrassment for the McCanns, who
were determined publicly to maintain that Madeleine was still alive. His
statement could also have had serious implications for the Fund, which
can only continue to operate and keep asking for donations on this
premise. Dr Gerald McCann was forced to publicly rebuke his PR chief by
insisting on his blog two days later that they remained hopeful that
Madeleine was still alive.
5. Failing to explain that the ‘Helping to Find Madeleine Fund’ was not a charity
Interviewed
by James Whale, Mitchell repeatedly refused to correct Whale when he
referred to the McCanns’ fund as a ‘charity’. In fact, the Helping to
Find Madeleine Fund is registered as a ‘private trust’; its aims are not
charitable and include making payments to the McCanns.
6. Asking people to send money in envelopes to ‘Gerry and Kate, Rothley’
Asked
on the same James Whale show how people could contribute to the fund,
Mitchell said: “Just put money into an envelope and send to Kate and
Gerry McCann, Rothley, it’ll get there”. That was unprofessional –
monies should have been directed to the registered office for the Fund,
namely London Solicitors Bates, Wells & Braithwaite. For example,
monies sent in the post could be stolen en route or would not be
properly accounted for.
7. Claiming that the Fund was ‘independently controlled’
Pressed
about control of the ‘Helping to Find Madeleine Fund’, Clarence
Mitchell claimed that the Fund was ‘independently controlled’. This is
untrue. The Trust’s Directors consist mainly of members of the McCann
family and their friends or acquaintances.
8. Retreating on whether or not the McCanns would take a lie detector test
The
McCanns were anxious to convince the world that they were telling the
truth about how Madeleine had suddenly gone missing. To bolster their
claim, Clarence Mitchell announced: “Kate and Gerry McCann would have no
issue with taking a lie detector test”. However, two months later, he
announced: “Of course they are not going to take any lie detector test”.
9. Making a film for TV about the McCanns’ distress ‘one year on’ whilst at the same time claiming the McCanns were not doing so
Clarence
Mitchell told the media: “The McCanns don’t want to do anything about
‘woe is us a year on’. That is what the tabloids would like us to do,
but we are not following their agenda, we are following our own agenda”
(one of many references to ‘our agenda’). Weeks later, there was a
two-hour long pre-recorded TV interview: ‘Madeleine McCann – One Year
On’, clearly prepared long before his public statement, and certainly
with his personal knowledge.
10. Issuing a ‘Crimewatch’-style video clip with a description of an abductor
It
has always been the McCanns who have given out descriptions of a
possible abductor. The Portuguese police from early on doubted the
truthfulness of claims by Jane Tanner, one of the McCanns’ ‘Tapas 7’
friends, that she had seen an abductor. In early 2008, Clarence Mitchell
announced that the McCann team were looking for a moustachioed man seen
in Praia da Luz around the time Madeleine went missing. He did this in a
widely-shown video clip in which he acted like a Crimewatch presenter.
At a meeting at the London School of Economics on 30 January 2008, this
performance, plus his commanding stance and choice of words, prompted
one member of the LSE audience to ask: “Are you the police?” There was
much laughter.
11. Claiming that “…whatever the Portuguese police
might find in their investigation, the McCanns will have an innocent
explanation for it”
To this bizarre statement, Mitchell added the
equally strange comment: “There are wholly innocent explanations for
any material that the police may or may not have found”, prompting many
to ask: “How could the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell know in advance
what the police might find and know that there would be ‘an innocent
explanation’ for everything?
12. Claiming it didn’t matter if Dr Kate McCann changed her clothes on 3 May
One
of the key issues in the Madeleine McCann case is whether the McCanns
and their ‘Tapas 7’ friends have been telling the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth about the events of 3 May 2007, the day
Madeleine was reported missing. In late 2008, a French journalist,
Duarte Levy, claimed to have seen photos taken that evening conclusively
proving that Dr Kate McCann had left the table during the evening and
changed her clothes. That would blow a hole in her claim that she was at
the Tapas bar the whole evening. She would have had to explain why she
changed her clothes. Mitchell’s official response to these claims was:
“So what if she did leave the table and change her clothes?” He refused
to elaborate.
13. Saying that ‘none of the Tapas group’ were
wearing watches the night Madeleine went missing – and then being forced
to retract that statement
Clarence Mitchell had come under
pressure from journalists to explain why there were so many major
contradictions between the McCanns’ and the Tapas 7’s versions of events
on 3 May 2007, when Madeleine ‘disappeared’. There were also many
discrepancies in their timelines. Mitchell tried to explain, responding:
“None of them were wearing watches or had mobile phones on them that
night”. Those journalists then confronted him with the sheer
unlikelihood that all nine had neither watch nor mobile ’phone, pointed
out that the McCanns and others had used their mobile ’phones that
night, and produced pictures of the McCanns and their Tapas 7 friends
taken in Praia da Luz that week which showed that they were always
wearing watches. Clarence Mitchell was forced into an embarrassing
retreat, conceding: “Some of them were wearing watches and had mobile
’phones, some of them weren’t”. It is also now known from the McCanns’
statements to the Police, which have been publicly released, that the
McCanns both had mobile ’phones with them that evening. As their
official spokesman, Mitchell must surely have been briefed on this
before he made his statement.
14. Falsely claiming that the McCanns had been ‘utterly honest and utterly open’
On
11 April 2008, Clarence Mitchell made this bold claim: “Kate and Gerry
have been utterly honest and utterly open with the police and all of
their statements from the moment that Madeleine was taken”. He later
said, referring to himself and the McCanns: ‘We have nothing to hide’.
When addressing a largely student audience during what were called ‘The
Coventry Conversations’, Mitchell said: “We are always willing to
co-operate with the Portuguese police”. These were astounding claims to
make given that…
Dr Kate McCann was asked 48 questions by the
Portuguese police when interviewed on 7 September 2007 and refused to
answer any of them.
The McCanns had refused point blank to take part
in a reconstruction of the events of 3 May 2007, the night Madeleine
McCann was reported missing.
The McCanns’ statements contained changes of story, contradictions with the accounts of others, evasions and obfuscations.
15. Claiming it would be ‘hugely entertaining’ to devise a cast list for a proposed film about Madeleine going missing
On
7 January 2008 it was widely reported in the media that the McCanns and
their advisers were in talks with media and film moguls IMG, who made
the film ‘Touching the Void’, about a possible film about Madeleine’s
disappearance. Clarence Mitchell was asked whether Gerry and Kate would
play themselves in any film or if their roles would be played by
celebrity actors. He said: “It may be hugely entertaining and a bit of
fun to speculate on a cast list, but we are a million miles away from
that sort of thing”. On another occasion, he said of Madeleine: “If she
is dead, she is dead”. These and other comments made some wonder how
much ‘feel’ or concern for Madeleine’s welfare and fate Mitchell really
had.
16. Claiming it was a British cultural custom for parents to
put children to bed early so they could enjoy the rest of the evening
Interviewed
by Irish TV station RTE, Clarence Mitchell tried to explain why the
McCanns left three young children under four on their own, several
nights in a row, whilst on holiday, and out for the evening wining and
dining. He told his TV audience: “There is a cultural difference between
Britain and Portugal. It is a British approach to get your children
washed, bathed and in bed early in the evening, if you can, so you can
have something of the evening to yourself. That’s the British way of
doing things. It doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It doesn’t mean it’s right”.
Many British parents objected strongly to Mitchell’s description of
them..
17. Trying to deny that the McCanns had left the children alone every night
In
an interview with Jon Gaunt of TalkSport, Clarence Mitchell was trying
to explain why the McCanns had left their children alone ‘that night’
(i.e. the night of 3 May when Madeleine was reported missing). He was
quickly corrected by Gaunt who reminded him: ‘But they left them alone
every night’. Mitchell had no answer.
18. Blaming Romany gypsies for abducting Madeleine
Clarence
Mitchell on one occasion pointed the finger of suspicion at Romany
gypsies for having abducted Madeleine. It appeared he had no basis
whatsoever for smearing this group of people. He has never apologised
for making it.
19. Using an image of Mari Luz without her parents’ permission
Months
after Madeleine went missing, another child, Mari Luz, went missing,
though in very different circumstances. Sadly she has since been found
dead. The McCanns printed posters of Madeleine together with Mari Luz –
without gaining the parents’ prior permission. Her parents were very
upset, and complained. Clarence Mitchell reacted by stating: “It’s a
shame that they are complaining about us in a press release. How can
they be angry with is for wanting to help when all we’re trying to do is
find their own daughter?”
20. Being ‘encouraged’ that Madeleine ‘may have been abducted by paedophiles’
In
early 2008, stories were put about by an unknown Portuguese lawyer,
Marcos Alexandre Aragao Correia, that Madeleine McCann had been abducted
by paedophiles, raped, murdered and her body dumped in a dammed lake.
At the time, a new drawing of a possible abductor was released, and part
of the Arade Dam was searched. A friend of the McCanns was quoted as
saying: “We fear that a group of two or three paedophiles may have been
fishing around the apartments, casing them with a view to taking
children”. Mitchell then commented:
“Developments such as this
give Mr and Mrs McCann renewed hope. That is exactly the sort of call we
want. We think the image is of such a quality that anyone who knows him
will be able to identify him. Kate and Gerry are quite buoyant at the
moment – every time we do something like this and move things forward it
gives them strength. We’re very encouraged by this – putting all this
information out, these images out, is helping Gerry and Kate in one way;
simply by doing it we have got some momentum and are pushing the agenda
forward on our side of the equation”. Many asked why Mitchell and the
McCanns could use such words as ‘buoyant’ and ‘encouraged’ in relation
to Madeleine’s having been raped and murdered. The use of the word
‘agenda’ once again prompted the question: What was their ‘agenda’?
21.
Explaining why the McCanns deliberately left their three children alone
again the night after Madeleine and Sean had been crying the night
before
On SKY News, Clarence Mitchell was interviewed, following a
pre-recorded interview with the McCanns in which they admitted, for the
first time, that two of their children had been crying on the night
before Madeleine went missing. There was public outrage that the McCanns
were told by their children that they had been crying the previous
night whilst they were out wining and dining, only to then leave them
alone again the very next night. The SKY News presenter asked: “Why did
Kate and Gerry choose to leave the children the same way the very next
night?” Clarence Mitchell’s reply is instructive. Here it is in full:
“That
is one interpretation. Let me put it in context. On the morning of May
the 3rd, the day Madeleine later went missing, she came out, and said to
Gerry and Kate at breakfast, very briefly as an aside, in no way was
she unhappy or crying and then, in no way was she reprimanding her
parents as some reports papers have wrongly, er, said. She simply said:
“Why didn’t you come see – come and see me and Sean when we were crying,
last night?”, and Kate and Gerry were puzzled by that, because in their
checks – they had been checking her every 25/30 minutes, the same as
they did the next night, when she went missing – they had found nothing
to suggest that she was in any way distressed or upset, they found her
asleep each time. There was nothing wrong. Rachel Oldfield, one of their
friends, was in the apartment next door, in the room adjacent to
Madeleine’s bedroom.
“She too was there all evening and heard no
crying through the walls. There was nothing to suggest this had
happened. So it was a puzzle to Kate and Gerry when Madeleine mentioned
it. They tried to question her about it, and she just walked off
laughing, and, er, happy, she was [note the past tense] a child and she
and, and so, so she dropped it. Now they of course had a serious
discussion about what had possibly gone wrong and they decided to check
her more thoroughly that next night, and that’s what they did. And in
the context of what happened later – her disappearance – they felt that
that conversation, puzzling as it was, was very important to bring to
the police’s attention. They wonder why, if she cried, why she cried.
Was something, or someone already in that room to make her cry and they
fled when she cried? Who knows? They can’t prove that, but they told the
police in confidence – legally protected documentation has been in
those files for 11 months – and why does it appear on the very day they
were at the European Parliament? Somebody in the police doesn’t want
Kate and Gerry to widen the agenda [that word again!], for whatever
reason. It’s wrong. It’s illegal, and the Portuguese government needs to
stop this…from happening in the future” [NOTE: The ‘leak’ came from a
Spanish journalist known to be very sympathetic to the McCanns].
During
this long reply, we see the master media manipulator at work. He makes
light of two children crying while their parents were not with them. He
justifies the McCanns’ decision to go out wining and dining and leaving
all three children alone again the very night after the children told
them of their crying. He claims, without evidence, that the Police
leaked the story about the McCanns’ children crying on their own the
night before. He claims the police have done something illegal. Some
might admire him as a master of his craft, and indeed one writer has
already said that the McCanns’ public relations campaign will for years
to come be a textbook example of how to control the media and manipulate
public opinion. But, we may ask, if this is true, whose interests has
Clarence Mitchell been serving? Is he someone who helps us get to the
truth? Or someone who does his best to stop us getting to the truth?
The Madeleine Foundation