McCanns dump Clarence Mitchell

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

AndyB wrote:I think you're missing my point. Let's say for the moment that Grange is genuine; why do you assume that they're keeping quiet until the McCann's have no money and no support? Until there are arrests or charges they should be saying nothing. The amount of money or friends that the McCanns have is, to my mind irrelevant to the progress of the case, yet you seem to think its a factor - why?

I really do think it is a factor if the vast amount of evidence is circumstantial. The money they have had access to all these years gave them access to top lawyers and the CPS or Portuguese equivalent probably wouldn't risk proceeding if that's the case. If there were smoking gun evidence this case would have been done and dusted years ago.

Look at it from the opposite view. The Suzanne Pilley case in Scotland for example was an entirely circumstantial case with no body but because the murderer was a nobody without money or top lawyers it was a easy decision to prosecute and secure a conviction. It shouldn't be this way but that is how it looks to me.

I have to ask Andy.....You seem to believe that SY's involvement is not genuine or a sham? How realistic is it really that so many top police officers would all partake in such a sham? It would be a criminal act itself would it not? I also couldn't believe so many would go along with it because "orders". Someone would surely have blown the whistle by now.

chirpyinsect wrote:Sorry this is OT but something weird is happening on the Jonbenet thread and Candy's latest thread. The JB one goes to a virus warning when I open that thread and Candy's one won't stay on the post, it just jumps to adverts. I have tested for a virus and all is ok. It's just those 2 threads. Everything else is normal. Is it just me?

I agree that there is no smoking gun evidence, at least none that we are aware of, but then the complete lack of evidence of abduction is one of the things that's suspicious about Madeleine's disappearance. However, I think you misunderstand how the world works if you think the police are the slightest bit bothered about the wealth of their suspects. Even if we disregard the slightly disturbing view that senior police officers sit there thinking "Hmm, we've got some evidence against this person but we'd best not prosecute 'cos they can afford a good defence team", your point is only valid if you disregard legal aid and the CPS.

I'm not familiar with the Suzanne Pilley case but i imagine the process was;
The police decide they have enough evidence (albeit curcumstantial) to prosecute
The police submit a file to the crown prosecution service (or procurator fiscal as this was in Scotland)
The CPS/PF agree that there is sufficient evidence and a likelihood of conviction based on that evidence
Charges are brought

At no point does the wealth or popularity of the suspect come into it.

On 6 March 2012, the court heard from a forensic scientist, Kirsty McTurk, who told the trial that she had conducted a search for DNA in Ms Pilley's workplace and in the boot of Mr Gilroy's car. She confirmed that she had been unable to find any trace of Ms Pilley's DNA anywhere in the building or in the car. She told the court that as she opened the boot to Mr Gilroy's car, she noticed a fresh smell coming from inside. She told the advocate depute that it could either have been an 'air freshener' or a 'cleansing agent'.

AndyB wrote:As to Grange I am open minded but, on all the evidence, I can see very little to convince me that its genuine and I've heard nothing from those who believe that it is genuine to make me question my suspicions. As for why "so many top police officers would all partake in such a sham", I'm afraid that again demonstrates a startling lack of awareness of how the world actually is. Just how many people do you think it takes to subvert/corrupt/deflect an investigation? It only takes one or two and, in this case, perhaps the connivance of a senior politician or two like the home secretary. The vast majority of people working on the case will be working one line of enquiry and will be doing that genuinely and completely unsuspicious about the operation because they lack the big picture and hierarchical structures prevent and dissuade them from taking an interest in it even if they wanted to.

And as to the idea that the police never commit criminal acts, I suggest you read the following articles. The point being that, even if they were aware they were committing a criminal act (and there is no evidence whatsoever that they're doing anything wrong at all, even if they're not genuinely investigating Madeleine's disappearance because we don't know for certain what Grange's real remit is) it wouldn't bother them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33635962
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/half-of-met-police-officers-convicted-of-criminal-offences-in-past-decade-still-work-for-the-force-a3180351.html

Freedom wrote:Locking for a moment to transfer the "what is libellous" posts out.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
All I will comment directly on is the part about individual officers. I agree each is delegated a single/specific line of enquiry but I find the suggestion about being out of the of the big picture ridiculous.

Andrew wrote:So if I say anything detrimental about Clarence then do I have to put it on the new thread?

I love Clarence. He's a smashing guy. A real salt of the earth chap that's always had Madeleine's best interests at heart and it's so sad that he and the wonderful parents of Madeleine have had to part ways.

Will Clarence and his lawyers be ok with the above then....

Portuguese police accuse McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell of 'lying through his teeth'

But Mr Anjos told the respected Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Noticias: 'He is a liar and a Machiavellian.

"Mr Mitchell wants to discredit the Policia Judiciaria and invent excuses so the McCanns do not come to Portugal to participate in the reconstruction of the night she disappeared.

"He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth. Finally we know what side truth is on."

Heisenburg wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559675/Portuguese-police-accuse-McCanns-spokesman-Clarence-Mitchell-lying-teeth.html

Portuguese police accuse McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell of 'lying through his teeth'

But Mr Anjos told the respected Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Noticias: 'He is a liar and a Machiavellian.

"Mr Mitchell wants to discredit the Policia Judiciaria and invent excuses so the McCanns do not come to Portugal to participate in the reconstruction of the night she disappeared.

"He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth. Finally we know what side truth is on."

Poe wrote:This is just pure speculation on my part but what if the legal contract between Clarrie & the McCanns states that Clarrie's job is to represent the McCanns in the media without him having any knowledge of the actual events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance other than what the McCanns tell him.

Like Carter Ruck if he works on the presumption that they are innocent and ignores all evidence to the contrary, unless there is absolute proof he knows what happened, he can claim he was duped.

Now, if he has been questioned by OG and shown evidence that indicates the McCanns' guilt, he can't possibly continue to represent them without putting himself in danger of arrest.

Poe wrote:This is just pure speculation on my part but what if the legal contract between Clarrie & the McCanns states that Clarrie's job is to represent the McCanns in the media without him having any knowledge of the actual events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance other than what the McCanns tell him.

Like Carter Ruck if he works on the presumption that they are innocent and ignores all evidence to the contrary, unless there is absolute proof he knows what happened, he can claim he was duped.
.

chrissie wrote:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1694829/kate-and-gerry-mccann-dump-long-serving-spokesman-in-bid-to-cut-spiralling-costs-of-hunt-for-missing-tot/

THE parents of Madeleine McCann have axed their long-serving spokesman in a bit cut costs.

Kate and Gerry dumped PR guru Clarence Mitchell after nine years as they face a cash crisis.

They have just five more weeks of Government funding towards the hunt for their missing girl.

The couple have vowed to use money from their official fund to continue the search themselves, adding:”We will continue to do everything we can to help find our daughter.

“Our hope and resolve continues.”

Gerry told Mr Mitchell in an email his “services were no longer needed” and he needed to “cut costs”.

The former BBC journalist was said to be “hurt” but respects their “more pressing agenda”.

The McCanns’ fun stands at £480,000 but they face a £434,000 libel to former Portuguese police chief Goncalo Amaral.

It is the first time since the three-year-old went missing from a holiday flat in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in May 2007, that Kate and Gerry have not had a spokesman.

Mr Mitchell told the Mirror: “It makes perfect sense for Kate and Gerry to keep careful consideration over all their costs.
“I will continue to help them as circumstances require.”

Last week the Metropolitan Police announced it may push for more government cash to help the hunt for Maddie.

Brit cops were granted £95,000 to keep the investigation going in April.

But the cash is expected to run out in October.

The McCann’s are bracing themselves for Scotland Yard ending the probe on October 5.

Cops have said there is now only one lead “worth pursuing”.

Well, personally I think there has been a falling out or Clarissa knows what's coming