McCanns dump Clarence Mitchell

I have to admit that I find it irritating when people drop tantalising clues about things they claim to know and then refuse to divulge anything else - someone else who shall remain nameless reported that Dr Amaral is in Switzerland writing another book on the case.

Just keep quiet if you can't or won't tell all!

Don't really want to be a defender of TB but he does mention it as a theory to be explored for the reasons below........

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13082p50-what-s-the-evidence-that-madeleine-died-on-sunday-29-april#348464
was, of course, merely suggesting one possible explanation for Robert Murat's conduct, and all the many issues that surround Murat's involvement in this case.

As for 'bringing MI5 into it', you'll be aware, of course, that Goncalo Amaral in his book, 'The Truth Of The Lie', mentioned the very real involvement of MI5 in this case, and is on record as saying that 'This case will be solved when MI5's files are opened up'.

We also have the admitted involvement of Special Branch in the case, e.g. confronting Martin Grime at Faro Airport, and escorting the McCanns to their home after their return flight from Portugal, and much other evidence of the involvement of the security services in the case - not least the appointment of Henri Exton, the former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, by the Directors of the 'Find Madeleine Fund' in March/April 2008. Not forgetting that Exton's two dodgy 'Smithman' e-fits are now 'the centre of our focus' for Operation Grange.

Two journalists separately told me back in 2008 that Clarence Mitchell was on the MI5 payroll.

Can any serious Madeleine McCann researcher afford not to explore the role of MI5 and the other government security services in this case?

Bampots, you would expect the security services to escort the two arguidos home.  They had just been made arguidos, there was a public backlash which was evident by the booing etc. outside the police station, and subsequent stories in the press.  The police would be very careful to protect anyone in this situation, from the hounding of the press, and the public anger.  We saw what happened with Diana when she was hounded by the press, we know too well the McCann's were huge news all around the world........  people were angry, and who knows what nutters there are out there,  so I would expect such security around them.  The police have to cover themselves in these sort of situations.

MI5 definition

(in the UK) the governmental agency responsible for dealing with internal security

Bampots wrote:I don't find that in the least bit surprising and have suggested as much on here before! If you really think this is simple and straightforward as in KISS then its impossible....... But for me its highly probable .......why would Jim Gamble stick his oar in?
It all stinks ......why the courting of the Macs by the high and mighty......just two doctors who as of this moment still seem bullet proof. Gonzalo states we will only know the truth when agency files are open to the public! What is simple about any of it and why do seem so intent on screaming it has to be simple and anyone who believes otherwise is a Looney. Why on earth do we have recent images of the Macs in the company of David Steel and that anonymous millionaire,no family near them no mates.....just wannabe movers and charity sluts akin to missing people......simple? If only.......

This case is anything but simple Bampots, in my opinion. Great post yet again.

Thanks Costello!

Cf what I think is instinctive......I smell a rat and the explanation makes sense in my head. I dont push it down peoples throats I just try and argue my corner...im open to be provenwrong. If you look at blacksmith and cristobel they wont have any truck with my view ..iam a loon end of. You think KISS .....I think PISS (probably isn't simple stupid!) Never the twain shall meet!!

Andrew wrote:That's a fair comment, Bampots. I appreciate some think it's very complex and others disagree. Nothing wrong with that in the slightest. And good to discuss.

If Clarence works for the MI5 then I feel the gentleman over the road should elaborate further on this claim... (questions that I stated). That was really the point I was making.

Fair point Andrew. I have also read on a few sites that it is rumoured Clarence Mitchell is involved with MI5. He was involved in the Jill Dando case from day one and other cases, of which one really did shock me to be honest. As ever just my thoughts, and I certainly would not doubt Dr.Amaral in any way 'he knows' and my faith lies with him and him alone. My take for what it is worth is that Clarence Mitchell is brought in by the 'Establishment' if and when needed.

Bampots wrote:Cf what I think is instinctive......I smell a rat and the explanation makes sense in my head. I dont push it down peoples throats I just try and argue my corner...im open to be provenwrong. If you look at blacksmith and cristobel they wont have any truck with my view ..iam a loon end of. You think KISS .....I think PISS (probably isn't simple stupid!) Never the twain shall meet!!

I didn't say you were pushing it Bampots, we have different views and I respect that, but I am entitled to mine too, and I happen to believe it is very  simple...... We have to agree to differ.


ETA: I certainly do not believe in cover up or conspiracy.

Then why as it not been solved? hard question for any one to answer I know but some how simple doesn't cut it imo.The crime could well be simple but as been allowed to be complicated by too many cooks spoiling the broth.

Bampots wrote:Cf what I think is instinctive......I smell a rat and the explanation makes sense in my head. I dont push it down peoples throats I just try and argue my corner...im open to be provenwrong. If you look at blacksmith and cristobel they wont have any truck with my view ..iam a loon end of. You think KISS .....I think PISS (probably isn't simple stupid!) Never the twain shall meet!!

I don't think you're a loon, Bampots. I share your view instinctively too.

I also agree with a lot of what Blacksmith and Cristobell say, too. But I don't think we'll ever see the McCanns brought to justice unless, as Goncalo says, the political will changes and the Establishment decides to throw them to the wolves.

I do wonder if Clarrie jumping ship has anything to do with Theresa May becoming PM. Has the political will started to shift?

Bampots wrote:Thanks Costello!

You are more than welcome Bampots we seem to think the same on this case. I also appreciate AndyB's take on Operation Grange, for what it is worth.

I agree too and wrote a post a few pages back.

@Bampots. I certainly don't think you're a loon for having a differing opinion. Far from it. As I stated earlier, it's good to be able to discuss these things and have a constructive debate about it.

It would be quite boring for starters if we all thought and said exactly the same thing. It's certainly good to go with your own instincts and trust your own judgement.

I understand yours and other views on the whole Clarence/MI5 saga. There is no right or wrong answer, as at this moment in time nobody really knows so it's all speculation anyway.

My own opinion is that he has absolutely nothing to with MI5. I think back in 2007 he wanted the McCann gig for his own personal reasons as much as the Government wanted him to take control for damage limitation purposes. I also think as soon as he got in a bit too deep and got his hands dirty then the very same Government severed ties. Since then he's been a bit of loner as such floating from job to job, role to role (see his LinkedIn) and obviously doing a lot of the McCrap inbetween. He made his bed a long time ago and lied in it. Literally.

Now something 'behind the scenes' has clearly changed. We would all like to know why and what the answer is? I would like to think and believe that Operation Grange have pulled him in and had words. Something significant has happened as it wasn't that long ago that he was embarrassing himself on stage in front of students touting for the 10th anniversary. But not now. He's had to distance himself. Distance himself to ultimately save himself I should imagine.

Just my opinion.

I really more than anything would like to agree with you Andrew. Sadly to say my own opinion is that closure of Operation Grange is on the horizon.Just my thoughts.

Hi Costello. I do believe as well that closure of Operation Grange is very much on the horizon but for different reasons.

Andrew wrote:Hi Costello. I do believe as well that closure of Operation Grange is very much on the horizon but for different reasons.

I genuinely hope you are right and I am wrong Andrew.

costello wrote:

Andrew wrote:Hi Costello. I do believe as well that closure of Operation Grange is very much on the horizon but for different reasons.

I genuinely hope you are right and I am wrong Andrew.

Me as well to be fair.

It matters not what I think in the end the truth will out. We are a rag tail bunch thrown together by a tragedy that happened one night to a little girl......its easy to lose sight of this. Whether KISS or PISS we may never find out. Hopefully our strengths lie in the breadth of our scope. I mean look what happens when everyone is made to follow the same line.......you end up with CMOMM!

I'm sorry but I have to disagree strongly on that.....

We're not a rag tail bunch at all

I would still like to see further details and an honest explanation on Bennett's claim that 2 independent journalists told him that Clarence works for the MI5...

I'm sure if he was a 'genuine' truth seeker (or a serious Madeleine researcher as he says), then he would be more than happy to divulge such information...

But I won't hold my breath though.

Andrew wrote:@Bampots. I certainly don't think you're a loon for having a differing opinion. Far from it. As I stated earlier, it's good to be able to discuss these things and have a constructive debate about it.

It would be quite boring for starters if we all thought and said exactly the same thing. It's certainly good to go with your own instincts and trust your own judgement.

I understand yours and other views on the whole Clarence/MI5 saga. There is no right or wrong answer, as at this moment in time nobody really knows so it's all speculation anyway.

My own opinion is that he has absolutely nothing to with MI5. I think back in 2007 he wanted the McCann gig for his own personal reasons as much as the Government wanted him to take control for damage limitation purposes. I also think as soon as he got in a bit too deep and got his hands dirty then the very same Government severed ties. Since then he's been a bit of loner as such floating from job to job, role to role (see his LinkedIn) and obviously doing a lot of the McCrap inbetween. He made his bed a long time ago and lied in it. Literally.

Now something 'behind the scenes' has clearly changed. We would all like to know why and what the answer is? I would like to think and believe that Operation Grange have pulled him in and had words. Something significant has happened as it wasn't that long ago that he was embarrassing himself on stage in front of students touting for the 10th anniversary. But not now. He's had to distance himself. Distance himself to ultimately save himself I should imagine.

Just my opinion.

Twelve minute's,twelve weeks,twelve months etc down the line what will Mitchell be remembered for though? the blacksmith says the exit is closed for him.

Trouble is nothings changed. What distance?....he has said he will work for nothing as required....that's closer commitment, that's help! He's helping to give the impression they need money ,that they are down on their luck but he hasn't deserted them.....he will be there when it counts. When he says "my time with the McCanns was a mistake" or such like I will see change ......for me its just a new move in an old game!!

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

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 don't have that view? Not sure where in my post you got that!

It was the whole point of your post and one that I took exception to: You originally said of Grange "I assume they are chipping away at TM until they don't have pot to pi*s in and are completely alone before going in for the kill" then, when I challenged you about it, you confirmed that it was your view with "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". Ok, I've summarised your point of view in a single sentence but, if I'm wrong, then please explain what you meant by the two sentences of yours in quotes above.

I've cut the part about the Suzanne Pilley case because none of it was relevant to the point , which is that the wealth or popularity of a suspect have no bearing whatsoever on the police/CPS decision on whether to prosecute.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

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

This whole paragraph has me scratching my head wondering where you got the "lack of awareness" and "idea" of mine from?

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.

Do you not believe the team meet on a regular basis and tell each other what they have done/found and discuss what they are going to/need to do next? I watched the Sadie Hartley case on ITV yesterday and this is exactly how it appeared to operate. From beat bobby up to senior officers in the same room each morning. The morning briefing.

Your lack of awareness is the belief that everyone has to be in on it for the enquiry to be not what it appears to be. Its also the naievity/cognitive dissonance that you appear to believe that all police officers are the “good guys” and are incapable of criminality. If that isn’t your view, what evidence do you have that there is no criminal behaviour (suppression of evidence etc.) going on in Grange that supports your belief in Grange being genuine? As far as I can see – and this applies to everyone that believes Grange to be a genuine attempt to investigate Madeleine’s disappearance – there is nothing more than blind faith. Faith that everyone on Grange is doing what they've said they're doing, which is to investigate the circumstances surrounding Madeleine's disappearance (actually they said her abduction, demonstrating their prejudice from the start but I'll ignore that for now) and faith that Theresa May and David Cameron were acting entirely altruistically when they set Grange up, whilst simultaneously ignoring the plight of Kerry Needham. Believe that if you want, you may be right - I hope you are - but there is far too much that is anomalous about Grange for me to share your belief in the absence of any evidence to confirm it

Bampots wrote:It matters not what I think in the end the truth will out. We are a rag tail bunch thrown together by a tragedy that happened one night to a little girl......its easy to lose sight of this. Whether KISS or PISS we may never find out. Hopefully our strengths lie in the breadth of our scope. I mean look what happens when everyone is made to follow the same line.......you end up with CMOMM!

There are huge gaps in our knowledge so at this time all opinions that the facts support are valid.

Whether you think OG is a whitewash or not - that's fine, the Smiths told the truth or lied - ok, KISS or PISS - whichever floats your boat but with the caveat that your (and my) theories are filling in voids so could be right, wrong or somewhere in-between.

I have no time for individuals (not usually on here fortunately) who fixate on their pet theory as being the absolute truth with no dissent allowed because they either have an agenda to control the narrative or they simply don't have the mental capacity to concede that there are multiple possible scenarios.

Our strengths do lie in the breadth of our scope and when (if) the whole truth comes out, I bet we'll be surprised at how many times, in our many and varied opinions, we hit on the truth without realising.

Great post, Poe. Couldn't agree more.