Madeleine McCann: Duarte Levy, Clarence Mitchell And The Daily Mirror
DUARTE Levy writes on the case of Madeleine McCann. He alleges that that Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ PR adviser, is “using the Government’s services to keep watch on journalists and forum participants.” Says Mr Levy:
Clarence Mitchell, the McCann’s PR adviser and spokesman, continues to make use of the British government’s services despite having officially resigned from his position as director of the Media Monitoring Unit*. The accusation comes from a Home Office source who has stated that the outgoing director had called upon his former service to keep a watch not only on several journalists but also on the behaviour of participants in a list of forums and blogs considered to be “highly detrimental to the image of the McCanns and that of the British government”.
Can what Mr Levy alleges be true? And if it is, why would it be a big deal for the McCanns’ spokesman to keep an eye on the web, and get what help he can? Mr Levy continues:
Clarence Mitchell, a former journalist for the Daily Express and the BBC, was seconded by the Foreign Office to act as a liaison officer between the media and Madeleine’s parents. Through the intermediary of the respective British embassies, it was he who organised the McCann’s visits to the Vatican, Madrid, Berlin, Amsterdam and Rabat.
Since the very early days, media monitoring has been an important part of Clarence Mitchell’s work. While the McCann’s were in Praia da Luz, it was he who decided to separate journalists according to nationality: the British first, and the Portuguese last.
Today, the McCann’s PR campaign relies more than ever on monitoring public opinion: over the past few days several UK forums and blogs have been shut down due to “anti-McCann” comments. Amongst them is the Mirror newspaper’s forum, which erased all comments about the case without warning when the participants started to debate Home Office interference.
No response from Mr Mitchell is quoted in Mr Levy’s email to us. But why did the Daily Mirror close its forum? Anyone from those forums care to tell us what they know?
Anorak’s monitoring team try to read all reader comments - of which there are thousands.
Posted: 27th, January 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (741) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
January 27th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
417 Peter O
I was not specifically referring to the McCanns and agree they are the direct cause of
Madeleine”s disappearance.
Remigius 420
I saw the Documentary last year and even though there was no evidence, the parents were
hounded until they were forced to move to another State. JonBenet”s Mother has since died
I believe. Didn”t the Police find someone abroad who turned out to be innocent? I also saw
on T.V. a Documentary about American children taking part in these “beauty”competions
and it really is quite sickening to see 6 year olds dressed to the nines, made up like an adult
taking part in these events., Jonbenet looked like a Doll, not a child.
January 27th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Gosh, so many sand trhowing to my eyes
January 27th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
432 RedRooster,
And I’ll be thinking of you at your family event and feel sorry for you
January 27th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Remigius/ 431……….oh dear, ah well we all make mistakes…..
January 27th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Get off Tony Bennett’s case. He obviously meant “suspicious disappearance.” It was a slip of the tongue.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mods/Admin
’suspicious disappearance’ vs ’suspicious death’ - Tony?
January 27th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
433
DuncanR Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
———————————————
wakey wakey duncan derrrrr
January 27th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
423 DuncanR
I forgot to add, nobody has to “tell the authorities” there’s likely been a “suspicious death.” They KNOW! That is why they are treating the case as a homicide! There’s no need to notify anyone! It is all over the news!
January 27th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
M&A
“parting shot” — too true
January 27th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
426 Remigius Says: January 27th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
417 Peter O
“INHUMANE” to be under a cloud of suspicion for so long?
Why is it “inhumane?”
++++++++++
I take it your response was actually meant to:
390 val Says: January 27th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
383 Grand Finale
It may have been 20years but surely the new Law which came out this year was meant
to reduce this……..it is certainly inhumane to suspect someone for that long.
It might be worth asking one of the Portugese posters.
++++++++++++++
To which I actually responded:
Just not as inhumane as failing to take care of your three year old daughter and then turning the search for her into the biggest self centred heap of doo dah in recorded history, in my opinion.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
414 - Sledgehammer
‘Mods and Admin, ……….. do you know, which “suspicious” death TB alludes to ?’
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please see my post 423
January 27th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
430
Totje Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
———————–
well now i feel even worse as i have to go to a boring family event that i cannot get out of. But i will be thinking of you enjoying your mardi gras
January 27th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
423 DuncanR
“suspicious death” means, in the particular case of a VERY young child of 3 years (not yet 4), that if the child goes missing past, say, three days, and it is extremely unlikely that the child can feed, clothe, water, and take care of herself, and there is NO evidence that he/she is in the care and custody of another adult, or perhaps even an older child (say, a child of 14) who IS able to feed, clothe, water, and take care of the VERY young child, then GOOD GROUNDS arise for those concerned to consider the missing child DEAD, in circumstances that are SUSPICIOUS because, at the very least, there is NO EVIDENCE indicating that she is still alive, but there IS EVIDENCE indicating that she was physically harmed prior to disappearing.
Got it?
No? Well…that’s to be expected.
After the first 72 hours, extremely young children like Madeleine can be considered dead. It doesn’t mean they are, it just means it is more likely than not that they are dead.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mods & Admin
You are correct that statistically there is a high probablility that Madeleine is dead. A high probability is not, however, ‘certainty’.. A point we are both in agreement with - as the final sentence of your post makes clear.
Duncanr
January 27th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Obviously I meant 422
January 27th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
428 RedRooster,
Jealousy is a negative emotion, you should avoid. However if it comforts you, you can come over next weekend to Belgium and have a carnival party [Mardi Gras] with us!
January 27th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Cheryl (442)
Tony never said they had “announced” anything. He said they had “concluded.” Hope this helps.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
384 Ian
E-mail your debate with Bystander here on Anorak. Look at Châtelaine’s latest post, she thinks like me. (Or I think like her…)
January 27th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
424
Totje Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Okay, I’m back after two days of parties, dinners and [too] much to drink.
————————————-
are we supposed to be jealous??
January 27th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
412
Tony Bennett
Oh ,that one !!
Mr. Socrates told on the Portuguese TV ,he was doing 1 more favour to Mr. G.B.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
417 Peter O
“INHUMANE” to be under a cloud of suspicion for so long?
Why is it “inhumane?”
It’s so easy to have the cloud removed–take a polygraph, answer the PJ’s questions, fully cooperate with the investigation.
Why haven’t the McCanns done so?
IN the JonBenet Ramsey case, Boulder, Colorado police investigated thousands of “leads,” hundreds of suspects (many named directly by the Ramseys themselves), and were able to strike most of these suspects off their list. Pretty soon, only the parents remained as suspects. Their whereabouts and behaviors on the night JonBenet was murdered were never fully explained. According to several good books written on the subject, including one by the lead police investigator, the Boulder DA felt there was insufficient hard evidence to ensure that a jury would find the Ramseys guilty, and so they refused to try them. The rationalization was that if the Ramseys (one or both) had murdered JonBenet, they were surely sorry they’d done it, they likely would not do it again, and the general public was not in danger from them.
Certainly not all places in the US would have concluded as the Boulder DA allegedly did. But Boulder was a small city with a VERY low crime rate, and the Ramseys were “bona fide millionaires.”
Is a similar rationale at work in Madeleine’s case?
January 27th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
414 Sledgehammer Says: January 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Mods and Admin, nowhere did I state that I thought the PJ had concluded their investigations, if as we are led to believe the Portuguese are desperate to reinterview various parties, why not apply for and execute a Euro warrant, which would stop the continuing circus dead and also act as a message of intent from the Portuguese, why the constant delay. It would be ironic if the cover up that many seem to think is being perpetrated, was in fact at the Portuguese end rather than the British end. I know how you like posters to be precise, do you know, which “suspicious” death TB alludes to ?
+++++++++++
It would be ironic indeed wouldn’t it? Not very likely, in my opinion. About as likely as me winning the UK lottery, of which there is no chance since I don’t buy tickets.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Okay, I’m back after two days of parties, dinners and [too] much to drink.
As far as I’ve read the posts I’ve noticed :
1. Chenier found the posters in Morocco [thank heaven, I don't have to email Clarrie]
2. M3 is squeezing Cuddle Cats
3. The farmer is convicted and sent to jail a couple of years ago for a sex offence
4. Another “sketchy” double is found [and many more in Morocco]
5. Madeleine is not in Chili
[errr this sighting was wrong, but why did the police react to the sighting although it is assumed the sketch is an hoax and the pj knows Madeleinde died??]
6. The pj is [re-] interrogating people [why if they are sure she died in the apartment?]
7. Some papers suggest the pj thinks either she’s abducted or may be not
8. Grand Finale tells us next week something is going to happen [btw if the family as you seem to assume is involved in her disappearance, don't you think they can do a pretty good guess what "surprise" next week is coming? Esp. with the help of M3 and others???? What makes you believe that you know anything they don't know?]
9. Fair got “under attack” and abused undeserved imo , and everybody let it happen, without interfering.
10. I’m afraid this case is going on for a while longer, so I’ve bought lots of sick bags. I think we’ll need them on a regular basic.
Anything I’ve missed?
January 27th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
404
Tony Bennett Says:
4) Home Secretray Jacqui Smith, urging her to give maximum help to the PJ in their efforts to solve this suspicious death.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For my sake, if for no others can you explain whose ’suspicious death’ you are talking about?
If you are referring to Madeleine McCann, what evidence do you have to support this statement? If you are in possession of evidence that allows you to make such a bold statement, have you shared that information with the relevant authorities?
January 27th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
360
Tony Bennett Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
The McCanns said Maddie was abducted -
But then the PJ delved and detected;
They examined the scene,
Asked where they’d been
And concluded the girl was neglected.
_____________________
When did they announce that, Tony? I know in our minds it was neglect but have the Investigators made that announcement yet?
January 27th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
411 Tony Bennett
I believe Stevo tried to make contact with Company, to no avail.
It was reported the other day that any calls should be sent to CM”s mobile, or e-mail the
Company because the landline was no longer operating.
This is all very disquieting, instead of writing why don”t you e-mail showing your concern
as a donor to the Fund concerned at the way the Fund is being spent…..let us know if you get
a reply.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
414
Sledgehammer Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
—————————-
a very good evening to you sledge, and how are you on this fine evening. In good spirits I hope??
January 27th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
412
Tony Bennett Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
————————-
that was a nice read as im eating my tea tony…so did his head come off ???
January 27th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
404 Tony Bennett & Stevo
Lesseeee…..
“Photofits” (oh, right) of pig farmers and cockle gatherers…and now, spying on bloggers and chatters and common citizens (from lots of places, not just UK) who are unafraid to question whether Clarence Mitchell, Team McCann, and the fragrances are…uhm..telling the truth, the whole truth, so help them?
Sounds like pure desperation to me.
Perhaps the PJ feels it really doesn’t have enough proof for an open-and-shut case against the McCanns and the other Tappas folks. But one cannot try one’s case in Vanity Fair and Oprah without stirring the public’s interest even more than the fragrances have stirred it now, with their blog, their many press conferences, their media blitzes.
the more they talk and talk and talk, the more we at Anorak will learn.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
390 val Says: January 27th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
383 Grand Finale
It may have been 20years but surely the new Law which came out this year was meant
to reduce this……..it is certainly inhumane to suspect someone for that long.
It might be worth asking one of the Portugese posters.
++++++++++++++
Just not as inhumane as failing to take care of your three year old daughter and then turning the search for her into the biggest self centred heap of doo dah in recorded history, in my opinion.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
388 Val 6:39 pm
Just seen your post!!
Thanks, Val. Appreciated.
Cos of time restraints, I think I should limit myself to my exchange with Ian. I’ll just say that the way each of us, from our different points of view, looks at the facts surrounding the Madeleine saga seems to be very much a case of “truth in the beholder’s mind”. What you interpret in one way, I find myself interpreting just as naturally in another way.
But, for reasons of time constraints, I really have decided I won’t be drawn in. I have decided to limit myself to the issues I raised in my belated
reply to Ian.
Sorry
Really. But thanks anyway for your thoughts! Keith.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
409 Chatelaine,
AB has replied to Ian, but I agree, NOBODY KNOWS what happened that fateful night and
I wouldn”t believe anything from the Tabloids . Notice, every thing is attributed to a “source”
and no one has done any investigive journalism. The more respected Papers, ie, The Times
Guardian, Telegraph have more credibility. See my response to Can”t say no.