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
- eggman on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- agw on Daily Mail Scuppers BBC’s Wrong Shipping Forecast
- Bat E Bird on I’m A Celebrity: Samantha Fox Is Shrinking As ‘Lesbian’ Lover Katie Price Quits
- Bat E Bird on In Photos: Susan Boyle Sings Rockefeller Center Plaza In New York City
- yampster on Daily Mail And Tax Payers’ Alliance Attacks BBC Over Its Free Trees For A Better Planet
July 8th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I have just stumbled upon this blog from a link on the Telegraph page. I cannot believe so many people waste their time sending such garbage. Many of these comments make no sense and appear not to be using standard English. I don’t know the provenance of this blog but I suspect it has something to do with the Daily Mirror, which explains everything. Why don’t you all get proper lives and do something useful?
+++++++++++++++++++++
Welcome!
Firstly, Anorak has nothing to do with the Daily Mirror.
Anorak takes a satirical look at how news stories are portrayed by the media
Feel free to express your opinions/enter the debates. We look forward to reading more of your comments [duncanr]
March 4th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
are any forums still open i noticed that the reflectin in the mirror one that was set up after the closure of the daily mirror forums is no longer there
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:24 am
I wrote Daily Mirror and they said the comments were libelous to the McCanns. The moderators were not given any notice and the decision to close the Madeleien topic on the forums came from some one higher up. I believe they were hit with a court order, but are trying to play it off as bad behavior of the commenters.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:19 am
i am still hoping for poor poor Madeleine McCann, think she will come home but not alive but deep deep deep deep deep deep deep deep deep deep deep deep her mum and dad know she is probaly dead, i wish this was not true but its just the world we live line and i know deep deep deep deep deep deep deep deep deep down that she is lost forever.
if u just think oh well then move on, think how you would feel if your children went missing and deep deep deep deep deep deep down u knew that they would never come back you would be devased as i am only 13 i can imagine the heartbreak and sadness they are going though. this may sound silly to you but if my rabbit went missing (touch wood) i would be NOT NOT NOTTTT!!!! be able to go on as he is like a child to me, i am crying at just the thought, those poor poor poor poor poor poor mum and dad, i have cry for Madeleine McCann, i just want her home with her mum and dad, to see them hug and kiss and be happy again. i truly belive the mum and dad are innocent , they were just enjoying a family hoilday in portugal, i mean come on, who hasn’t left their children in a hotel room by them selfs, they were asleep so why not.
i have just written this to express my feeling about Madeleine McCann.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
TEST
January 30th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
For leaving 3 children alone in an unlocked apartment beggars belief, Social Services should prosecute the McCanns and set an example to society.These are not people with severe learning dificulties, these are medical people that are supposed to care about people, not least their own children. People are being victimised because of their stupidity and lives ruined.
The McCanns chose to go in the limelight, i just hope that the high profile of the McCanns didnt lead to Madeline being disposed of because of media pressure. They should thank themselves lucky their other children werent taken as well if that is really what happened.
I personally believe that Madeline was too young for a pervert as they generally take older children and if she was to go for adoption, she can talk and the younger children would be more suitable to be illegally adopted.Whatever the outcome of this case,only time will tell and if the McCanns are guilty they would surely be two of the most hated people in this country because of their relentless media campaign conning the public. Most of all i pray for Madeline and hope as a parent she can be reunited with her family, as stupid as they are for leaving her alone while they lived the good life with their friends.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Anna UK
736
Where did hear that Gerry said that? You even say ‘words to that effect’???? Are you sure that Gerry really said that to Kates mother?
Also why are the police being stalled to interview the Tapas group again?? Im sure if they were ready they WOULD!!! They wouldnt have to wait would they!!
January 29th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
test
January 29th, 2008 at 7:24 am
730/cool and calm
RE:MODS & Admin
NEUTRAL?????????…….lol
————————————–
736/anna(uk)
Interesting ?? The million dollar question is :Why the big cover up from British Ambassador?
January 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
There have been some suspicious aspects to this case right from the start. I heard a while back that on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, the British ambassador (or consul?) contacted the Potuguese chief of police late in the evening when he was having dinner and told him to ‘pursue the abduction line’. If true, this is most odd and would suggest there were very pressing reasons for suppressing the truth of what really happened that night.
More recently, Kate’s mother went on record as saying that Gerry told her ‘it’s very important that you accept that Madeleine was abducted’ or words to that effect. This gives the same impression - that a decision was taken to portray Madeleine’s disappearance as an abduction at all costs. Something is being hidden and enormous lengths are being gone to to keep it hidden. This is why I now believe that the Portuguese police will be thwarted at every turn and the truth will probably never come out. They want to come here to interview the other members of the Tapas group and are now ready to - but are continually being stalled - anyone who can’t see this has their head well and truly in the sand.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
720 Yankee Interloper
It is something nobody talks about a lot, maybe because it is so sad to think of what it means to be abducted. It is brave, and right of you to say it.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Coolandcalm
I see what you mean, but I had loads of seriously nasty stuff said to me by pro-McCanners and only the Mods stepped in to save me (not that I asked them to, I never would - if I can’t think of a decent retort I deserve to burn in forum hell).
I was quite nasty to you once though, which I regret.
I’m glad you’ve wiped it from your memory.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Cheryl
I felt nothing but sorry for the McCanns for the 1st 3 weeks - even though my Dad kept saying they were talking rubbish and were complete idiots - but as the weeks, months and P.R. campaigns went on (ribbons, balloons, kids writing poems, adverts at sporting events and in the cinema, Justine, Clarrie, Pray for Maddie slogans, wrist bands, fun runs, speaking at the Edinburgh festival, visiting America and on and on…) I had to admit they were talking rubbish and were complete idiots.
I did think Kate looked in pain, till I saw a photo of her holding baby Madeleine - same look.
But I do feel sorry for them to the extent they lost Madeleine (even if they should learn to lock their doors) - but the P.R. campaign - I intend to keep ripping it to shreds esp. now innocent men keep ending up in the newspapers labelled creepy.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Karen Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Cheryl
You like the McCanns, I don’t. That’s all you’re really bothered about.
_____________
Karen, who said I liked the McCanns? I don’t even know them; I don’t live over there. BUT as a civilized human being and mother I feel compassion for them on the loss of their child. Whether she is missing because of their leaving her alone or whatever else they have a lost a child and one can only imagine the emotional hell and heartbreak of wondering from day to day if their child will be found. Then pile on the emotional guilt of knowing just maybe she would not have disappeared if they had not left her alone - frankly, being a mother, I’m not very sure I could go on living if I was in the same situation and circumstances.
I have personally known and been around friends who have lost their children or baby and it is an experience one never forgets to watch and literally feel their reactions. Yes, some say sitting in judgement that Mrs. Mccann showed little outward grief - but you study her face, having seen such same reactions in some before, and you see written all over her face and in her eyes - pure hell.
So, I should pile on shit and condemnation? No thank you. I prefer to stay civilized and feel compassion for them and the thousands of others who lose their children no matter what the circumstances.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Karen Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Cheryl
You like the McCanns, I don’t. That’s all you’re really bothered about.
Being rude to Sledge is not denying him freedom of speech - he calls us the barmy brigade, he’s hardly polite himself. I suppose you’d have all journalists and comedians censored if they told President Bush to go shove it?
A forum is nothing like a march and all the McCanns have to worry about is the PJs.
Anorak is about the media, the McCanns are using the media, so we’re commenting on it. Like we comment about Amy Winehouse. If they stepped out of the spotlight, they wouldn’t be on this website, they wouldn’t come across as total freaks and we wouldn’t comment.
__________________
REPLY: Karen, I was laughing because I found it quite funny what you said about shoving it. As for your comment re Bush - I’ve said far worse than shove it about him!
January 28th, 2008 at 10:35 am
MODS and ADMIN 729
If you have a problem with me then do please just email me and say so and I shall retire gracefully from here! . I’ve not been rude or offensive yet in the past few days nearly every mail I’ve posted has been picked up by Mods and Admin and critcised.
My last post was polite and to Karen yet once again Mods and Admin intervene. I understood M&A were neutral on the subject matter and there to avoid abuse etc.
The stuff the other day in support of Ian was really bizarre!
Could you explain? Many thanks.
———————-
Mods and Admin
Firstly my reply to your post towards Karen, should not be seen as criticism of your self.
We often do reply directly to posts, it doesn’t have to be seen as intervention on behalf of the person it was originally addressed to.
But my summary of the majority of posters feelings of indifference and and at the other end of the spectrum , utter comtempt for the McCanns just explains the general feel of the posters who choose to post here in Anorak. Others with a different view also post, they are read, and challenged usually in the tone the original poster set, if its was put in a courteous way that is how it would be answered. If the level of good manners is transgressed posts are pulled by the moderators here, and we do not discuss pulled posts on site
Many months ago the majority of the posts were all very very pro McCann, and indeed they assumed wrongly that Anorak was here for the sole purpose to support of the MCCanns, and there was very little defence from any fence sitters then towards posters who didn’t go with the pro- McCann flow. But neither was Anorak an anti McCann site. But it does reflect the general view of the general public. In addition I must add we have been the only site at times where someone had their opinion heard, whether it supported the parents or not.
If you have any beef about our moderating please go to the forums and put your comments there.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Karen.. 727 old loop so you may not see this!
I don’t think its the criticism per se that Cheryl means but the real nastiness.
I know you know what I mean because you don’t do it!! Its the really gleeful attacks on not only the McCanns but anyone who becomes embroiled like Mrs Cooper.
Its the celebration of the negative and the dismissal of the positive without really checking any of it out properly.
I personally don’t like the McCanns and I think they are fools to themselves a lot of the time…. (I often wonder if he is on the outer perimeter of the Autistic spectrum with his lack of perception. Very clever people can be so removed from real life. My late brother had Aspergers….) However I HATE the truly personal stuff.
But of course we are all entitled to our opinions!!!
———————–
Mods and Admin
I think the fact that the McCanns have placed themselves well inside everyones personal perimeter, the reaction is just to repel them back to their own mess. People cannot pick up a paper turn on the tv or radio, and there is the McCann media out in force.
The sightings of their little girl and or ugly great creepy bastard who ‘took’ her whether wrapped in a blanket, on her ‘abductors’ back or being fed in cafe somewhere, and the constant admonishments to look for her, really do not help the McCanns.
They do seem to be passing the buck of responsibility, its up to us to see her, find her rescue her, but who left her alone and who actually knows for certain what happened to her? NOBODY knows, least of all the parents, as they were not there, and there is NO proof of abduction , just assumption.
Everyone feels desperately sorry for Madeleine , and prefer not to dwell on what could have happened had she been abducted, and its also very likely all 3 children could have gone that route. People feel concern for the twins too, as they have to grow up surrounded by an imploded family aided largely by their parents avoidance of duty of care.
The people who could have prevented all this are the good doctors with their presence and not their absence.
It is that fact that people pillory the McCanns. I dare say they don’t like it, but IF Madeleine has been abducted , I wonder what she thinks of Mummy and Daddy? It is she who counts.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:06 am
726 jo Says:
“Ah…what about their arguidos status? arent you made arguido when you are a suspect?”
Yes I’m talking about the arguido status. It’s not to be announced publicly by the authorities, and indeed has never been announced.
It’s a legal technicality during an ongoing investigation, and the investigation is not public. It has no implications whatsoever for the public.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Cheryl
You like the McCanns, I don’t. That’s all you’re really bothered about.
Being rude to Sledge is not denying him freedom of speech - he calls us the barmy brigade, he’s hardly polite himself. I suppose you’d have all journalists and comedians censored if they told President Bush to go shove it?
A forum is nothing like a march and all the McCanns have to worry about is the PJs.
Anorak is about the media, the McCanns are using the media, so we’re commenting on it. Like we comment about Amy Winehouse. If they stepped out of the spotlight, they wouldn’t be on this website, they wouldn’t come across as total freaks and we wouldn’t comment.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:59 am
723
Ferdinand Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 8:14 am
This is not correct. The McCanns have never been publicly named as suspects by the portugese authorities. It were their own lawyers who announced this in public.
*********************
Ah…what about their arguidos status? arent you made arguido when you are a suspect?
And their lawyers would just go around giving that good news to the world without any problem whatsoever???? come on…..
January 28th, 2008 at 8:54 am
722
an observer Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 7:19 am
********************
January 28th, 2008 at 8:44 am
67
chenier Says:
January 27th, 2008 at 10:16 am
*****************
Do you remember the PJ refusing Scotland Yard help?
How are you today? Back home?
__________________________________________
Really, just check what a British paper, edited by expats, wrote on May 5th.
http://portugalresident.com/portugalresident/showstory.asp?ID=18683
Furthermore I was there and I saw British police and Government people.
I’m fed up of the twisting systematically fed in UK’s main media.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:14 am
721 Increasingly incredulous Says:
“Note that - the issue os the McCanns civil rights in being named publically a suspect by the Portuguese state ”
This is not correct. The McCanns have never been publicly named as suspects by the portugese authorities. It were their own lawyers who announced this in public.
If the police suspects you of any wrongdoing it is in your own interest that the police is obliged to tell you this officially, at least at a certain point of the investigation. This is an enhancement of your rights and not a restriction.
The secrecy laws are another issue of course…
January 28th, 2008 at 7:19 am
721
Increasingly incredulous Says:
——————————————–
it might help if you could define “reasonable”. the debate about what is reasonable will no doubt send myself and numerous other posters to sleep.
i don’t see anything unreasonable in the time the PJ are taking. and, NO, i am not about to enter into a debate with you on the meaning of unreasonable. life’s too short. (i think some lawyers may have a few opinions of what is reasonable or not, don’t you?.)
personally, i think the PJ just want to get “it ” right” and if this needs time so be it.
KM might want to answer the questions the PJ put to her if she would like to see things speeded up a litttle.
January 28th, 2008 at 6:47 am
REd Rooster and Ian
read the quote from the ECHR again -
ARTICLE 6
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations OR of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Note that - the issue os the McCanns civil rights in being named publically a suspect by the Portuguese state - as I commented before the extension of Arguido status has alrady been acknowledges as a “Civil Rights” issue bu the ECtHR.
Mods,
how does that imply an end to the search? Only that the McCanns would be entitled to see any evidence against them - just as they’d be under disclosure rules if matters moved to a trial
(you seem to be under the strange impression that evidence is kept secret from the defence when a matter goes to trial - in fact, evidence not “disclosed” is specifically inadmissable).
January 28th, 2008 at 4:35 am
I can’t wrap my head around this common British Tabloid idea that the people who think the McCanns disposed of Madeleine’s body after an accidental death are “nasty,” “vicious,” “barmy,” and “on a witch-hunt” that demonstrates a heart-rending decline in the quality of human nature, etc.
How can anyone not realize that dying suddenly in an accident is the least painful thing that could have happened to the poor girl? If she was taken by an abductor, she would have most likely been killed within the first 48 hours of her abduction, after suffering unmentionable abuse. If she is still alive now, with a gang of abductors, that abuse is no doubt still going on, an alternative too horrible to be contemplated.
I don’t think it takes a hard heart or mean spirit to discount the idea that Madeleine was taken by someone who wanted a child to raise, and who doesn’t want a 2 million pound reward for returning her. That’s just so incredibly unlikely, I think you would have to be the sort of person who believes in preparing for retirement by playing the lottery to believe that’s what happened. Yes, it’s theoretically possible, but no, you’re not required to hang your hopes on it in order to be a good person. It’s okay to go ahead and assume that’s not what happened.
Even if Madeleine had been abducted by such a person, and she is not being overtly abused, she would no doubt have terrible psychological scars from the abduction that would prolong her suffering for years. At some point there would be fresh trauma when she inevitably realized the truth and came forward to identify herself, facing an unbearable media onslaught, as well as having to face the way her parents behaved while she was missing, all the footage of them smiling and waving, and her father’s blog entries where he states that he expects her to remain missing for at least a year, within the first few weeks of her disappearance. In my opinion, seeing those things would be incredibly painful and would leave scars that would last forever.
No, I think it’s plain that a quick, hopefully painless blow to the head or overdose is the scenario that presents the least suffering for Madeleine, and surely the people who believe that’s what happened are the ones with the kindest hearts, not the nastiest. You don’t even have to have mean thoughts about the McCann parents to believe this scenario–it’s quite easy to believe that’s what happened to Madeleine while also believing they are decent, caring parents who would never harm her for the world. That’s why it’s called an accident, because people don’t mean for it to happen.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:16 am
716
Cheryl Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 3:11 am
711
Grande Finale Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 2:34 am
“They are expected to keep quiet and let the raging fires burn out of control without attempts to put it out or get it under control? Raging fires out of control not only destroy woodlands, houses but also lives!”
*************************************************
Hi Cheryl, No I don’t think they are expected to keep quiet and they have been anything but! except apparently when being questioned by the PJ then by all accounts they were very quiet.
————————
REPLY: By whose accounts of their talking or not talking are you talking about? All we have heard really about anything is rumours, speculations and supposed leaks in the papers. Was she so quiet when she went into a rage at the Investigator when he asked her if she killed her child? NOW, if one wants to believe what one reads in the paper she went off big time on him in a rage and ever swore at him that dare he accuse her of killing her child. Now, would a guilty person also go into such a rage when asked that question? Possibly but in the reports on her reactions to the Investigator sounds like any parent’s would be in outrage that someone even thought they took the life of their child. And you must not forget, they hired lawyers and any good lawyer would tell them to cease answering questions once it became adversarial. I know people on here consider it suspect they hired lawyers - well, once it became clear to them the police actually suspected them they would have been fools not to hire one, that simple.
Give you a quick take on my thoughts re all the PR, Fund, etc. that happened so fast after the little girl disappeared. I think many ‘well meaning’ friends offered to take over and help them out and all came into being - the Fund, the hiring of a PR person, etc. Isn’t really that what family and well meaning friends are all about - in your time of stress, need, grief whatever they step in and take over for you?
For what it is worth - I’m just a non-prejudger waiting to see how it all turns out. Yet, I rather like to show the other side to rather soften the harsher side. I can be objective really and look at it through an objective eye removed from the situation. Two sides to every story!
***********************************
I agree with you re the PR. Fund etc……. in that it was taken out of their hands some of the time.
As I understand it though, (although I may be wrong) is that to decline to answer questions in portugal you have to become an arguido, I’m pretty sure that is what it means. So it follows therefore that they refused to answer some questions, and that is the basis of what I was saying.
Your statement as to - For what it is worth - I’m just a non-prejudger waiting to see how it all turns out etc…..
is extremely worthwhile in my opinion, Personally I am worried that out of the whole sorry episode nobody, that can/could make a difference to prevent similar events happening in the future, have learned a damn thing!
I think that the above is because nobody has been willing to admit to doing anything wrong. Just my humble opinion, nice talking ? with you hope to do so again sometime but now I MUST go unfortunately but it has been a pleasure.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:29 am
712
Karen Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Cheryl
How can you agree with that load of bollocks Sledge posted?
The McCanns aren’t going to get gassed - it’s a bit crass to even mention the holocaust.
Slagging them off for being media tarts isn’t making them like the Jews, it’s making them like Lindsay Lohan.
All they had to do was give up the limelight after a reasonable amount of time (say 3 weeks) - after 9 months they’re in Tom Cruise Jumping the Couch territory and they may as well get used to the gossip (it’s going nowhere).
_________________________
REPLY: Karen - look what you said “give it up after a reasonable amount of time? Have all the anti-mccanns screaming for their heads given up? Hell no, the fires are raging over lands and across the oceans…
You know what goes on in all the forums in arguing pro and con and gets quite nasty amongst the posters. It reminds of the marches I’ve watched in DC - protestors for or against a cause - one or the other is marching and the ‘opposition’ gathers on the side shouting and jeering and waving their fists in protest - horrible fights have broken out and police have had to get into the act with horses and dogs, etc. - been some real nasty ones over the prior years. I was thinking about that and just how out of control and nasty and physical a march could turn into if the pros or antis marched over there. This is a highly charged and emotional subject and they feed upon each other.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:16 am
714
Karen Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Cheryl
Incidentally if Sledge says the McCanns aren’t guilty and I say ’shove it up your arse Sledge’ - I haven’t interfered with his freedom of speech at all.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean opinions have to be agreed with - it only means they’re allowed to be expressed - which they are.
___________-
REPLY: Now really, Karen, you have me laughing at that response! What do you mean you haven’t interfered with his freedom of speech at all? You told him where to shove it because he doesn’t agree with you and the others - colour it anyway you want, Karen, but I’m not buying it and I’m still laughing.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:11 am
711
Grande Finale Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 2:34 am
709
Cheryl Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 1:58 am
“They are expected to keep quiet and let the raging fires burn out of control without attempts to put it out or get it under control? Raging fires out of control not only destroy woodlands, houses but also lives!”
*************************************************
Hi Cheryl, No I don’t think they are expected to keep quiet and they have been anything but! except apparently when being questioned by the PJ then by all accounts they were very quiet.
————————
REPLY: By whose accounts of their talking or not talking are you talking about? All we have heard really about anything is rumours, speculations and supposed leaks in the papers. Was she so quiet when she went into a rage at the Investigator when he asked her if she killed her child? NOW, if one wants to believe what one reads in the paper she went off big time on him in a rage and ever swore at him that dare he accuse her of killing her child. Now, would a guilty person also go into such a rage when asked that question? Possibly but in the reports on her reactions to the Investigator sounds like any parent’s would be in outrage that someone even thought they took the life of their child. And you must not forget, they hired lawyers and any good lawyer would tell them to cease answering questions once it became adversarial. I know people on here consider it suspect they hired lawyers - well, once it became clear to them the police actually suspected them they would have been fools not to hire one, that simple.
Give you a quick take on my thoughts re all the PR, Fund, etc. that happened so fast after the little girl disappeared. I think many ‘well meaning’ friends offered to take over and help them out and all came into being - the Fund, the hiring of a PR person, etc. Isn’t really that what family and well meaning friends are all about - in your time of stress, need, grief whatever they step in and take over for you?
For what it is worth - I’m just a non-prejudger waiting to see how it all turns out. Yet, I rather like to show the other side to rather soften the harsher side. I can be objective really and look at it through an objective eye removed from the situation. Two sides to every story!
January 28th, 2008 at 3:06 am
Grande Finale
If he said it, I don’t think he meant it.
Maybe he just didn’t think the story could spin beyond the Summer, which is the UKs traditional media silly season (where they’ll print anything because Parliament is shut and there’s a lack of news).