Clarence Mitchell in the limelight again

I posted this on the World Thread, but this snippet is worth a mention




Italian
Costa Cruises have surprisingly chosen Clarence Mitchell as their
official spokesperson which, depending on his role, may pose a problem
considering the many differing nationalities of passengers. Unless Mr
Mitchell happens to be multi-lingual.

No worries.

If you read some of his past quotes, even his own mother tongue poses problems for him!

almostgothic wrote:No worries.

If you read some of his past quotes, even his own mother tongue poses problems for him!

That's why he got on so well with the McCanns!

Not at all. The fact that he may not understand the people will not make one jot of difference. It will all be "a theory in an ongoing investigation", i believe the captain to be innocent, the suggestions are ludicrous, and those nutters who give reports to the media or blog about their experience only cause harm. It affects the investigation as no one will be looking for the person who made the rocks in the ocean. He looked at them every fifteen minutes or so, and there is a passenger who saw the rocks move towards the ship.

My intention is not to be frivolous towards this appalling tragedy, i cannot imagine the grief and loss of those who have lost someone, or the experience of the survivors. Again it is becoming an awful PR exercise, why on earth did the Company employ a PR person. Trying to control events such as this do nothing. Every one involved in this has a right to express their experience however and to whoever they wish. Did Clarrie make any comment or offer assistance to those many travellers or the families of those who have lost someone in tragic circumstances, possibly of neglect or worse. The event is tragic, the appointment of a PR person to "manage the media" is disgusting imo.

tanszi wrote:Not at all. The fact that he may not understand the people will not make one jot of difference. It will all be "a theory in an ongoing investigation", i believe the captain to be innocent, the suggestions are ludicrous, and those nutters who give reports to the media or blog about their experience only cause harm. It affects the investigation as no one will be looking for the person who made the rocks in the ocean. He looked at them every fifteen minutes or so, and there is a passenger who saw the rocks move towards the ship.

My intention is not to be frivolous towards this appalling tragedy, i cannot imagine the grief and loss of those who have lost someone, or the experience of the survivors. Again it is becoming an awful PR exercise, why on earth did the Company employ a PR person. Trying to control events such as this do nothing. Every one involved in this has a right to express their experience however and to whoever they wish. Did Clarrie make any comment or offer assistance to those many travellers or the families of those who have lost someone in tragic circumstances, possibly of neglect or worse. The event is tragic, the appointment of a PR person to "manage the media" is disgusting imo.

Aha! Did that passenger see what the rocks were wearing at the time?

I wonder if Clarence has learnt from previous assignments and knows how to spot the possibility of Abandonment now?

The End Is Nigh wrote:I wonder if Clarence has learnt from previous assignments and knows how to spot the possibility of Abandonment now?

Well, I wonder if he will support the captain's story about falling into the lifeboat, rather than the theory that he abandoned the ship and the passengers.

Clarence is like an Ambulance chaser, wasn"t he acting for the parents of another missing child at one time ?

Panda wrote:Clarence is like an Ambulance chaser, wasn"t he acting for the parents of another missing child at one time ?

Yes, he was. Anyone recall who it was?

He has been associated with the mother of Scarlet Keeling (murdered in Goa).
Has represented parents of murdered teenager Jimmy Mizen.

As a journalist he covered the West's, Milly Dowler and the Soham murders.

almostgothic wrote:He has been associated with the mother of Scarlet Keeling (murdered in Goa).
Has represented parents of murdered teenager Jimmy Mizen.

I remember Scarlet Keeling her mother was a very strange Woman . BTW news on the Armageddon thread might interest you.

Panda wrote:

almostgothic wrote:He has been associated with the mother of Scarlet Keeling (murdered in Goa).
Has represented parents of murdered teenager Jimmy Mizen.

I remember Scarlet Keeling her mother was a very strange Woman . BTW news on the Armageddon thread might interest you.

Thanks Panda. I'll go have a look too.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:

almostgothic wrote:He has been associated with the mother of Scarlet Keeling (murdered in Goa).
Has represented parents of murdered teenager Jimmy Mizen.

I remember Scarlet Keeling her mother was a very strange Woman . BTW news on the Armageddon thread might interest you.

Thanks Panda. I'll go have a look too.

Clarence led coverage of the murder of the Surrey schoolgirl Millie Dowler in 2002.

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/shocking-clarence-mitchell-profile/

Panda wrote:

almostgothic wrote:He has been associated with the mother of Scarlet Keeling (murdered in Goa).
Has represented parents of murdered teenager Jimmy Mizen.

I remember Scarlet Keeling her mother was a very strange Woman . BTW news on the Armageddon thread might interest you.

Thanks Panda - interesting indeed!

T4two wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:

almostgothic wrote:He has been associated with the mother of Scarlet Keeling (murdered in Goa).
Has represented parents of murdered teenager Jimmy Mizen.

I remember Scarlet Keeling her mother was a very strange Woman . BTW news on the Armageddon thread might interest you.

Thanks Panda. I'll go have a look too.

Clarence led coverage of the murder of the Surrey schoolgirl Millie Dowler in 2002.

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/shocking-clarence-mitchell-profile/

Did Clarence mention similarities between the Soham case and Robert Murat?

AnnaEsse wrote:

T4two wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:

almostgothic wrote:He has been associated with the mother of Scarlet Keeling (murdered in Goa).
Has represented parents of murdered teenager Jimmy Mizen.

I remember Scarlet Keeling her mother was a very strange Woman . BTW news on the Armageddon thread might interest you.

Thanks Panda. I'll go have a look too.

Clarence led coverage of the murder of the Surrey schoolgirl Millie Dowler in 2002.

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/shocking-clarence-mitchell-profile/

Did Clarence mention similarities between the Soham case and Robert Murat?

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.

Notice he's using the 'won't say more' technique again, which he used with the cruise ship captain this week:

1) Says something damaging about a person.
2) Piously announces that he won't say more knowing that the damage has already been done.

It's a bit like the lawyer who says something outrageous about someone, knowing that the judge will strike it from the record. But they also know that what they have said will stay in the jury members' minds - unrecorded or not.

almostgothic wrote:Notice he's using the 'won't say more' technique again, which he used with the cruise ship captain this week:

1) Says something damaging about a person.
2) Piously announces that he won't say more knowing that the damage has already been done.

It's a bit like the lawyer who says something outrageous about someone, knowing that the judge will strike it from the record. But they also know that what they have said will stay in the jury members' minds - unrecorded or not.

Whatever we think of Clarence, he has done a good PR job for the McCanns and it is notable that they still retain him after 5 years .

Panda wrote:

almostgothic wrote:Notice he's using the 'won't say more' technique again, which he used with the cruise ship captain this week:

1) Says something damaging about a person.
2) Piously announces that he won't say more knowing that the damage has already been done.

It's a bit like the lawyer who says something outrageous about someone, knowing that the judge will strike it from the record. But they also know that what they have said will stay in the jury members' minds - unrecorded or not.

Whatever we think of Clarence, he has done a good PR job for the McCanns and it is notable that they still retain him after 5 years .

Hi Panda, 'keep your friends close, but keep your enemies even closer' it may be
a case of the Mccanns darn't let him go! such a relationship

marxman wrote:

Panda wrote:

almostgothic wrote:Notice he's using the 'won't say more' technique again, which he used with the cruise ship captain this week:

1) Says something damaging about a person.
2) Piously announces that he won't say more knowing that the damage has already been done.

It's a bit like the lawyer who says something outrageous about someone, knowing that the judge will strike it from the record. But they also know that what they have said will stay in the jury members' minds - unrecorded or not.

Whatever we think of Clarence, he has done a good PR job for the McCanns and it is notable that they still retain him after 5 years .

Hi Panda, 'keep your friends close, but keep your enemies even closer' it may be
a case of the Mccanns darn't let him go! such a relationship

Hi marxman, I"m beginning to think we will never see justice for Madeleine who has become a cash cow for so many people. If a petty thief steals from
a shop or someone"s home, he will be fined and Jailed but the McCanns and their cronies can steal millions from Joe Public and get away scot free , what price justice. At least they didn"t get paid by the Murdoch empire head, Newscorp, which is facing a massive payout for the phone hacking. What
point was there to the Leveson Enquiry with all these new cases coming to light......I despair of Politics.

almostgothic wrote:Notice he's using the 'won't say more' technique again, which he used with the cruise ship captain this week:

1) Says something damaging about a person.
2) Piously announces that he won't say more knowing that the damage has already been done.

It's a bit like the lawyer who says something outrageous about someone, knowing that the judge will strike it from the record. But they also know that what they have said will stay in the jury members' minds - unrecorded or not.

Yep, looking at his CV he seems to always be around when there's a particularly gruesome case unfolding. Now some people might use that to intimate that the guy get's off on misery. Be that as it may, most people do find something creepy about him, but of course I don't know him personally so it would not be fair for me to make any comment.

T4two wrote:

almostgothic wrote:Notice he's using the 'won't say more' technique again, which he used with the cruise ship captain this week:

1) Says something damaging about a person.
2) Piously announces that he won't say more knowing that the damage has already been done.

It's a bit like the lawyer who says something outrageous about someone, knowing that the judge will strike it from the record. But they also know that what they have said will stay in the jury members' minds - unrecorded or not.

Yep, looking at his CV he seems to always be around when there's a particularly gruesome case unfolding. Now some people might use that to intimate that the guy get's off on misery. Be that as it may, most people do find something creepy about him, but of course I don't know him personally so it would not be fair for me to make any comment.

Wasn't he also first 'reporter' on scene at the Kegworth air disaster? It seems he either has an inbuilt 'disaster' radar or perhaps more likely he's a natural 'Jonah', everything around him turns to tish....
He has yet to state his masterpiece, 'I can say no more because of operational reasons' about the cruise ship disaster..

malena stool wrote:

T4two wrote:

almostgothic wrote:Notice he's using the 'won't say more' technique again, which he used with the cruise ship captain this week:

1) Says something damaging about a person.
2) Piously announces that he won't say more knowing that the damage has already been done.

It's a bit like the lawyer who says something outrageous about someone, knowing that the judge will strike it from the record. But they also know that what they have said will stay in the jury members' minds - unrecorded or not.

Yep, looking at his CV he seems to always be around when there's a particularly gruesome case unfolding. Now some people might use that to intimate that the guy get's off on misery. Be that as it may, most people do find something creepy about him, but of course I don't know him personally so it would not be fair for me to make any comment.

Wasn't he also first 'reporter' on scene at the Kegworth air disaster? It seems he either has an inbuilt 'disaster' radar or perhaps more likely he's a natural 'Jonah', everything around him turns to tish....
He has yet to state his masterpiece, 'I can say no more because of operational reasons' about the cruise ship disaster..

He was indeed. He refers to it as his lucky break

T4two wrote:

malena stool wrote:

T4two wrote:

almostgothic wrote:Notice he's using the 'won't say more' technique again, which he used with the cruise ship captain this week:

1) Says something damaging about a person.
2) Piously announces that he won't say more knowing that the damage has already been done.

It's a bit like the lawyer who says something outrageous about someone, knowing that the judge will strike it from the record. But they also know that what they have said will stay in the jury members' minds - unrecorded or not.

Yep, looking at his CV he seems to always be around when there's a particularly gruesome case unfolding. Now some people might use that to intimate that the guy get's off on misery. Be that as it may, most people do find something creepy about him, but of course I don't know him personally so it would not be fair for me to make any comment.

Wasn't he also first 'reporter' on scene at the Kegworth air disaster? It seems he either has an inbuilt 'disaster' radar or perhaps more likely he's a natural 'Jonah', everything around him turns to tish....
He has yet to state his masterpiece, 'I can say no more because of operational reasons' about the cruise ship disaster..

He was indeed. He refers to it as his lucky break

It seems he climbed to his present exalted position as liar and spinner extraordinaire over the blood and body parts of a tragedy, too bad about the broken bones of the casualties Clarence, but you got your break didn't you.
(Why can't we have a turd emoticon?)