A great post (IMO) from Strombone (thanks for sharing!) over on the Proboards79 forum.
Posted (with permission).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re. the stories in the UK media in the last two to three weeks and their origin.
IMO, there is really little mystery here. Two words: Clarence Mitchell.
CM is doing his job and doing it very well.
Remember this fact: the McCanns do not have to prove the aduction theory. The PJ, if they are to achieve a conviction for a crime related to the events of May 3rd, have to outline one single theory to the judges and prove it.
It is therefore in the interests of the McCanns that there is no one single theory out there. Whether it's bitter ex-Maids, stairwell lurking strangers, Murat, Malinka, peadophile gangs, single abductors, childless couples, people smugglers, sightings of Madeleine in Spain, Morocco, Las Vegas, and now, "credible leads from psychics" etc. etc. doesn't actually matter.
Whether the theory/sighting is credible or incredible, investigated and ruled out, never investigated at all, or still part of ongoing investigations doesn't actually matter.
Anything, in short, that isn't related to a theory which involves parental involvement in either disappearance or cover-up is grist to the mill of CM's brief. Get it out there, spread it wide, get people talking (and thinking) about the possibilities other than the one they don't want addressed: that the parents, and/or members of the parents party, have some direct role in Madeleine's disappearence.
On that basis, my belief is that CM is selectively, judiciously and systematically providing the UK media with any and all stories that do not relate to parental involvement. My guess is that all these "new" stories re. sightings, stairwells, ex-maids, the nanny, have all been known to the PJ from months ago. They are either ruled out entirely, or investigated to a dead-end, to be overtaken in priority by the thesis of parental involvement, which may have existed prior to late July, but was very much lit large in the sky by the arrival of the two UK dogs.
In doesn't matter that these stories are inconsistent with one another. It doesn't matter that there are great big holes of logic in many of them. By getting these "irrelevant" stories out, CM is muddying the waters to the McCann's benefit, at least in the court of public opinion. UK newspapers now routinely talk about the PJ case against the parents crumbling. UK commentators are now much more likely to castigate the PJ and PT media than question why the UK dogs discovered what they apparently did, or why the parents didn't answer the questions put to them, fled the country and lawyered up.
Additionally, the waters have been muddied further - and will continue to be, I venture - by utilising the Joana C and Casa Pia cases, and the "inadequacies of the investigation" as rationale for holding question marks over the PJ.
You have to hand it to Clarence: he's earning his keep and doing a terrific job in keeping the mob from the McCanns door.
Why do the UK papers, broadsheets and all, routinely refer to the McCanns as "Kate and Gerry"? [One sample at random:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2414796.ece] Do you think that Ian Huntley - even before proven guilty in a court of law - was afforded this nicety? "
Why do you think Amaral was followed for a week by the Sunday Mirror so that his long lunches and lack of apparent useful activity on the case (by the McCann's terms) can be highlighted in detail? Because CM tipped them off that it would be worthwhile to do so. If sufficient pressure is brought to bear on Amaral that he is invited by his superiors to step aside for the good of the case, then this will dealy and disrupt the investigation, which, so long as it is focused on them and their friends, suits the parents agenda.
The question really is, why are the Sunday Mirror paying an reporter to stalk Amaral for a week, rather than paying someone to speak with each of the Tapas 7 and put some questions to them? Why is Torres getting 3000k for taking a photograph of a blonde haired Moroccan girl? Why is Nanny Pennington with her inconsistent testimonony suddently turning up out of the blue, posing seductively for the camera in her Sunday best?
Remember the months and months of getting no new information on this case other than the few scraps which leaked out of PT and were then speculated upon endlessly by internet forums, including this one? Remember you'd wait weeks for an updated morsel of info about the night of May 3rd? And now look at the flood of apparently new info, stories, theories, leads, sightings. What has changed to cause this? Simple, CM has been appointed, and is setting to his task comprehensively and effectively.
However, as it has been since late July, the key thing in this case is the findings of the UK dogs, in particular the cadaver dog, and the forensic material. Ex-Maids, stairwell-lurkers, Moroccan sightings, none of these are consistent with the possibility raised by the dogs that Madeleine was dead in that apartment on May 3rd.
Ultimately, this case won't be judged in the court of popular opinion, but by three dispassionate, informed judges in PT. If the evidence is sufficient on the charges brought they will convict; if it isn't, they won't.
The questions that remain are: will the case come to court at all? for what specific crime(s) will charges be preferred? If it comes to court, do the PJ have enough evidence (physical & circumstantial) to convict?
If I were to guess right now, I would say that CM's primary motivation is to have the waters sufficiently muddied and the further investigations of the PJ sufficiently hampered so that no charges will ever be brought against the McCanns. And so far, in that respect, he's doing an admirable job. Money well spent.
So it's basically nonsense.