One of the tactics used by Coloumbo is to trawl through inconsistencies in suspects or witnesses statements. It’s a tactic I use. It was also a tactic that the PJ would have used had the Tapas Bar 9 returned to Portugal for the reconstruction.
Sources claimed the reconstruction was aimed at highlighting statement “inconsistencies” (‘Suspect’ fears of Tapas 7, The Sun, 30 May 2008).
I am not surprised that all of a sudden, during an interview with a journalist, Clarence Mitchell comes out with spin to justify what he knows to be inconsistencies in the Tapas Bar 9’s accounts.
“It was made out to be the biggest ‘conspiracy’ since the Diana ‘conspiracy,'” says Mitchell. “Some of the group (of friends in the tapas restaurant) had their watches on that night, and others didn’t… asking nine people to give exact explanations of what happened at what moment during the evening was never going to produce matching stories; what would have been more suspicious was nine exactly co-ordinated accounts.”
However, I will give a Mickey McCannMouse watch to anybody who can tell me what Clarence Mitchell’s explanation has to do with the Glaring inconsistency between the McCanns stating that there was a break-in, and the Mark Warner manager, police and PJ stating (and even Clarence Mitchell belatedly admitting) that there was no evidence of a break-in?