“As a criminal profiler, I have also sometimes been criticized for theorizing about a case I have not personally been privy to the actual facts from inside the investigation. As I do a lot of television commentary, this is quite often the case for me; I only can theorize based on the “facts” outlined by the media“.
Isn’t this what most of us do? Either sit in front of the television set and/or computer screen and form a theory based on what we see and hear of the case? We are presented with the “facts” and form a judgement based upon them what the likeliest scenario is or was.
For example, the “fact” that there was a break-in? The “fact” as presented by a spin doctor or in this case a spin cardiologist turns out not to be a fact at all once the spin is unspun and is pure fiction which is the direct opposite position.
That is, a purported truth is a lie. And the teller of this story is a liar. More precisely, a McCannliar. The role of a spin doctor, in this case a spin cardiologist, is to put across a message which favours the teller and when Clarence Mitchell sells out and joins the McCann Camp the teller paints the best picture he can for his client for us all to view. I have seen what I would call art and I have seen what some claim to be art and I see as pure garbage.
What we are talking about here is opinions. Clarence Mitchell is an opinion former. When MPs leave government or even those within it are associated with outside interests which earn them extra money. They are paid for what they know and who they know. Clarence Mitchell left a secure government post to work for the McCanns. That was a risky move if done so voluntarily. Did he jump or was he pushed? The reason I ask is the “fact” that he tipped off the McCanns to police monitoring of their phones. It is “fact” rather than fact purely because I was informed by a reliable source that this is what occured. Remember the mentioned liquid lunches the cops took? Let’s say for example, a crime reporter for a TV station is told to get the inside story. He has expenses. He bumps into a cop or cops, offers to buy their lunch. It’s a freebie. Drink? “Can’t say anything because of the secrecy laws”. Another drink? And after a while the drink loosens the tongue. How do you know this? We have been listening to their mobile phone calls and monitoring texts.
The UK government intelligence departments know this. They brief the Foreign Office, and Clarence Mitchell is briefed on his role to support the McCanns in Public Relations, but he oversteps this assistance and tells them they are being monitored. It is picked up by the police that the McCanns have been tipped off by Clarence Mitchell. The Portuguese government complains to the UK government and Clarence Mitchell must resign or face disciplinary action. He goes away to consider his position, phones the McCanns and they offer him a job.
Why would two totally innocent people enlist the support of some or all of their friends in a cover up if nothing had happened to Madeleine? There would be no point. So, we are dealing with criminals here. What are their individaul and collective crimes? What are their criminal profiles?