So, Mr. Clarence Mitchell promised Audrey Fitzpatrick, the mother of teenager Amy Fitzpatrick, who disappeared in Spain, last January, that he “will be able to get Amy's story on the BBC and on Sky and on GMTV too”. I'm confused. I remember Mr. Clarence Mitchell was a BBC journalist, before switching to a well paid job at the Prime-Minister's Office (Tony Blair, remember?) where he headed the Media Monitoring Unit. After being sent to Praia da Luz, by the Foreign Office, to act as an adviser for Madeleine's parents, he quit his Government job to be a full-time spokesman for the McCann.
Amy Fitzpatrick's mother and her partner have been trying hard to have British Media interested in the case of her missing daughter, with no success. But Mr. Clarence Mitchell is “confident” he can change the mind of the editors of BBC, Sky News and GMTV – British TV channels that, until now, showed no interest in the case of Amy, as her mother said. That is the reason why I'm confused.
The editors of those TV channels follow orders from Mr. Clarence Mitchell? Does the spokesman of the McCann couple has such an influence over those editors, that he can make them put Amy's case in the news, even if – as it seems, according to Amy's mother – they haven't considered it, until now, a case important enough to get some good amount of TV time? Do those editors give more importance to a missing child case, depending from the person that phones them? Or is Mr. Clarence Mitchell pretending to have more influence that he really has?