From the article :
‘We’d like Mr Verran to explain these omissions from his interviews with us, and say when he was in Portugal,’ said the source.
A direct quote from 'the source', Clarence Mitchell probably. One good thing about the McCanns being so litigious is that the tabloids wouldn't dare attribute a quote to 'a source close to the McCanns' if that wasn't exactly where it had come from.
If you read the article correctly, and take into consideration what the source says after that remark you will understand that the source was talking in the past tense with regards to their conversations with Verran.
‘It is potentially interesting that this information has now emerged and we will be discussing this development with police.’
What they are saying is that during previous conversations with Verran that the PI's had, he never mentioned anything about his van being stolen.
This is what happens, people use part of the comment attributed to a quote and that is when the information is taken out of context.
What are you rattling on about ? The article makes it clear, through quotes from their source, that the McCanns want to talk to Verran about what has been revealed since their last interview with him. There is no ambiguity and no distortion of context.
So who is this source? Let's face it it's not even important enough information for a newspaper to pay
A. Source for it. ''A source close to...'' is an old ploy used by newspapers to bulk out an article to make it more interesting. I thought everyone knew that. Why would Clarence Mitchell need to pretend to be A. Source? Sorry but that makes no sense to me.
Correct Benice.
There is only supposition on the part of Faithlilly that Mitchell is the source. And it is not a supposition which stands up to much scrutiny.
When Faithlilly explains why on this occasion Mitchell should choose (unlike on the many, many other occasions when he has been named) to remain anonymous then perhaps it might be worth considering.
I think Faithlilly is probably correct, and the 'source close to the McCann' is Clarence Michelll
I agree with her that, post Leveson, it is highly unlikely that a newspaper would attribute a quote to a McCann source unless it were so
There is something about the familiar use of 'us' and 'we' that has Michell's stamp about it too
My opinion is entirely different.
I think that, post Leveson, it is highly unlikely that a newspaper would attribute a false quote to a NAMED McCann source unless it were accurate, but it is perfectly likely that they would attribute just about anything to UNNAMED sources because that would mean that they will not be challenged for libel.
And I also thing that textual analysis is a valuable forensic tool when done by experts but a wholly unreliable tool when done on non attributable and possibly garbled quotes by amateurs.
Just my opinions, of course.
