UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Luz on April 28, 2013, 10:30:37 PM
-
When they were told not to contact the media because if abducted that could be a death sentence, the first thing they did the next morning was to call a press conference. When advised not to reveal anything that could identify physically the child, Mr. McCann decided to reveal the coloboma, because it was a good marketing ploy.
This thread has been spun off from another thread.
Started and edited by Admin.
-
luz says " When advised not to reveal anything that could identify physically the child, Mr. McCann decided to reveal the coloboma, because it was a good marketing ploy."
Maybe luz can look at the release to Interpol by the PJ and the date of that release and the fact that it was for circulation to the press.
-
luz says " When advised not to reveal anything that could identify physically the child, Mr. McCann decided to reveal the coloboma, because it was a good marketing ploy."
Maybe luz can look at the release to Interpol by the PJ and the date of that release and the fact that it was for circulation to the press.
If you check the photographs both at the interpol and at the pj sites, you'll see that no particular signs are revealed. That's a rule that is always followed when there is a possibility of abduction or kidnap. To reveal enough signs that make the victim too identifiable is to condemn him/her to death.
-
luz says " When advised not to reveal anything that could identify physically the child, Mr. McCann decided to reveal the coloboma, because it was a good marketing ploy."
Maybe luz can look at the release to Interpol by the PJ and the date of that release and the fact that it was for circulation to the press.
If you check the photographs both at the interpol and at the pj sites, you'll see that no particular signs are revealed. That's a rule that is always followed when there is a possibility of abduction or kidnap. To reveal enough signs that make the victim too identifiable is to condemn him/her to death.
if you check the PJ release to Interpol you will find that you are incorrect.
-
@Luz
There is no debate in your use of smilies.
I have just posted details elsewhere from Amaral's own book of his own criticism of the PJ and their specialists and his comments about how they failed in their work.
It is facts like that that deserve the vomit gif that you used because it is truly stomach churning to think that Amaral and other senior officers in the PJ presided over such a tarnished investigation of the disappearance of a missing child. Had they been up to the task and had they had procedures to follow then perhaps the investigation may have determined what happened?
Or you have a weak stomach - I know you hate portuguese and especially Amaral - or you read a book unknown to me. How can an investigation succeed when those that should be the primary interested did everything they could boycott it?
When they were told not to contact the media because if abducted that could be a death sentence, the first thing they did the next morning was to call a press conference. When advised not to reveal anything that could identify physically the child, Mr. McCann decided to reveal the coloboma, because it was a good marketing ploy.
Tanner's description of the abductor are not only hilarious, they are insulting to the common sense.
Everything that the McTeam did while in Portugal and after fleeing was to disrupt the investigation. The only thing they were good at was to establish a Fund to sustain their new way of life.
Luz, you are aware that the PJ site does indeed provide distinguishing details of missing people?
-
luz says " When advised not to reveal anything that could identify physically the child, Mr. McCann decided to reveal the coloboma, because it was a good marketing ploy."
Maybe luz can look at the release to Interpol by the PJ and the date of that release and the fact that it was for circulation to the press.
If you check the photographs both at the interpol and at the pj sites, you'll see that no particular signs are revealed. That's a rule that is always followed when there is a possibility of abduction or kidnap. To reveal enough signs that make the victim too identifiable is to condemn him/her to death.
How is anyone supposed to recognise a blonde 3-year-old child as distinct from any other blonde 3-year-old one without distinguishing features?
What's all this correspondence about, then?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm
-
My dear Luz
If I may gently suggest that maybe you are a little confused. The following is an excerpt from the files, relating to a press release issued by the PJ on the 5th May 2007.
"Press Release
Disappearance of Minor
The Policia Judiciaria requests information about the whereabouts of Madeleine Beth McCann, born on 12-05-2003 (three years old) with the following physical characteristics: 90 cm in height, light chestnut/blond hair, blue/green left eye and a green right eye with a brown mark in the pupil.
She disappeared from Praia da Luz, Lagos on 03-05-2007 wearing pyjamas with white coloured bottoms with a floral design and a blue and grey figure on the front with the inscription 'EEYORE'.
Any information should be directed to the Head of the Faro PJ telephone number 289 884 500 or to the Portimao DIC tel 282 405 400.
05 May 2007"
-
luz says " When advised not to reveal anything that could identify physically the child, Mr. McCann decided to reveal the coloboma, because it was a good marketing ploy."
Maybe luz can look at the release to Interpol by the PJ and the date of that release and the fact that it was for circulation to the press.
If you check the photographs both at the interpol and at the pj sites, you'll see that no particular signs are revealed. That's a rule that is always followed when there is a possibility of abduction or kidnap. To reveal enough signs that make the victim too identifiable is to condemn him/her to death.
How is anyone supposed to recognise a blonde 3-year-old child as distinct from any other blonde 3-year-old one without distinguishing features?
What's all this correspondence about, then?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm
Oh dear me. Now it seems Luz is deliberately lying, if so, for what reason?
Reading some of those files, it seems Amaral hadn't got a clue what he was doing.
His reason for Madeleine's disappearance.
Presumed cause of disappearance: Disappeared from the Ocean Club resort where she was on holiday with her parents. The disappearance occurred when the child was alone in the apartment. >@@(*&)
-
My dear Luz
If I may gently suggest that maybe you are a little confused. The following is an excerpt from the files, relating to a press release issued by the PJ on the 5th May 2007.
"Press Release
Disappearance of Minor
The Policia Judiciaria requests information about the whereabouts of Madeleine Beth McCann, born on 12-05-2003 (three years old) with the following physical characteristics: 90 cm in height, light chestnut/blond hair, blue/green left eye and a green right eye with a brown mark in the pupil.
She disappeared from Praia da Luz, Lagos on 03-05-2007 wearing pyjamas with white coloured bottoms with a floral design and a blue and grey figure on the front with the inscription 'EEYORE'.
Any information should be directed to the Head of the Faro PJ telephone number 289 884 500 or to the Portimao DIC tel 282 405 400.
05 May 2007"
Just in case...
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_33b.jpg)
-
luz says " When advised not to reveal anything that could identify physically the child, Mr. McCann decided to reveal the coloboma, because it was a good marketing ploy."
Maybe luz can look at the release to Interpol by the PJ and the date of that release and the fact that it was for circulation to the press.
If you check the photographs both at the interpol and at the pj sites, you'll see that no particular signs are revealed. That's a rule that is always followed when there is a possibility of abduction or kidnap. To reveal enough signs that make the victim too identifiable is to condemn him/her to death.
How is anyone supposed to recognise a blonde 3-year-old child as distinct from any other blonde 3-year-old one without distinguishing features?
What's all this correspondence about, then?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm
Oh dear me. Now it seems Luz is deliberately lying, if so, for what reason?
Reading some of those files, it seems Amaral hadn't got a clue what he was doing.
His reason for Madeleine's disappearance.
Presumed cause of disappearance: Disappeared from the Ocean Club resort where she was on holiday with her parents. The disappearance occurred when the child was alone in the apartment. >@@(*&)
I don't have a problem with that description.
-
Can anyone provide the very first photograph which appeared in the Press following the alleged abduction or is the one kindly posted by Carana the original?
According to the statements the McCann's sought help in their frustration from their relatives and friends back in the UK. Did these associates in fact release photos ahead of the Portuguese?
-
I didn't start this thread.
But as for what Mr. McCann said about disclosing Madeleine's identifying features, read this
http://www.anorak.co.uk/179232/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-gerry-mccann-talks-with-vanity-fair.html/ (http://www.anorak.co.uk/179232/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-gerry-mccann-talks-with-vanity-fair.html/)
reference to Vanity Fair interview, p. 5 «the Madeleine ‘Look into my eyes’ campaign? Says Gerry: “We thought it was possible this could hurt her. Her abductor might do something to her eye. But in marketing terms it was a good ploy”»
-
Can anyone provide the very first photograph which appeared in the Press following the alleged abduction or is the one kindly posted by Carana the original?
According to the statements the McCann's sought help in their frustration from their relatives and friends back in the UK. Did these associates in fact release photos ahead of the Portuguese?
The first photograph is the one that is posted above.
Curiously,when the GNR arrived 10 minutes after the call they received at 22:41, there were already posters ready to distribute of that same photo.
-
My dear Luz
If I may gently suggest that maybe you are a little confused. The following is an excerpt from the files, relating to a press release issued by the PJ on the 5th May 2007.
"Press Release
Disappearance of Minor
The Policia Judiciaria requests information about the whereabouts of Madeleine Beth McCann, born on 12-05-2003 (three years old) with the following physical characteristics: 90 cm in height, light chestnut/blond hair, blue/green left eye and a green right eye with a brown mark in the pupil.
She disappeared from Praia da Luz, Lagos on 03-05-2007 wearing pyjamas with white coloured bottoms with a floral design and a blue and grey figure on the front with the inscription 'EEYORE'.
Any information should be directed to the Head of the Faro PJ telephone number 289 884 500 or to the Portimao DIC tel 282 405 400.
05 May 2007"
Mon cher Jean-Pierre
a written report is totally different from an image, and that report was not issued straight away, right? The McCann were indulging the press in the morning 4th.
-
Perhaps what the police were advising against was making Madeleine's coloboma a focal part of their campaign with very specific attention drawn to it
I believe the McCanns registered it as a trademark with the Intellectual Property Office within two weeks of their child's disappearance ... is that correct ?
-
Can anyone provide the very first photograph which appeared in the Press following the alleged abduction or is the one kindly posted by Carana the original?
According to the statements the McCann's sought help in their frustration from their relatives and friends back in the UK. Did these associates in fact release photos ahead of the Portuguese?
The very first photo was the family professional photo on 4 May. From the 5th May the iconic photo of Madeleine in the red dress with the coloboma showing became the mostly used one. A couple of others appeared that first week including the tennis photo, but all in all that one released to the PJ, the one in the spotty top, did not make the British press much at all
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/NEWS_MAY_2007.htm
-
If I recall events correctly the fact that Madeleine had a coloboma in her right eye was pushed out there from the very beginning. I remember thinking at the time that any would-be abductor would not be able to cover that up.
(http://download.thelancet.com/images/journalimages/0140-6736/PIIS014067360760823X.fx1.lrg.jpg)
-
It was definitely emphasised right from the beginning, from the use of that photo in the press to it being on their website and to viral emails being sent out with the Look into my Eyes poster and printed posters by the Mccanns held up on Tv appeals with the LOOK logo
-
It was definitely emphasised right from the beginning, from the use of that photo in the press to it being on their website and to viral emails being sent out with the Look into my Eyes poster and printed posters by the Mccanns held up on Tv appeals with the LOOK logo
Was there any truth in the story that google rejected their request to have the coloboma incorporated into the oo's of their logo ?
-
It was definitely emphasised right from the beginning, from the use of that photo in the press to it being on their website and to viral emails being sent out with the Look into my Eyes poster and printed posters by the Mccanns held up on Tv appeals with the LOOK logo
Was there any truth in the story that google rejected their request to have the coloboma incorporated into the oo's of their logo ?
First I've heard of the story.
Where did it come from?
-
It was definitely emphasised right from the beginning, from the use of that photo in the press to it being on their website and to viral emails being sent out with the Look into my Eyes poster and printed posters by the Mccanns held up on Tv appeals with the LOOK logo
Was there any truth in the story that google rejected their request to have the coloboma incorporated into the oo's of their logo ?
First I've heard of the story.
Where did it come from?
I can't remember ferryman ... I'll go and google
-
Just how long does anybody think it would have taken the abductor to notice Madeleine's eye?
Would he have thought that no one else but him would have known about this?
What would have been the point in not mentioning it?
How much harm could she have been saved from by keeping it quiet, especially as The PJ were the first to publicise it?
-
Just how long does anybody think it would have taken the abductor to notice Madeleine's eye?
Would he have thought that no one else but him would have known about this?
What would have been the point in not mentioning it?
How much harm could she have been saved from by keeping it quiet, especially as The PJ were the first to publicise it?
Yes.
Very good point.
-
It was definitely emphasised right from the beginning, from the use of that photo in the press to it being on their website and to viral emails being sent out with the Look into my Eyes poster and printed posters by the Mccanns held up on Tv appeals with the LOOK logo
Was there any truth in the story that google rejected their request to have the coloboma incorporated into the oo's of their logo ?
I dont know if there was any truth to it but the story was definitely there
A bit like the Maddie Mccann abduction being advertised in cinemas before a Shrek cinema film watched by hundreds and thousands of children, many parents complained and it was taken off, that was REALand fact, havent found anything about the google logo request yet
Another alledged request was to include Maddie is Missing stickers in Harry Potter books and JK Rowling declined
-
Probably features on a Morais blog somewhere.
Which would be bound to make it true ...
-
Can anyone provide the very first photograph which appeared in the Press following the alleged abduction or is the one kindly posted by Carana the original?
According to the statements the McCann's sought help in their frustration from their relatives and friends back in the UK. Did these associates in fact release photos ahead of the Portuguese?
The first photograph is the one that is posted above.
Curiously,when the GNR arrived 10 minutes after the call they received at 22:41, there were already posters ready to distribute of that same photo.
And your cite for that statement is.... It is a myth.
-
@ Luz- have you responded to the PJ May 5th description of Madeleine's eye defect in their press release yet?
-
My dear Luz
If I may gently suggest that maybe you are a little confused. The following is an excerpt from the files, relating to a press release issued by the PJ on the 5th May 2007.
"Press Release
Disappearance of Minor
The Policia Judiciaria requests information about the whereabouts of Madeleine Beth McCann, born on 12-05-2003 (three years old) with the following physical characteristics: 90 cm in height, light chestnut/blond hair, blue/green left eye and a green right eye with a brown mark in the pupil.
She disappeared from Praia da Luz, Lagos on 03-05-2007 wearing pyjamas with white coloured bottoms with a floral design and a blue and grey figure on the front with the inscription 'EEYORE'.
Any information should be directed to the Head of the Faro PJ telephone number 289 884 500 or to the Portimao DIC tel 282 405 400.
05 May 2007"
Mon cher Jean-Pierre
a written report is totally different from an image, and that report was not issued straight away, right? The McCann were indulging the press in the morning 4th.
Do you have a link to where the "McCann were indulging the press in the morning 4th"? I believe you will find that they were doing no such thing as they were in Portimao on that morning giving statements.
Please provide details of this "indulging the press" you claim was happening at the same time as their statements were being given.
-
Just how long does anybody think it would have taken the abductor to notice Madeleine's eye?
Would he have thought that no one else but him would have known about this?
What would have been the point in not mentioning it?
How much harm could she have been saved from by keeping it quiet, especially as The PJ were the first to publicise it?
Well Gerry McCann believed there was a risk involved in using the coloboma as a 'marketing ploy'
He acknowledged that the abductor might "do something to her eye"
-
Just how long does anybody think it would have taken the abductor to notice Madeleine's eye?
Would he have thought that no one else but him would have known about this?
What would have been the point in not mentioning it?
How much harm could she have been saved from by keeping it quiet, especially as The PJ were the first to publicise it?
Well Gerry McCann believed there was a risk involved in using the coloboma as a 'marketing ploy'
He acknowledged that the abductor might "do something to her eye"
It was too late for Gerry to do anything about it by then, even if he had wanted to.
And I never take Magazine or Newspaper articles as gospel, verbatim. Who knows exactly how he phrased it?
-
Just how long does anybody think it would have taken the abductor to notice Madeleine's eye?
Would he have thought that no one else but him would have known about this?
What would have been the point in not mentioning it?
How much harm could she have been saved from by keeping it quiet, especially as The PJ were the first to publicise it?
Well Gerry McCann believed there was a risk involved in using the coloboma as a 'marketing ploy'
He acknowledged that the abductor might "do something to her eye"
Of course there was a risk. Gerry, if he ever stated that as clearly as you claim, was absolutely right and stating the obvious. But it was not him who took the risk.
The fact is that it was the PJ who first released the information in their press release on May 5th. It was them who put the information out and took that risk.
Once the information was out in the public domain it was better to use it (as a ploy or in any way) than simply to leave it as a threat to the child.
-
Just how long does anybody think it would have taken the abductor to notice Madeleine's eye?
Would he have thought that no one else but him would have known about this?
What would have been the point in not mentioning it?
How much harm could she have been saved from by keeping it quiet, especially as The PJ were the first to publicise it?
Well Gerry McCann believed there was a risk involved in using the coloboma as a 'marketing ploy'
He acknowledged that the abductor might "do something to her eye"
cite please - in full context - not in isolation
-
meanwhile - had the abductor(s) been freaked out by the coloboma announcement
- they would have put sunglasses on the girl - simple and perfectly plausible in a sunny clime like Portugal.
-
Just how long does anybody think it would have taken the abductor to notice Madeleine's eye?
Would he have thought that no one else but him would have known about this?
What would have been the point in not mentioning it?
How much harm could she have been saved from by keeping it quiet, especially as The PJ were the first to publicise it?
Well Gerry McCann believed there was a risk involved in using the coloboma as a 'marketing ploy'
He acknowledged that the abductor might "do something to her eye"
It was too late for Gerry to do anything about it by then, even if he had wanted to.
And I never take Magazine or Newspaper articles as gospel, verbatim. Who knows exactly how he phrased it?
I don't think it will do to reject a direct quote from Gerry McCann as 'unreliable' just because it paints him in a poor light
They were his own words, and that must be accepted, or else you look like one of the board's cherry-pickers
( I have come to expect more from you than that )
-
That quote (with use of the word marketing) is there somewhere. I've read it myself.
-
Just how long does anybody think it would have taken the abductor to notice Madeleine's eye?
Would he have thought that no one else but him would have known about this?
What would have been the point in not mentioning it?
How much harm could she have been saved from by keeping it quiet, especially as The PJ were the first to publicise it?
Well Gerry McCann believed there was a risk involved in using the coloboma as a 'marketing ploy'
He acknowledged that the abductor might "do something to her eye"
It was too late for Gerry to do anything about it by then, even if he had wanted to.
And I never take Magazine or Newspaper articles as gospel, verbatim. Who knows exactly how he phrased it?
I don't think it will do to reject a direct quote from Gerry McCann as 'unreliable' just because it paints him in a poor light
They were his own words, and that must be accepted, or else you look like one of the board's cherry-pickers
( I have come to expect more from you than that )
Classic NLP botox - ignore
-
Didn't that ghastly Police Union man go on television to castigate The McCanns about this? And accused them of putting Madeleine's life in danger. I seem to remember that he said The McCanns had signed Madeleine's death warrant.
What a blo*dy awful hypocrite when it was The PJ who first released this information.
Not that I would critisise The PJ for doing so, but ever since then it has been used as another stick with which to beat The McCanns.
-
luz says " When advised not to reveal anything that could identify physically the child, Mr. McCann decided to reveal the coloboma, because it was a good marketing ploy."
Has anyone proved that this is correct yet (see thread title)?
If it is correct then who was it that advised the Mccanns and when was that advice given?
It has been proven the the Portuguese authorities revealed the details very early.
-
Just how long does anybody think it would have taken the abductor to notice Madeleine's eye?
Would he have thought that no one else but him would have known about this?
What would have been the point in not mentioning it?
How much harm could she have been saved from by keeping it quiet, especially as The PJ were the first to publicise it?
Well Gerry McCann believed there was a risk involved in using the coloboma as a 'marketing ploy'
He acknowledged that the abductor might "do something to her eye"
It was too late for Gerry to do anything about it by then, even if he had wanted to.
And I never take Magazine or Newspaper articles as gospel, verbatim. Who knows exactly how he phrased it?
I don't think it will do to reject a direct quote from Gerry McCann as 'unreliable' just because it paints him in a poor light
They were his own words, and that must be accepted, or else you look like one of the board's cherry-pickers
( I have come to expect more from you than that )
Classic NLP botox - ignore
I wasn't talking to you ... mind your business
( what is NLP anyway ? )
-
Just how long does anybody think it would have taken the abductor to notice Madeleine's eye?
Would he have thought that no one else but him would have known about this?
What would have been the point in not mentioning it?
How much harm could she have been saved from by keeping it quiet, especially as The PJ were the first to publicise it?
Well Gerry McCann believed there was a risk involved in using the coloboma as a 'marketing ploy'
He acknowledged that the abductor might "do something to her eye"
It was too late for Gerry to do anything about it by then, even if he had wanted to.
And I never take Magazine or Newspaper articles as gospel, verbatim. Who knows exactly how he phrased it?
I don't think it will do to reject a direct quote from Gerry McCann as 'unreliable' just because it paints him in a poor light
They were his own words, and that must be accepted, or else you look like one of the board's cherry-pickers
( I have come to expect more from you than that )
Actually if you look at the quote very, very carefully, you will see that the journalist is in fact cherry-picking Gerry's words. The ellipsis shows that he or she is admitting this fact.
There is no way of knowing precisely what was said in that interview. What the journalist has chosen to print from what Gerry said was used for a particular purpose, a particular emphasis. Its an interview given to the media back in late 2007 shortly after the return to England, the need to keep Madeleine's name in the papers was foremost in the minds of the parents.
-
You could try to..... god i hate rats
-
You could try to..... god i hate rats
... best get off that sinking ship of yours then
-
luz says " When advised not to reveal anything that could identify physically the child, Mr. McCann decided to reveal the coloboma, because it was a good marketing ploy."
Has anyone proved that this is correct yet (see thread title)?
If it is correct then who was it that advised the Mccanns and when was that advice given?
It has been proven the the Portuguese authorities revealed the details very early.
bump to get past the personal posts
-
luz says " When advised not to reveal anything that could identify physically the child, Mr. McCann decided to reveal the coloboma, because it was a good marketing ploy."
Has anyone proved that this is correct yet (see thread title)?
If it is correct then who was it that advised the Mccanns and when was that advice given?
It has been proven the the Portuguese authorities revealed the details very early.
The PJ released the information on May 5th.
It is up to Luz to show that what she claimed is true. I do not believe that the claim she made that the McCanns released this information is true. She stated that the McCanns were indulging the press on the morning of 4th May. They were not in fact doing that at all.
bump to get past the personal posts
[/quote]
The PJ released the information on May 5th.
It is up to Luz to show that what she claimed is true.
She stated that the McCanns were indulging the press on the morning of 4th May. They were not in fact doing that at all. They were giving statements to the police.
The first statement they made was on the evening of the 4th of May and they made no mention of any eye defect then.
Nor did they make any such mention on 5th May in the second statement made to the press.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id170.html
As the PJ are known to have released the information on May 5th I think it highly unlikely that Luz or anyone else can demonstrate that the McCanns did so before them.
We will see what Luz manages to dig up to support the statement she made.
-
Come on Luz should know...she claims to be part of the PJ before.... never knew tea ladies were highly rated and helped solved crimes there
-
luz says " When advised not to reveal anything that could identify physically the child, Mr. McCann decided to reveal the coloboma, because it was a good marketing ploy."
Has anyone proved that this is correct yet (see thread title)?
If it is correct then who was it that advised the Mccanns and when was that advice given?
It has been proven the the Portuguese authorities revealed the details very early.
The PJ released the information on May 5th.
It is up to Luz to show that what she claimed is true. I do not believe that the claim she made that the McCanns released this information is true. She stated that the McCanns were indulging the press on the morning of 4th May. They were not in fact doing that at all.
bump to get past the personal posts
The PJ released the information on May 5th.
It is up to Luz to show that what she claimed is true.
She stated that the McCanns were indulging the press on the morning of 4th May. They were not in fact doing that at all. They were giving statements to the police.
The first statement they made was on the evening of the 4th of May and they made no mention of any eye defect then.
Nor did they make any such mention on 5th May in the second statement made to the press.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id170.html
As the PJ are known to have released the information on May 5th I think it highly unlikely that Luz or anyone else can demonstrate that the McCanns did so before them.
We will see what Luz manages to dig up to support the statement she made.
[/quote]
What a load of rubbish, the mccanns put out the coloboma on 5th may, in big style, and continued it, the pj said she had a spot in her eye, not a massive advert by anymeans,how many people read the pjs website over and above all the papers which had maddies right eye sticking out like hell for ages, via the media, they had and held up postera of Maddie with the LOOK into my eyes campaign,via their website via other areas, zzzzzzz but kate mccann said in 2011 in an interview with cnn that they never made anything much of it LOL
Cnn kate
K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see
LOOk posters
http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/news/48673-madeleine-sighting-belgium-raises-new-hopes-100-days-after-she-disappeared.html
-
luz says " When advised not to reveal anything that could identify physically the child, Mr. McCann decided to reveal the coloboma, because it was a good marketing ploy."
Has anyone proved that this is correct yet (see thread title)?
If it is correct then who was it that advised the Mccanns and when was that advice given?
It has been proven the the Portuguese authorities revealed the details very early.
-
Fibbing again, RedBlossom. You are wasting your time. It has already been established that what you say is just not true.
Another Myth debunked.
-
Fibbing again, RedBlossom. You are wasting your time. It has already been established that what you say is just not true.
Another Myth debunked.
You failed to detail what I was FIBBING about, do go on and what myth has been debunked that i m trying to carry
on i assure you i dont proliferate any proven myths so put up or shut up
-
Fibbing again, RedBlossom. You are wasting your time. It has already been established that what you say is just not true.
Another Myth debunked.
You failedto detail what I was FIBBING about, do go on
Everything you post
-
Fibbing again, RedBlossom. You are wasting your time. It has already been established that what you say is just not true.
Another Myth debunked.
You failed to detail what I was FIBBING about, do go on and what myth has been debunked that i m trying to carry
on i assure you i dont proliferate any proven myths so put up or shut up
Do a bit of research. In fact, read the posts on this Thread. Your fibs are too many to detail individually. Only your fibs are profligate.
-
Fibbing again, RedBlossom. You are wasting your time. It has already been established that what you say is just not true.
Another Myth debunked.
You failed to detail what I was FIBBING about, do go on and what myth has been debunked that i m trying to carry
on i assure you i dont proliferate any proven myths so put up or shut up
Do a bit of research. In fact, read the posts on this Thread. Your fibs are too many to detail individually. Only your fibs are profligate.
where have i lied on this thread?
-
Fibbing again, RedBlossom. You are wasting your time. It has already been established that what you say is just not true.
Another Myth debunked.
You failed to detail what I was FIBBING about, do go on and what myth has been debunked that i m trying to carry
on i assure you i dont proliferate any proven myths so put up or shut up
Do a bit of research. In fact, read the posts on this Thread. Your fibs are too many to detail individually. Only your fibs are profligate.
where have i lied on this thread? Sad cow
Do you suffer from black outs and memory loss? I wouldn't be at all surprised if you do.
-
Eleanor i asked you a question and you didnt answer that makes YOU dishonest, evasive and snakeish
Repeatingthe question, where did i lie
-
Eleanor i asked you a question and you didnt answer that makes YOU dishonest, evasive and snakeish
Repeatingthe question, where did i lie
And a Sad Cow. Don't forget that. I liked that one.
-
Eleanor i asked you a question and you didnt answer that makes YOU dishonest, evasive and snakeish
Repeatingthe question, where did i lie
And a Sad Cow. Don't forget that. I liked that one.
So no proof where i have lied here,whose thesad cow
-
Eleanor i asked you a question and you didnt answer that makes YOU dishonest, evasive and snakeish
Repeatingthe question, where did i lie
And a Sad Cow. Don't forget that. I liked that one.
So no proof where i have lied here,whose thesad cow
I think we all know the answer to that question by now.
-
Eleanor i asked you a question and you didnt answer that makes YOU dishonest, evasive and snakeish
Repeatingthe question, where did i lie
And a Sad Cow. Don't forget that. I liked that one.
So no proof where i have lied here,whose thesad cow
I think we all know the answer to that question by now.
So no proof where i lied, if u cant come up with it just makes you a pathetic liar
8((()*/
-
@Redblossom
Do you accept that the PJ issued a Press Release on 5th May 2007 detailing Madeleine's eye defect?
-
To: The Assistant Prosecutor
Public Ministry
Date: 04-05-2007
Subject: Request for Divulgation by means of the Press
As it is of clear interest to the investigation of the case in reference, I have the honour to ask you to authorise the divulgation of the disappearance of the young girl Madeleine McCann by means of the organs of the press, with the aim of obtaining information leading to her whereabouts.
I enclose a model for divulgation.
With best compliments
The Coordinator of the Investigation.
G. Amaral
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm
Letter from the Lagos Public Ministry
To: Portimao DIC
Date: 04-05-2007
Subject: Request for Divulgation by Means of the Media with Reference to the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
This letter serves to communicate to you that within the framework of what is laid down in Article 86 n? 5 of the CPP I authorise this police force to divulge the disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann by means of the organs of the press with the aim of obtaining information leading to her whereabouts, in accordance with the press release model that was sent to us.
With best compliments,
Signed
The Deputy Prosecutor
Sandra Marques
-
Not sure. I would have thought he meant the proposed content in a model format.
-
In summary, it would seem to be clear that the PJ did not advise against releasing identifying features relating to Madeleine, as the correspondence from the PJ and copies of press releases documents.
-
Hello Luz.
I think that a response from you is necessary.
-
Luz
The first photograph is the one that is posted above.
Curiously,when the GNR arrived 10 minutes after the call they received at 22:41, there were already posters ready to distribute of that same photo.
Is this true - posters prepared 10 minutes after GNR arrived?
-
Luz
The first photograph is the one that is posted above.
Curiously,when the GNR arrived 10 minutes after the call they received at 22:41, there were already posters ready to distribute of that same photo.
Is this true - posters prepared 10 minutes after GNR arrived?
In a word, NO. Luz lies, yet again.
12-Processos Vol XII Pages 3259- 3260
Date 02-10-2007
Place: Ocean Club
Executing Officers: Paolo Ferreira and Ricardo Paiva
On this date, at 15.00 we went to the Ocean Club where we were received by the Maintenance and Service Manager, Silvia Baptista, and by the Mark Warner director, John Hill. We asked them to show us all the printers and photocopiers existing at the OC, which were operational at the time of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and that were used to print colour copies of Madeleines photo.
Silvia Baptista informed us that at the request of John Hill and his wife D****, hundreds of colour copies of a photo of Madeleine McCann were printed on 4th May 2007 with the aim of distributing them in Pda L and Lagos. For this purpose a colour photocopier, Toshiba, in the main OC reception was used as well as an HP laser printer, HP Color Laserjet 2840 located at a desk at the Ocean Country company, a colour laser printer Epsom Aculaser C1100 located on the desk of the administrative secretary and a colour laser printer HP Color Laserjet 1600 located on John Hills desk.
On his part, John Hill informed us that the printing of large quantities of Madeleines photo was carried out by himself with the help of his wife, at the request of Russell O'Brien, a member of the McCann's group of friends, John Hill stated that the photograph the colour prints were made from a mobile data disk of the 'memory stick' kind that Russell O'Brien gave him on the morning of 4th May.
They both stipulated that these were the only colour printers and photocopiers in existence at the Ocean Club and that there was no other place with the capacity for colour printing.
-
printed on 4th May 2007
it's very strange that luz keeps saying things that appear to be incorrect.
-
printed on 4th May 2007
it's very strange that luz keeps saying things that appear to be incorrect.
Not when you consider the context and the background.
She has a reputation for being careless with the truth to the point of stupidity and has the mindset of evil minded forker.
-
printed on 4th May 2007
it's very strange that luz keeps saying things that appear to be incorrect.
Not when you consider the context and the background.
She has a reputation for being careless with the truth to the point of stupidity and has the mindset of evil minded forker.
I would say "cite" - but it is not necessary in this case.
-
@Redblossom
Do you accept that the PJ issued a Press Release on 5th May 2007 detailing Madeleine's eye defect?
I did not know they had a press release on the eye defect, which would be at odds of their warning the Mccanns to not to release the information
I know their entry onto their own police site, (wonder what the traffic on that actually is) mentioned a brown spot, but that is miles away from a concerted worldwide media LOOK at my eye campaign is it not?
-
I did not know they had a press release on the eye defect,
it's a very convenient reply to most things.
-
Luz
The first photograph is the one that is posted above.
Curiously,when the GNR arrived 10 minutes after the call they received at 22:41, there were already posters ready to distribute of that same photo.
Is this true - posters prepared 10 minutes after GNR arrived?
I dont think so, but photos were printed at midnight and one gnr officer said he had seen posters that night but doesnt mention a time, that night would be sometime before the morning, dunno
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY-1.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NELSON-DA-COSTA.htm
-
Luz
The first photograph is the one that is posted above.
Curiously,when the GNR arrived 10 minutes after the call they received at 22:41, there were already posters ready to distribute of that same photo.
Is this true - posters prepared 10 minutes after GNR arrived?
I dont think so, but photos were printed at midnight and one gnr officer said he had seen posters that night but doesnt mention a time, that night would be sometime before the morning, dunno
but photos were printed at midnight
that was very quick wasn't it?
-
Redblossom - can you just remind me about the midnight posters and who it was that said that?
-
@Redblossom
Do you accept that the PJ issued a Press Release on 5th May 2007 detailing Madeleine's eye defect?
I did not know they had a press release on the eye defect, which would be at odds of their warning the Mccanns to not to release the information
I know their entry onto their own police site, (wonder what the traffic on that actually is) mentioned a brown spot, but that is miles away from a concerted worldwide media LOOK at my eye campaign is it not?
Did they warn the McCanns or was this another myth
-
Redblossom - can you just remind me about the midnight posters and who it was that said that?
I never said anything about midnight posters
Midnight photos but posters seen sometime that night
-
and one gnr officer said he had seen posters that night but doesnt mention a time, that night would be sometime before the morning, dunno
who?
-
@Redblossom
Do you accept that the PJ issued a Press Release on 5th May 2007 detailing Madeleine's eye defect?
I did not know they had a press release on the eye defect, which would be at odds of their warning the Mccanns to not to release the information
I know their entry onto their own police site, (wonder what the traffic on that actually is) mentioned a brown spot, but that is miles away from a concerted worldwide media LOOK at my eye campaign is it not?
Did they warn the McCanns or was this another myth
I have personally not seen a quote from police telling them NOT to publicise the coloboma, not that I have looked for it, but have read Gerrys words in a magazine interview saying although it was a risky strategy it was a good marketing ploy
-
and one gnr officer said he had seen posters that night but doesnt mention a time, that night would be sometime before the morning, dunno
who?
Scroll back i edited with links
-
@Redblossom
Do you accept that the PJ issued a Press Release on 5th May 2007 detailing Madeleine's eye defect?
I did not know they had a press release on the eye defect, which would be at odds of their warning the Mccanns to not to release the information
I know their entry onto their own police site, (wonder what the traffic on that actually is) mentioned a brown spot, but that is miles away from a concerted worldwide media LOOK at my eye campaign is it not?
Did they warn the McCanns or was this another myth
I have personally not seen a quote from police telling them NOT to publicise the coloboma, not that I have looked for it, but have read Gerrys words in a magazine interview saying although it was a risky strategy it was a good marketing ploy
you did of course read the title of this topic:
Did the PJ advise against releasing identifying features relating to Maddy?
-
Did the PJ advise against releasing identifying features relating to Maddy?
-
So?its up to whoever said they were advised to cite this 8-)(--)
If it were a myth, we would have come across it ages ago
-
luz then
-
So?its up to whoever said they were advised to cite this
does that imply that people are being told what to say on here?
-
Soooo.
Without prolonging any arguments, do we agree that Amaral himself requested permission from the DA's office to publish details of the missing child, including the fleck in her eye on 4/5? And that the deputy DA gave permission on the same day?
-
luz then
I dont think Luz made up a lie here around the mccanns being told by police not to publicise the eye defect
I will do a bit of googling to find the source
-
So?its up to whoever said they were advised to cite this
does that imply that people are being told what to say on here?
No it doesnt, it means whoever says a certain thinghas to cite evidence, lol oh dear
-
luz then
I dont think Luz made up a lie here around the mccanns being told by police not to publicise the eye defect
I will do a bit of googling to find the source
wow 3 days later you will google - that's pretty impressive.
You have read the thread of course.
-
So?its up to whoever said they were advised to cite this
does that imply that people are being told what to say on here?
No it doesnt, it means whoever says a certain thinghas to cite evidence, lol oh dear
excellent - we will await luz cite then
-
Soooo.
Without prolonging any arguments, do we agree that Amaral himself requested permission from the DA's office to publish details of the missing child, including the fleck in her eye on 4/5? And that the deputy DA gave permission on the same day?
what is a da office?
-
Soooo.
Without prolonging any arguments, do we agree that Amaral himself requested permission from the DA's office to publish details of the missing child, including the fleck in her eye on 4/5? And that the deputy DA gave permission on the same day?
what is a da office?
do you mean a DA office?
-
So?its up to whoever said they were advised to cite this
does that imply that people are being told what to say on here?
No it doesnt, it means whoever says a certain thinghas to cite evidence, lol oh dear
excellent - we will await luz cite then
No, because luz didnt create the story, many other posters on here and elsewhere have said exactly the same, they might get their fingers out too to find the link, stop bullying
-
Soooo.
Without prolonging any arguments, do we agree that Amaral himself requested permission from the DA's office to publish details of the missing child, including the fleck in her eye on 4/5? And that the deputy DA gave permission on the same day?
what is a da office?
do you mean a DA office?
Da DA same thing, same letters same meaning no need to be peurile and pedantic
8)--))
-
So?its up to whoever said they were advised to cite this
does that imply that people are being told what to say on here?
No it doesnt, it means whoever says a certain thinghas to cite evidence, lol oh dear
excellent - we will await luz cite then
No, because luz didnt create the story, many other posters on here and elsewhere have said exactly the same, they might get their fingers out too to find the link, stop bullying
Look at the opening post.
That post was taken from another thread on here.
Luz brought it here.
-
Soooo.
Without prolonging any arguments, do we agree that Amaral himself requested permission from the DA's office to publish details of the missing child, including the fleck in her eye on 4/5? And that the deputy DA gave permission on the same day?
what is a da office?
do you mean a DA office?
The Deputy Prosecutor
Sandra Marques
-
The Deputy Prosecutor
Sandra Marques
---
Thanks, what did she say?
-
The Deputy Prosecutor
Sandra Marques
---
Thanks, what did she say?
2 pages up.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1420.msg40736#msg40736
-
The Deputy Prosecutor
Sandra Marques
---
Thanks, what did she say?
2 pages up.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1420.msg40736#msg40736
did she say publicise the eye defect?Cant see it
-
The Deputy Prosecutor
Sandra Marques
---
Thanks, what did she say?
2 pages up.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1420.msg40736#msg40736
did she say publicise the eye defect?Cant see it
She apparently agreed to the content that GA had suggested. There's no documentation to suggest otherwise. The PJ press release contained this detail.
-
and? Carana