The Drs McCann did not release the information about Madeleine's eye defect. That was a decision taken by the Policia Judiciaria who issued a press release on the 5th May.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02693/MADELEINE-MCCANN_2693399b.jpg)
There was no mention of Madeleine's eye defect when her parents spoke to the press at 10pm on previous night.
‘Words cannot describe the anguish and despair that we are feeling as the parents of our beautiful daughter Madeleine. We request that anyone who may have any information related to Madeleine’s disappearance, no matter how trivial, contact the Portuguese police and help us get her back safely. Please, if you have Madeleine, let her come home to her mummy, daddy, brother and sister. As everyone can understand how distressing the current situation is, we ask that our privacy is respected to allow us to continue assisting the police in their current investigation.’
From the PJ
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/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_32.jpg
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
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm#p2p452
01 Processos Vol I Page 33 B
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(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EuI5v3ynLxo/Ti_WYrFsn4I/AAAAAAAAI2M/m561Bh4Q3J0/s1600/kate%2Bwith%2Bposter.jpg)
In other words ... responsibility for putting the information about Madeleine's eye lies entirely with the Policia Judiciaria ... not with Madeleine's parents who it seems Vanity Fair have chosen to portray as being sanguine that it might lead to someone poking the eye out ???
But the details were authorised for dissemination.
And somehow this fact got forgotten by people in certain quarters.
i have no idea what that means. the PJ appeal said;
Right Eye : Green colour with a Brown spot in Retina
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm#p2p452
As told to them by the parents.
Philomena McCann quickly set up a website named 'bringmadeleinehome'. This predated the Find madeleine site set up on 10th May 2007.
What did Philomena draw attention to?
"Como sabréis mi sobrina, Madeleine, sigue desaparecida y estoy pidiéndoles a todos mis conocidos que envíen una carta cadena, es decir, mandársela a todo el que uno conozca y que a su vez hagan lo mismo, ya que la noticia sólo se conoce en Gran Bretaña, Irlanda y Portugal. No creemos que ella siga en Portugal y necesitamos que su fotografía y su noticia cruce toda Europa lo más rápido posible. Cualquier indicio será bienvenido.
Phil McCann"
(http://www.ompersonal.com.ar/sos/madeleine2.jpg)
MADELEINE'S EYE HOLDS VITAL CLUE
LA PISTA FUNDAMENTAL EN LOS OJOS DE MADELEINE
La familia de Madeleine McCann cree que esta nueva fotografía de su hija de cuatro años puede ser vital en su búsqueda. La foto de la chiquilla permite ver claramente un rasgo característico en su ojo derecho [where the pupil runs into the blue-green iris]. El nuevo cartel de Madeleine es una característica distintiva para reconocer a Madeleine por aquellos que la busquen, según sus tíos John y Diane McCann. La pareja de Glasgow tratará de repartir tan lejos como puedan el cartel con la descripción que incluye el teléfono de las fuerzas de seguridad. La Sra. McCann dijo: "La intención del cartel es resaltar la característica especial del ojo derecho de Madeleine. Queremos remarcarlo mucho, porque sabemos que le podrían cortar o teñir el pelo".
Portuguese Police on 00351 282 405 400
Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111
Web: www.bringmadeleinehome.com
Sorry, didn't see the request by Admin. Here's the best I can do;
MISSING CHILDREN
Have you seen this girl? ¿Have you seen this girl?
MADELEINE MCCANN
Abducted in Praia Da Luz, Portugal, on March 5, 2007
Abducted from Praia Da Luz, Portugal, on March 5, 2007
"As you know my niece, Madeleine, is still missing and I am asking everyone I know to send a chain letter, that is, send it to all you know and who in turn do the same, since the news only known Britain, Ireland and Portugal. we do not believe that she follow in Portugal and we need your picture and your story crossing throughout Europe as quickly as possible. Any hint is welcome.
Phil McCann "
MADELEINE'S EYE HOLDS VITAL CLUE
THE KEY TRACK IN THE EYES OF MADELEINE
The family of Madeleine McCann believes this new picture of her four years can be vital in your quest. The photo of the girl can clearly see a feature in his right eye [where the pupil runs into the blue-green iris]. The new poster of Madeleine is a distinctive feature to recognize Madeleine by those who seek it, as his uncles John and Diane McCann. The couple Glasgow try to spread as far as possible the poster with the description including your security forces. . Mrs McCann said. "The intention of the poster is to highlight the special feature of the right eye Madeleine We stress it a lot, because we know that you could cut or color your hair."
Portuguese Police on 00351 282 405 400
Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111
Web: www.bringmadeleinehome.com
I don't get the problem with Auntie Phil publicising it.
The fact that Amaral got a press release organised (which included that distinguishing feature) on 4 May is on my rather short list of things he got right.
Is anyone now saying that he got that wrong as well?
I think Carlos Anjos and Amaral got their wires crossed...
But Portuguese police, whose investigations usually operate in secret, always opposed the publicity and did not even want the child’s photograph to be distributed.
Mr Anjos told Radio 4’s Inside Stories programme: “We thought that the photos should not show the distinct mark Madeleine had in her eye.
“From our experience of criminal investigations, if this was a kidnap – which is what we believed from the start – the revealing of such a distinct feature would put that person’s life in danger.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492085/Madeleine-campaign-life-danger.html
And self-professed "profiler" Pat Brown may well have added "credibility" to this bizarre notion:
97764475486216192|Sun Jul 31 20:24:01 +0000 2011|If the McCanns wanted to find the child alive, why did they push a campaign showing her eye defect which would insure her death? #McCann
http://greptweet.com/u/profilerpatb/tweets.txt
It certainly seems to have been one of the myths designed to cast Madeleine's parents in the darkest possible light.
A contributor published on Joanna Morais blog on December 2007 ...
**Quote
3. Ignoring Advice not to Highlight Madeleine’s Eye Defect.
The parents ignored the clearest possible P.J. advice not to highlight Madeleine’s eye defect, the coloboma (an iris defect). If Madeleine were still alive, this would have put Madeleine at much greater risk of death. The parents’ conduct suggests they knew she was already dead. They deliberately ignored sound advice not to make Madeleine so recognisable that the abductors (if she was abducted) would have to kill her. All the publicity posters emphasising the coloboma, the announcement of all the sightings, and claims of being "right on the kidnappers" trail…all these actions put Madeleine at greater risk. end quote
Proof positive of the advice not to believe everything posted on the internet.
I was in a bit of a quandary about how to post that ... as it is clearly libellous; but then so much posted about Madeleine's case is just that or arrant nonsense.
It makes sense to give the police every bit of information you can. Does it make sense to publicise that information world-wide? I would be guided by the police on that. I think they often keep details about crimes back, so when people confess they can check if they know those details. if they don't, they're giving a wrong confession.
The coloboma/eye defect/fleck may have proved useful as a check when people reported sightings, had it not been publicised so widely. I find it quite astonishing what Kate Mccann told Piers Morgan, when every poster and appeal made a huge thing about the eye;
MORGAN: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.
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 it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but --
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1105/11/pmt.01.html
That one certainly did the rounds. Shock, horror. Blame The McCanns.
Whatever the police advised they seemed to be aware of the risks. Advertise the eye and risk an alive child being killed or maimed or don't advertise the eye and miss a good marketing ploy. Decisions, decisions. &%+((£
I expect we all have different opinions about which decision we would have taken.
Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.
Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/02/mccanns200802
Madeleine's eye defect; coloboma or fleck? I would have had that checked out, it's very close.
When to Contact a Medical Professional
Contact your health care provider if:
You notice that your child has what appears to be a hole in the iris or an unusual-shaped pupil.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003318.htm
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02075/maddie-sum_2075341b.jpg)
(http://content.science20.com/files/images/catseyecoloboma.jpg)
do you think the mccanns never looked into maddie's eye defect
If they had they would have known for sure if it was a coloboma or not. Gerry didn't think so;
That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris. I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems.
Gerald to Piers Morgan
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1105/11/pmt.01.html
I totally agree with Gerry..do you question Gerry's judgement
Why do you think that police agencies publicise distinguishing features? Would you find iit more helpful if missing people publicity did not mention any? Or are some okay? If so, which ones?
You asked me if they had it checked out. The father's words suggest not, because he can't say whether it is or is not a coloboma. He gives an opinion; what he 'thinks'. Had she been checked, diagnosed or cleared he surely would have said so. Had she had a coloboma it would have been spotted during early years health checks.So, how do you perceive that highlighting the eye defect thing gave the McCanns an advantage then?
To give the parents credit they never said she had one, it was the family. They didn't correct them, however. Perhaps because it was a good marketing ploy.
ploy;
a cunning plan or action designed to turn a situation to one's own advantage.
The Drs McCann did not release the information about Madeleine's eye defect. That was a decision taken by the Policia Judiciaria who issued a press release on the 5th May.
Yes they did, they made a meal out of it, then denied they had done so, keep up! All the info and links are here thanks to G Unit!
Lets not forget gerry mccann saying madeleine was born "almost perfect"...what a horrid way to speak of your newborn, why did he say that???!
What a total idiot. Pppfffft
If you take the trouble to read the requisite page in the files, you will see that Goncalo Amaral requested permission to issue a press release which included the information of the distinguishing feature of Madeleine's iris.
It is dated 4th May 2007.
So, how do you perceive that highlighting the eye defect thing gave the McCanns an advantage then?
If you take the trouble to read the requisite page in the files, you will see that Goncalo Amaral requested permission to issue a press release which included the information of the distinguishing feature of Madeleine's iris.
It is dated 4th May 2007.
You need to ask Gerry why he used the word 'ploy', I think, not me.
Ah yes, 'the good marketing ploy'.
What a way to talk about your missing daughter.
He was just trying everything to get his daughter back, he was desperate, stop trying to make out he didn't care about her, it shows that he was willing to do anything for her.
Not in my opinion.
A 'marketing ploy', is all about selling a product and making money.
In this case it was all about giving something to receive an outcome such as the whereabouts of his child.
He was just trying everything to get his daughter back, he was desperate, stop trying to make out he didn't care about her, it shows that he was willing to do anything for her.
A slightly more polished translation of the Spanish bits. Was there a reason it was in Spanish?
"As you know my niece, Madeleine, is still missing and I am asking everyone I know to send a chain letter, that is, send it to all you know and who in turn do the same, since the news is only known in Britain, Ireland and Portugal. We do not believe that she remains in Portugal and we need her picture and her story to cross all of Europe as quickly as possible. Any indication will be welcome.
Phil McCann."
THE KEY TRACK IN THE EYES OF MADELEINE
The family of Madeleine McCann believes this new picture of her at four years may be vital in her quest. The photo of the girl allows one to see clearly a feature in her right eye [where the pupil runs into the blue-green iris]. The new sign of Madeleine is a distinctive feature to recognize Madeleine by those who seek her, according to her uncle John and aunt Diane McCann. The couple from Glasgow will try to spread as far as possible the poster with the description which includes the phone number of the security forces. Mrs McCann said, "The intention of the poster is to highlight the special feature of the right eye of Madeleine We stress it a lot, because we know that you could cut or colour the hair."
The decision to use it was a hard one to make, because if she was alive it could have been her death warrant. Did the parents and family discuss it and agree that publicising her disappearance by using her 'unique feature' was worth the risk? What a terrible decision to have to make. How did they decide that the publicity value of using the eye defect outweighed the possibility of her being killed or maimed because of it? It's not a decision I would like to make, but if I did my child's possible survival would have been paramount. I would prefer her to survive than to be killed or maimed due to something I decided to do.
When he was asked about it he gave no clue as to the heartrending decision they had had to reach. He admits it could have led to her being harmed, but it was a good marketing ploy. This man tells us he has no evidence his daughter has been harmed and at the same time admits his actions may have led to harm. Still, if there's no evidence of it that's OK then.
You need to ask Gerry why he used the word 'ploy', I think, not me.I don't need to ask Gerry anything, it is you making a big deal about the word, and about the so-called marketing of the eye defect. So why do you think the perceived advantage for the McCanns was in promoting the eye defect, albeit for the short period of time that they did so?
I remember thinking at the time that promotion of this feature would endanger Madeleine had she been abducted and was still alive. It wasn't as if she would have been taken out shopping or to the cinema or the zoo. Surely this sort of information should only have been disseminated within the ranks of the various services searching for her, airport and port authorities etc?Surely facial features are instantly more recognisable, especially at a distance, than a small fleck in the eye? therefore issuing any pictures of a missing child potentially endangers them does it not, if abductors feel that they are holding onto a recognizable child?
The decision to use it was a hard one to make, because if she was alive it could have been her death warrant. Did the parents and family discuss it and agree that publicising her disappearance by using her 'unique feature' was worth the risk? What a terrible decision to have to make. How did they decide that the publicity value of using the eye defect outweighed the possibility of her being killed or maimed because of it? It's not a decision I would like to make, but if I did my child's possible survival would have been paramount. I would prefer her to survive than to be killed or maimed due to something I decided to do.
When he was asked about it he gave no clue as to the heartrending decision they had had to reach. He admits it could have led to her being harmed, but it was a good marketing ploy. This man tells us he has no evidence his daughter has been harmed and at the same time admits his actions may have led to harm. Still, if there's no evidence of it that's OK then.
Why would publicising her eye defect encourage anyone to kill her as opposed to leaving her somewhere alive?
Because she could identify her abductor. A hidden deceased child renders no evidence.
How would that differ when an Amber or other type of alert is issued?
Aren't Amber Alerts only used in the first hours after an abduction and only then when they meet a strict criteria?
Why would publicising her eye defect encourage anyone to kill her as opposed to leaving her somewhere alive?
Do you think that Amber or other types of missing person alerts should be abolished? If so, why? if not, why not?
I doubt an alert would have been issued in this case as it was impossible to confirm that an abduction had taken place and there was no confirmation that the person seen by Jane Tanner was the abductor and his description was very poor;
Law enforcement must confirm that an abduction has taken place.
The child must be at risk of serious injury or death.
There must be sufficient descriptive information of child, captor, or captor's vehicle to issue an alert.
The child must be under 18 years of age
By the time the PJ were called she could have been missing for three hours. 75% of children abducted by strangers are killed within the first three hours; in the US at least.
Studies disagree as to the effectiveness of the alerts.
In the worst abduction scenarios, the intentions of the perpetrator usually guarantee that anything public officials do will be "too slow".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMBER_Alert
A first point: what authoritative source states that "75% of children abducted by strangers are killed within the first three hours; in the US at least." ?
I doubt an alert would have been issued in this case as it was impossible to confirm that an abduction had taken place and there was no confirmation that the person seen by Jane Tanner was the abductor and his description was very poor;
Law enforcement must confirm that an abduction has taken place.
The child must be at risk of serious injury or death.
There must be sufficient descriptive information of child, captor, or captor's vehicle to issue an alert.
The child must be under 18 years of age
By the time the PJ were called she could have been missing for three hours. 75% of children abducted by strangers are killed within the first three hours; in the US at least.
Studies disagree as to the effectiveness of the alerts.
In the worst abduction scenarios, the intentions of the perpetrator usually guarantee that anything public officials do will be "too slow".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMBER_Alert
I provided a cite showing where I got my information from. I am not in the habit of making things up.
I wasn't suggesting that you had been making anything up, but I'm not sure which cite you're referring to concerning the "75% of children abducted by strangers are killed within the first three hours; in the US at least."
I wasn't suggesting that you had been making anything up, but I'm not sure which cite you're referring to concerning the "75% of children abducted by strangers are killed within the first three hours; in the US at least."
If you've read the article, you'll have seen it was reference 12
At the bottom of the wiki article are all the reference sources, listed numerically.
Thanks, Jassi.
Are you referring to this article from the Wiki entry?
Cold War technology helped save lives of abducted teens
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/05/ctv.alert/index.html
If so, I'm just as confused as to the kidnapped death statistics.
Here you are;
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, of the children abducted by strangers, 75% are killed within the first three hours in the USA.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMBER_Alert#Controversies
Thanks. I can't find that phrase within the cite. Could it have been an old one quoted elsewhere?
No. It's in the Wiki article and in the link which comes up if you press 12.
Somehow a finding in one study that 75% of abducted children who HAD been killed, were killed within 3 hours of their abduction
morphed into
75% of abducted children are killed within 3 hours.
A bit of a difference. Particularly if it's your child who's missing.
A sharp (and important) distinction.
Good game this;according to that report over a million children are abducted by strangers each year in the US. And if 75% of all abducted children are killed within 3 hours as you suggest then that also means over a million children are murdered each year in the US alone. Surely shome mishtake?
* 75% of kidnapped children are murdered within three hours of their abduction
http://www.lindenhurststrangerdanger.com/?page_id=2
Good game this;
* 75% of kidnapped children are murdered within three hours of their abduction
http://www.lindenhurststrangerdanger.com/?page_id=2
Statistics are a minefield of correct, rubbish, made up and questionable
Lets get back to the topic, The Mccanns believed that an abductor would NOT "poke her eye out" so embarked on the LOOK campaign...emphasising Madeleines coloboma, even if Kate Mccann told Piers Morgan thry never really made anythng of it.......that much is clear
Agreed. If you look hard enough (no pun intended) you can find statistics to say whatever you want them to say. It's clear the family launched a huge marketing campaign using the eye defect as it's unique selling point. If by chance an abductor had 'poked her eye out' imagine the guilt! First she's abducted because they weren't there 'at that moment' then she's injured because of their campaign.
Statistics are a minefield of correct, rubbish, made up and questionable
Lets get back to the topic, The Mccanns believed that an abductor would NOT "poke her eye out" so embarked on the LOOK campaign...emphasising Madeleines coloboma, even if Kate Mccann told Piers Morgan thry never really made anythng of it.......that much is clear
Amaral also organised submitting her details (including the eye fleck) for authorisation as a press release on 4 May.
And that's a point that I - and others - have mentioned as commendable.
Are the Amaral fans saying that he shouldn't have done so? If so, why?
The amaral bashing thread /deflection threads are over there >>>>>>
Agreed. If you look hard enough (no pun intended) you can find statistics to say whatever you want them to say. It's clear the family launched a huge marketing campaign using the eye defect as it's unique selling point. If by chance an abductor had 'poked her eye out' imagine the guilt! First she's abducted because they weren't there 'at that moment' then she's injured because of their campaign.So if someone abducts and injures her it wouldn't be his fault?
Amaral also organised submitting her details (including the eye fleck) for authorisation as a press release on 4 May.
And that's a point that I - and others - have mentioned as commendable.
Are the Amaral fans saying that he shouldn't have done so? If so, why?
There's a world of difference between the PJ press release and the Look campaign, as is obvious if you compare them. One contains factual details in a rather low key manner. The other screams 'Look for Me' and highlights the eye defect to the exclusion of all else.
There's a world of difference between the PJ press release and the Look campaign, as is obvious if you compare them. One contains factual details in a rather low key manner. The other screams 'Look for Me' and highlights the eye defect to the exclusion of all else.Can we please have a link to the campaign you are referring to?
So if someone abducts and injures her it wouldn't be his fault?
Can we please have a link to the campaign you are referring to?
If you look at the first two pages of the thread you can compare the PJ release with the posters and press releases showing the 'Look' campaign.then you are wrong about the campaign being about the eye defect to the exclusion of all else. The posters ask "have you seen me?" accompanied by pictures of Madeleine neither of which focus on her eye defect, and graphics which do highlight it, but which you would have to have had foreknowledge of to understand what the graphic represented. I agree it was a bit gimmicky but to say that nothing else about Madeleine was featured in the campaign is wrong IMO.
It's a bit more complicated than that.As opposed to a huge campaign which asks everyone to look closely at the face of a missing child without an eye defect? The abductor wouldn't panic in those circumstances?
Many people are alcoholics or gamblers. It's their own fault. Family sometimes facilitate their behaviour, however, for various reasons. The addiction can't be blamed on the facilitator, but they do make it easier for the addicted person to continue their misguided behaviour.
Some people abduct children. It's their own fault. Leaving children home alone makes it easier for an abductor to satisfy his/her needs. The abduction can't be blamed on those who left the child unsafe, but they made it easier for the abductor to achieve his/her aims. The abductor then sees a huge media campaign asking everyone to 'look' at children's eyes. He or she has a look at the abducted child's eyes and panics. He/she kills or maims the child.
If (please God) whoever took Madeleine had no intention of harming her, advertising Madeleine's eye-blemish certainly won't convince them to change their mind.
If the opposite, then highlighting the eye-blemish or not will make no difference.
The decision to advertise was justified through-and-through ....
So you think that publicising the fact that the child you've got has a unique eye detail which will remain with her after she's grown enough to be unrecognisable by any other means wouldn't be seen by the abductor as a problem? They wouldn't be at all worried that they have to be always on guard in case questions are asked about the eye? Pah!Is it highly unusual for families of missing people to publicise any detail that might make their loved one more noticeable to the public? If so, what do you think the McCanns were playing at, considering you believe They already knew Madeleine was mouldering away in a corner of portugal by this time? How do the McCanns actually gain from highlighting the eye defect?
So you think that publicising the fact that the child you've got has a unique eye detail which will remain with her after she's grown enough to be unrecognisable by any other means wouldn't be seen by the abductor as a problem? They wouldn't be at all worried that they have to be always on guard in case questions are asked about the eye? Pah!On this basis you must also be strenuously against age progression pictures, and basically any publicity at all for missing children. Better for the child if no one has a clue what it looks like in case the abductor gets spooked that his captive will be recognised, yah or pah?
It's a bit more complicated than that.
Many people are alcoholics or gamblers. It's their own fault. Family sometimes facilitate their behaviour, however, for various reasons. The addiction can't be blamed on the facilitator, but they do make it easier for the addicted person to continue their misguided behaviour.
Some people abduct children. It's their own fault. Leaving children home alone makes it easier for an abductor to satisfy his/her needs. The abduction can't be blamed on those who left the child unsafe, but they made it easier for the abductor to achieve his/her aims. The abductor then sees a huge media campaign asking everyone to 'look' at children's eyes. He or she has a look at the abducted child's eyes and panics. He/she kills or maims the child.
He/she, the abductor hadn't already notice then?
According to Kate McCann it wasn't all that noticeable. You had to be very close to her to see it, so not something that would have leapt out at you.
@jassi-snap!
On this basis you must also be strenuously against age progression pictures, and basically any publicity at all for missing children. Better for the child if no one has a clue what it looks like in case the abductor gets spooked that his captive will be recognised, yah or pah?Well?
So no need to panic, then.
Publicising an identifying characteristic is no guarantee that it will be of any use if it is ignored by police when reported by a member of the public who may have seen a corresponding mark.
**Snip
Referred to as the "mark of Madeleine" the blemish on the four-year-old's right eye has played a key part in the campaign to highlight her disappearance, emphasised in posters and videos.
It was at the centre of the latest possible sighting of her. Dutch student Melissa Fiering says she saw a girl who looked like Madeleine McCann at a service station in the South of France.
She believed it was the youngster, who went missing from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz last May, because she had a dark smudge on her right iris. However, police examining CCTV evidence have determined it was not the missing girl.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7256513.stm
It seems Ricardo Paiva was not alone in having a 'not relevant' mentality. One can only wonder why looking at CCTV footage of this little girl was sufficient for the French police to rule her out given the close look the witness had of her eye.
**Snip
While French police have ruled out the latest "sighting" of Madeleine, given the rareness of the eye defect it's perhaps not surprising Ms Fiering believed she had seen the missing girl.
"I looked in her eye because I'd seen on TV that Madeleine's got a defect in her right iris and I saw this girl had it," she told the Daily Mirror. "I could hardly believe my eyes, but I knew for sure it was her."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7256513.stm
According to Goncalo Amaral ... Joana is dead ... Madeleine is dead.
Based on what???
In the absence of evidence to support that assertion in both cases ... based solely on his opinion.
There has been a culture of denial of the possibility of Madeleine's survival among those who support him.
One of the ways of promoting this is the the derision directed at each and every possible sighting of the missing child.
Even those which occurred early into her disappearance and in the area from which she disappeared.
In my opinion it amounts to a 'cult of death'. One wonders how much of that attitude was transferred across borders into France. What could influence police to ignore an eye witness sighting as the French police did other than a belief it wasn't worth the bother of checking out because the child was dead.