Did the PJ advise against releasing identifying features relating to Maddy?

[Luz]

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.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

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]

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.

[amaraltheofficeboy]

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.

[Carana]

@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?

[Carana]

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

[Jean-Pierre]

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"

[DCI]

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. >@@(*&)

[Carana]

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...

[Carana]

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.

[Admin]

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?

[Luz]

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/


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”»

[Luz]

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.

[Luz]

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.

[icabodcrane]

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 ?