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

[gilet]

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.

[registrar]

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

[registrar]

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.

[icabodcrane]

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 )

[ferryman]

That quote (with use of the word marketing) is there somewhere.  I've read it myself.

[registrar]

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

[Eleanor]

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.

[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."

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.

[icabodcrane]

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  ?  )

[gilet]

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.

 

[muratfan]

You could try to..... god i hate rats

[icabodcrane]

You could try to..... god i hate rats

... best get off that sinking ship of yours then

[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."

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

[gilet]

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.

[muratfan]

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