Has the reward money for the safe return of Madeleine McCann been dropped?

[gilet]

 
I am sure that the McCanns and their advisers have discussed this subject at length. Since they were conned by Metodo, I am sure that their advisers have been better chosen. And quite possibly there has been input from Scotland Yard Officers on the subject. 

Clearly the decision has been not to do as you suggest. As for why that might be I don't know and I doubt anyone here does, but unlike some I am prepared to respect their decision about the actions they feel are right for their daughter.

The only reference I can find in Kate's book regarding advise about not offering a reward is her mention of  'Hugh' from Control Risks telling her that a reward would  'put a price on Madeleine's head'

Which left me confused   ...  to my thinking,   a reward would  'put a price' on the abductor's head,  not Madeleine's

Thankfully I can work the quotes out.

Why do you think that all the advice they have receieved would be in the book?  I never mentioned the book.

All I know is that in Kate's version of the truth  (  her description of the book )  she only mentions  'Hugh'  from Control Risks as advising her against offering a reward

...  because offering a reward would  'put a price on Madeleine's head'

Don't you find that odd ?  ...  saying that a reward would put a price on Madeleine's head rather than putting a price on the abductor's head  ?

Not even remotely odd.

Rewards are not a panacea. In fact I doubt that they have solved many missing child situations. Personally I can't think of any, can you?

But I can understand that setting a reward, particularly a very high reward may in fact scare an abductor who was hiding a child and cause that person to ensure that the child is never found.

As I have said before, I am sure that the McCanns have discussed these factors at length with the experts and I am prepared to recognise that I have no expertise in the matter and respect their decision. Clearly you are not.

The question I asked was,  do you not find it odd that this  'expert'  used the phrase   "a reward would put a price on Madeleine's head"  

Any reward would, in truth,  'put a price'  on the abductor's head  ...  do you not agree ?

Did you not read my response. I answered you fully.

But just for you I will set it out in simpler terms.

I understand completely how such a reward, particularly a large reward could scare the abductor.  Such a scare could panic the abductor. That could ensure that the abductor was sufficiently scared to harm Madeleine, maybe even kill her.

That is how I understand the phrase putting a price on her head.

It is a reference back to the rewards of the "wild west" where the price was on someone's head, dead or alive.

Do try to follow more carefully.

[icabodcrane]

 
I am sure that the McCanns and their advisers have discussed this subject at length. Since they were conned by Metodo, I am sure that their advisers have been better chosen. And quite possibly there has been input from Scotland Yard Officers on the subject. 

Clearly the decision has been not to do as you suggest. As for why that might be I don't know and I doubt anyone here does, but unlike some I am prepared to respect their decision about the actions they feel are right for their daughter.

The only reference I can find in Kate's book regarding advise about not offering a reward is her mention of  'Hugh' from Control Risks telling her that a reward would  'put a price on Madeleine's head'

Which left me confused   ...  to my thinking,   a reward would  'put a price' on the abductor's head,  not Madeleine's

Thankfully I can work the quotes out.

Why do you think that all the advice they have receieved would be in the book?  I never mentioned the book.

All I know is that in Kate's version of the truth  (  her description of the book )  she only mentions  'Hugh'  from Control Risks as advising her against offering a reward

...  because offering a reward would  'put a price on Madeleine's head'

Don't you find that odd ?  ...  saying that a reward would put a price on Madeleine's head rather than putting a price on the abductor's head  ?

Not even remotely odd.

Rewards are not a panacea. In fact I doubt that they have solved many missing child situations. Personally I can't think of any, can you?

But I can understand that setting a reward, particularly a very high reward may in fact scare an abductor who was hiding a child and cause that person to ensure that the child is never found.

As I have said before, I am sure that the McCanns have discussed these factors at length with the experts and I am prepared to recognise that I have no expertise in the matter and respect their decision. Clearly you are not.

The question I asked was,  do you not find it odd that this  'expert'  used the phrase   "a reward would put a price on Madeleine's head"  

Any reward would, in truth,  'put a price'  on the abductor's head  ...  do you not agree ?

Did you not read my response. I answered you fully.

But just for you I will set it out in simpler terms.

I understand completely how such a reward, particularly a large reward could scare the abductor.  Such a scare could panic the abductor. That could ensure that the abductor was sufficiently scared to harm Madeleine, maybe even kill her.

That is how I understand the phrase putting a price on her head.

It is a reference back to the rewards of the "wild west" where the price was on someone's head, dead or alive.

Do try to follow more carefully.

Gerry McCann was warned that emphasizing Madeleine's coloboma could put her life at risk  ...  he even acknowledged himself that they knew there was a risk, and that the abductor  "might do something to her eye " 

That is by the by  though,  the point here is that Kate was convinced by an  'expert'  that offering a reward equated with   'putting a price on Madeleine's head'  ...  whereas  most of us  (  not you, clearly )  ...  but  most  of us, would say that a reward would  'put a price'  on the abductor's head

The money  ( reward )  would be offered to anyone who was prepared to  'turn him in'    ...  the price was on  his  head,  not Madeleine's 

[gilet]

 
I am sure that the McCanns and their advisers have discussed this subject at length. Since they were conned by Metodo, I am sure that their advisers have been better chosen. And quite possibly there has been input from Scotland Yard Officers on the subject. 

Clearly the decision has been not to do as you suggest. As for why that might be I don't know and I doubt anyone here does, but unlike some I am prepared to respect their decision about the actions they feel are right for their daughter.

The only reference I can find in Kate's book regarding advise about not offering a reward is her mention of  'Hugh' from Control Risks telling her that a reward would  'put a price on Madeleine's head'

Which left me confused   ...  to my thinking,   a reward would  'put a price' on the abductor's head,  not Madeleine's

Thankfully I can work the quotes out.

Why do you think that all the advice they have receieved would be in the book?  I never mentioned the book.

All I know is that in Kate's version of the truth  (  her description of the book )  she only mentions  'Hugh'  from Control Risks as advising her against offering a reward

...  because offering a reward would  'put a price on Madeleine's head'

Don't you find that odd ?  ...  saying that a reward would put a price on Madeleine's head rather than putting a price on the abductor's head  ?

Not even remotely odd.

Rewards are not a panacea. In fact I doubt that they have solved many missing child situations. Personally I can't think of any, can you?

But I can understand that setting a reward, particularly a very high reward may in fact scare an abductor who was hiding a child and cause that person to ensure that the child is never found.

As I have said before, I am sure that the McCanns have discussed these factors at length with the experts and I am prepared to recognise that I have no expertise in the matter and respect their decision. Clearly you are not.

The question I asked was,  do you not find it odd that this  'expert'  used the phrase   "a reward would put a price on Madeleine's head"  

Any reward would, in truth,  'put a price'  on the abductor's head  ...  do you not agree ?

Did you not read my response. I answered you fully.

But just for you I will set it out in simpler terms.

I understand completely how such a reward, particularly a large reward could scare the abductor.  Such a scare could panic the abductor. That could ensure that the abductor was sufficiently scared to harm Madeleine, maybe even kill her.

That is how I understand the phrase putting a price on her head.

It is a reference back to the rewards of the "wild west" where the price was on someone's head, dead or alive.

Do try to follow more carefully.

Gerry McCann was warned that emphasizing Madeleine's coloboma could put her life at risk  ...  he even acknowledged himself that they knew there was a risk, and that the abductor  "might do something to her eye " 

That is by the by  though,  the point here is that Kate was convinced by an  'expert'  that offering a reward equated with   'putting a price on Madeleine's head'  ...  whereas  most of us  (  not you, clearly )  ...  but  most  of us, would say that a reward would  'put a price'  on the abductor's head

The money  ( reward )  would be offered to anyone who was prepared to  'turn him in'    ...  the price was on  his  head,  not Madeleine's

But having seen the PJ put the information about the Coloboma into the public domain he then chose to make the very best he could of that bad situation and turn the coloboma into a strong focus. The damage was done by tbe PJ not Gerry.

I have explained my thinking on the issue of the reward.

You clearly do not agree.

That is one person with each view.

Your claim that most people agree with you is presumptious bilge with no evidence for it.

It is perfectly possible that Kate McCann was warned that putting up a big reward would put a price on her own child's head as being a threat to the child.

You actually have no idea whether that is true or not. I maintain it is possible, your position is that it simply is not possible.

But to then claim that you have a majority on your side in the argument is facile and silly.

[icabodcrane]

Well,  I believe,  at this point,   the McCanns have nothing to lose by offering a huge reward  ...  I mean, how could things be any worse  ?

I don't think their wealthy supporters  ( like JK Rowling,  who offered a million  )  would back out now if the McCanns asked them if their reward offers still stood

So they offer a huge reward  (  two and a half million pounds  at the last count  )  and they aggressively promote it abroad  ...  taking out full page adds in the foreign press saying    "3,000,000 euros for the return ofour  little girl ... no questions asked" 

That might,  just  might  lead to some lowlife grassing on a fellow lowlife,  and Madeleine being rescued as a result

It's worth a shot ...  isn't it  ? 

[gilet]

Well,  I believe,  at this point,   the McCanns have nothing to lose by offering a huge reward  ...  I mean, how could things be any worse  ?

I don't think their wealthy supporters  ( like JK Rowling,  who offered a million  )  would back out now if the McCanns asked them if their reward offers still stood

So they offer a huge reward  (  two and a half million pounds  at the last count  )  and they aggressively promote it abroad  ...  taking out full page adds in the foreign press saying    "3,000,000 euros for the return ofour  little girl ... no questions asked" 

That might,  just  might  lead to some lowlife grassing on a fellow lowlife,  and Madeleine being rescued as a result

It's worth a shot ...  isn't it  ?

And your belief is yours. Clearly it does not tally with the belief of the McCanns who have expert advice both from independent advisors and the police.

I know who I side with on the matter and it is not an amateur on a small forum.

[AnneGuedes]

But having seen the PJ put the information about the Coloboma into the public domain he then chose to make the very best he could of that bad situation and turn the coloboma into a strong focus. The damage was done by tbe PJ not Gerry.

How can the PJ advise not to turn public the coloboma and put this information in the public domain ? Have you a link ?

[gilet]

But having seen the PJ put the information about the Coloboma into the public domain he then chose to make the very best he could of that bad situation and turn the coloboma into a strong focus. The damage was done by tbe PJ not Gerry.

How can the PJ advise not to turn public the coloboma and put this information in the public domain ? Have you a link ?

Yes.

The specific word was not used but in a press release just two days after the disappearance the PJ referred to the clear marking in the eye.



Now I have shown you respect and given the evidence you asked for only 7 minutes ago, could you reciprocate please and show me the same respect by giving the evidence I asked from you almost an hour ago on the fund thread?

[icabodcrane]

Well,  I believe,  at this point,   the McCanns have nothing to lose by offering a huge reward  ...  I mean, how could things be any worse  ?

I don't think their wealthy supporters  ( like JK Rowling,  who offered a million  )  would back out now if the McCanns asked them if their reward offers still stood

So they offer a huge reward  (  two and a half million pounds  at the last count  )  and they aggressively promote it abroad  ...  taking out full page adds in the foreign press saying    "3,000,000 euros for the return ofour  little girl ... no questions asked" 

That might,  just  might  lead to some lowlife grassing on a fellow lowlife,  and Madeleine being rescued as a result

It's worth a shot ...  isn't it  ?

And your belief is yours. Clearly it does not tally with the belief of the McCanns who have expert advice both from independent advisors and the police.

I know who I side with on the matter and it is not an amateur on a small forum.

You don't think it's  worth a try  ?

Even this far down the line when everything else has come to a dead end  and Madeleine might be languishing in some hell-hole in the hands of a beast ? 

It's not worth at least  trying  ?

[AnneGuedes]

Even this far down the line when everything else has come to a dead end  and Madeleine might be languishing in some hell-hole in the hands of a beast ? 

It's not worth at least  trying  ?

Of course it is, perdu pour perdu ! I'm not sure she's "in the hands of a beast", though, the man seemed to carry her delicately and all witnesses thought he was a father carrying his child.

[gilet]

Well,  I believe,  at this point,   the McCanns have nothing to lose by offering a huge reward  ...  I mean, how could things be any worse  ?

I don't think their wealthy supporters  ( like JK Rowling,  who offered a million  )  would back out now if the McCanns asked them if their reward offers still stood

So they offer a huge reward  (  two and a half million pounds  at the last count  )  and they aggressively promote it abroad  ...  taking out full page adds in the foreign press saying    "3,000,000 euros for the return ofour  little girl ... no questions asked" 

That might,  just  might  lead to some lowlife grassing on a fellow lowlife,  and Madeleine being rescued as a result

It's worth a shot ...  isn't it  ?

And your belief is yours. Clearly it does not tally with the belief of the McCanns who have expert advice both from independent advisors and the police.

I know who I side with on the matter and it is not an amateur on a small forum.

You don't think it's  worth a try  ?

Even this far down the line when everything else has come to a dead end  and Madeleine might be languishing in some hell-hole in the hands of a beast ? 

It's not worth at least  trying  ?

My personal view is irrelevant. I have no particular expertise in this field and would wish to be guided by experts and not just rely on my emotional reactions and amateur instincts which might edge towards trying a reward and which might be the wrong decision.

I know that the McCanns are advised by experts including SY detectives and former detectives and I respect their decision.

I think many would probably agree with my viewpoint though I won't either suggest with any certainty that it might be a majority or claim it definitely is a majority (as you did).

[AnneGuedes]

The specific word was not used but in a press release just two days after the disappearance the PJ referred to the clear marking in the eye.

Many thanks, Gilet, I had no idea. The word everybody ignored before isn't there and there's no special emphasis. As her mother said, you had to be very close to notice it.
You'll admit that this press release is entitled "disappearance of a minor" and not "abduction of a minor". At that stage they did hope she could be found.

[gilet]

Even this far down the line when everything else has come to a dead end  and Madeleine might be languishing in some hell-hole in the hands of a beast ? 

It's not worth at least  trying  ?

Of course it is, perdu pour perdu ! I'm not sure she's "in the hands of a beast", though, the man seemed to carry her delicately and all witnesses thought he was a father carrying his child.

Nothing to lose?  There could be everything to lose even at this late stage.

I still prefer to respect the decision of the parents who have access to expert advice and the fullest knowledge of the case over a couple of amateur forum posters one of whom at least claimed only yesterday not to have followed the case in any great detail.

[icabodcrane]

My personal view is irrelevant. I have no particular expertise in this field and would wish to be guided by experts and not just rely on my emotional reactions and amateur instincts which might edge towards trying a reward and which might be the wrong decision.

I know that the McCanns are advised by experts including SY detectives and former detectives and I respect their decision.

I think many would probably agree with my viewpoint though I won't either suggest with any certainty that it might be a majority or claim it definitely is a majority (as you did).

But it is  your view I am enquiring after

I know  that the McCanns don't think it's worth a try  ...  but you are not here as  their spokesperson, and you are allowed to have an independent  opinion of your own

What is it ?

[gilet]

The specific word was not used but in a press release just two days after the disappearance the PJ referred to the clear marking in the eye.

Many thanks, Gilet, I had no idea. The word everybody ignored before isn't there and there's no special emphasis. As her mother said, you had to be very close to notice it.
You'll admit that this press release is entitled "disappearance of a minor" and not "abduction of a minor". At that stage they did hope she could be found.

I have no doubt that an abductor would have been very close to the child, close enough to see the mark and to realise that the police were making it public.

I take the title of this release as a potential indication that the police were treating the case quite open-mindedly but have in the past seen other indications to suggest some among them may not have been.

[Chinagirl]

But it is  your view I am enquiring after

I know  that the McCanns don't think it's worth a try  ...  but you are not here as  their spokesperson, and you are allowed to have an independent  opinion of your own

What is it ?

 This is a goading comment.  Gilet has made it perfectly clear in previous posts that amateur opinion on this matter is irrelevant, so it is pointless and offensive to continue pressing this member for his/her personal opinion.