Are Amaral's views the best for a missing child case?

[Mo Stache]

Thanks Luz, I remember that part, Gerry being warned not publicise the eye defect but went ahead anyway despite thnking the abductor mght do somethng to it!! Because it was a good marketing ploy, bizarre thnking IMO

Thanks Mostache, all very complicated..but I wouldnt really take every thing uttered at Leveson as the gospel truth....too many parties with too many agendas vyng there imo

Would you agree or disagree that, because many distrusted the McCann's and hence would have distrusted their appeals, that it would have been better for the PJ police to have run the appeals?

[gilet]

Only the McCann didn't see the press release that the PJ made early morning in the 4th of May, alerting for the disappearance of the child and with the exhibition of a picture, that was kept for months.
What the PJ condemned was the release of specific traits like the eye, the brown spot in one of the legs,...because it could lead the "abductor" to harm the child.

That is simply a myth that has been completely debunked.

You really should rely on facts rather than myth.

The eye defect was made public by the PJ in a press release within 48 hours of the disappearance.

[gilet]

The question is the use of public appeals by the police and the use or in this case, non use of it as a tool to help the investigation.
IF the PJ police had done the appeals I am sure they would have had a better response than the McCann's, as many were weary of the parents 'methods' from the word go.

Actually you make a crucial point there.

Many anti McCanns claim that one of their biggest bugbears is that the McCanns led the appeals.
But they completely ignore the fact that they had no option but to do so.
There were no TV appeals, no radio appeals from the Police in those early days.

So the anti McCanns are actually blaming the McCanns for reacting to the inaction on the part of the PJ.

[Mo Stache]

Actually you make a crucial point there.

Many anti McCanns claim that one of their biggest bugbears is that the McCanns led the appeals.
But they completely ignore the fact that they had no option but to do so.
There were no TV appeals, no radio appeals from the Police in those early days.

So the anti McCanns are actually blaming the McCanns for reacting to the inaction on the part of the PJ.

Correct.

[AnneGuedes]

Somebody, suddenly omnipresent on this forum, seems not to  be aware that Common Law is different from Romano-Germanic Law, an issue that has been amply discussed.

[gilet]

And Madeleine wasnt found despite the same, you can argue the toss as much as you like, little comparison, between the two examples in any case and its hardly veiled this is another bash Amaral thread, tedious..enjoy though

You have clearly missed the rather important point that Amaral's comment is not just about the McCann case but about all such cases. And because of that, no matter how much you attempt to wriggle, the fact is that his comment relates directly to the Esme case. He is saying that in such a case the effort and finance in dealing with information coming in is not worth it. I say he is wrong. And this case proves he is wrong.

As for your comment that Madeleine was not found despite the publicity, that is a pathetic stance. Are you really suggesting that because some children are not found then no alerts should be issued, no massive publicity should be made when the next child goes missing.

Again this recent case of Esme proves just how sick that stance really is because you would have prevented that passer by recognising her and returning her to her family. Proud of that stance are you?

[Redblossom]

Would you agree or disagree that, because many distrusted the McCann's and hence would have distrusted their appeals, that it would have been better for the PJ police to have run the appeals?

Sorry but I dont remember the Mccanns being distrusted by the public  early on, it was the total opposite, they received enormous support and help for a good while

[Lyall]

Sorry but I dont remember the Mccanns being distrusted by the public  early on, it was the total opposite, they received enormous support and help for a good while

Correct Red

[Mo Stache]

Somebody, suddenly omnipresent on this forum, seems not to  be aware that Common Law is different from Romano-Germanic Law, an issue that has been amply discussed.

Yet that law made allowance for "a detective from Lisbon who specialized in investigating art thefts was brought in as a media liaison officer. Unfortunately he refused to confirm or deny any information that was put to him and was unable to give any guidance either on or off the record." So they took the steps to communicate with the media and still did not take the opportunity to do the appeals themselves. Remember; an appeal is not giving out investigative information, it's just giving a description of the missing person. Not something that would impair the investigation as such.

[Redblossom]

You have clearly missed the rather important point that Amaral's comment is not just about the McCann case but about all such cases. And because of that, no matter how much you attempt to wriggle, the fact is that his comment relates directly to the Esme case. He is saying that in such a case the effort and finance in dealing with information coming in is not worth it. I say he is wrong. And this case proves he is wrong.

As for your comment that Madeleine was not found despite the publicity, that is a pathetic stance. Are you really suggesting that because some children are not found then no alerts should be issued, no massive publicity should be made when the next child goes missing.

Again this recent case of Esme proves just how sick that stance really is because you would have prevented that passer by recognising her and returning her to her family. Proud of that stance are you?

Please dont twist my words, to suit your flawed argument, which I have answered in full, read back and join the dots, not my fault you cant figure it out, and resort to such indignation LOL, thanks in advance!
 

[AnneGuedes]

On the 4th of May 2007, the MP allowed the PJ to divulge the disappearance of Madeleine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm#p2p452

[gilet]

Somebody, suddenly omnipresent on this forum, seems not to  be aware that Common Law is different from Romano-Germanic Law, an issue that has been amply discussed.

What totally irrelevant tosh!

Amaral is not talking about law when he makes his comment. He is talking about the welfare of the child who has disappeared and the balance of that welfare with other things such as how much time his officers want to spend on dealing with certain kinds of information.

He states that he (and other PT police) believe that time and money (manpower hours) spent on dealing with information generated by public appeals in missing child cases is a waste of that time and money.

He is wrong.

And the proof that he is wrong comes in the form of recent case here in England where a child was found precisely because of that kind of information being handled efficiently and promptly by the two police forces involved.

[gilet]

Please dont twist my words, to suit your flawed argument, which I have answered in full, read back and join the dots, not my fault you cant figure it out, and resort to such indignation LOL, thanks in advance!
 

No matter that you pretend I have twisted your words, I have not and am certain that readers of this thread will come to that conclusion themselves.

You are trying to defend the indefensible, I'm afraid.

[gilet]

On the 4th of May 2007, the MP allowed the PJ to divulge the disappearance of Madeleine.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm#p2p452

Do you really think that constitutes a major appeal regarding a missing child?

Where are the details of the police making statements and appeals on Television for example?

Just as an aside, though, I thank you for reminding me where the PJ press release regarding the eye defect was. It was made within 48 hours of the disappearance as I stated in my reply to Luz, less than 48 hours after the disappearance. So much for the police not wanting it mentioned.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm#p1p33

[AnneGuedes]

Tipical and sad : lend to others what you should ascribe to you.