The Portuguese police and Madeleine McCann's eye defect.

[Brietta]

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?

Whatever the risk to the child or missing person, identifying features must be advertised simply because there is no alternative.

People who kidnap children come into many categories but very seldom commit the offence because of concern for the child.

When, as in Madeleine's case there is no evidence the child has been killed and the remains disposed of the living child has to be looked for.  People need to know what the missing child looks like hence publicity and age progressed photographs.

In the link provided below, the five rescues were accomplished as a direct result of members of the public and police being aware that the children were missing.  As a result of an Amber Alert being issued the recoveries were all accomplished in the shortest possible time.
Who knows when or if they would ever have been recovered but for the publicity.

**Snip
According to Robert Hoever of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, about 95% of Amber Alerts are resolved within 72 hours.

Robert, who is Director of Special Programs at the NCEMC, told Upworthy, "You can definitely see a huge change in how fast children are recovered today. The technology out there today helps."

In addition to wireless alerts, his organization also partners to issue alerts via Internet service providers, search engines, Internet ad exchanges, and even digital billboards.
And, Robert adds, if you ever find yourself in a situation like this, with any sort of information about a missing child, call 911 before you do anything. Emergency personnel will be able to help you navigate the situation.

We see a lot of Amber Alerts go viral, which is great, but we don't often get to see the happy endings.

Sadly, not every Amber Alert ends with a reunion. But the more we share these alerts with our networks, the more people they reach and the more likely they are to be seen by the right people.

In the meantime, it's comforting to know that most of these kids eventually make it home safely.
http://www.upworthy.com/5-incredible-stories-of-missing-kids-that-were-rescued-in-the-nick-of-time

[Alfred R Jones]

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.

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.

So, how do you perceive that highlighting the eye defect thing gave the McCanns an advantage then?

[mercury]

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

[Brietta]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

and who gave their permission for it to happen ?

[G-Unit]

So, how do you perceive that highlighting the eye defect thing gave the McCanns an advantage then?

You need to ask Gerry why he used the word 'ploy', I think, not me.

[G-Unit]

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.

It also mentioned the birthmark on her leg. The details were given by the parents and the police used them. Both features had equal coverage, it was the family who emphasised the 'coloboma' and produced the 'look' posters, not the police. It was the family who told The Lancet that she had a coloboma. It was the family who released a multitude of photographs showing something exactly like a coloboma. Which later became a 'fleck'. Was it simply a marketing ploy to keep the 'product' in the public eye?

Small-business owners can use marketing ploys to promote their products or services. Generally, marketing ploys entail using a gimmick or clever angle to push your company’s product
http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/marketing-ploy-8689.html

[stephen25000]

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.

[Lace]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[Lace]

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.

[stephen25000]

In this case it was all about giving something to receive an outcome such as the whereabouts of his child.

That is a matter of opinion.

I wonder how many people would refer to a physical characteristic of their child as a 'good marketing ploy', if their child disappeared ?

[G-Unit]

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.

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.

[Admin]

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."

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?

[Lace]

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.

Well if who ever had her was looking for a large mark in her eye then Madeleine didn't have one.   The McCann's said someone would have to get right up close to notice the mark in Madeleine's eye and so it would be a very good way of determining whether the child was Madeleine or not.

It wasn't an obvious mark,  so can't imagine anyone doing anything to her eye and Gerry must have thought this too.

If someone did something to Madeleine's eye wouldn't it have to be treated in a hospital?   Then the girl would have been noticed wouldn't she?