The Portuguese police and Madeleine McCann's eye defect.

[Mr Gray]

Agreed. If you look hard enough (no pun intended) you can find statistics to say whatever you want them to say. It's clear the family launched a huge marketing campaign using the eye defect as it's unique selling point. If by chance an abductor had 'poked her eye out' imagine the guilt! First she's abducted because they weren't there 'at that moment' then she's injured because of their campaign.

Why would an abductor poke her eye out ...to make her less noticeable

[Carana]

Statistics are a minefield of correct, rubbish, made up and questionable

Lets get back to the topic, The Mccanns believed that an abductor would NOT "poke her eye out" so embarked on the LOOK campaign...emphasising Madeleines coloboma, even if Kate Mccann told Piers Morgan thry never really made anythng of it.......that much is clear

Amaral also organised submitting her details (including the eye fleck) for authorisation as a press release on 4 May.

And that's a point that I - and others - have mentioned as commendable.

Are the Amaral fans saying that he shouldn't have done so? If so, why?

[mercury]

Yes GU

Thy felt guilty for not being there "at that moment"

A bizarre statement,but thats GerryMccanns signature, bizarre.........

[mercury]

Amaral also organised submitting her details (including the eye fleck) for authorisation as a press release on 4 May.

And that's a point that I - and others - have mentioned as commendable.

Are the Amaral fans saying that he shouldn't have done so? If so, why?

The amaral bashing thread /deflection threads are over there >>>>>>

[Mr Gray]

The amaral bashing thread /deflection threads are over there >>>>>>

yes...this is the mccann bashing thread

[Alfred R Jones]

Agreed. If you look hard enough (no pun intended) you can find statistics to say whatever you want them to say. It's clear the family launched a huge marketing campaign using the eye defect as it's unique selling point. If by chance an abductor had 'poked her eye out' imagine the guilt! First she's abducted because they weren't there 'at that moment' then she's injured because of their campaign.

So if someone abducts and  injures her it wouldn't be his fault?

[G-Unit]

Amaral also organised submitting her details (including the eye fleck) for authorisation as a press release on 4 May.

And that's a point that I - and others - have mentioned as commendable.

Are the Amaral fans saying that he shouldn't have done so? If so, why?

There's a world of difference between the PJ press release and the Look campaign, as is obvious if you compare them. One contains factual details in a rather low key manner. The other screams 'Look for Me' and highlights the eye defect to the exclusion of all else.

[Mr Gray]

There's a world of difference between the PJ press release and the Look campaign, as is obvious if you compare them. One contains factual details in a rather low key manner. The other screams 'Look for Me' and highlights the eye defect to the exclusion of all else.

I think a child with her eye poked out might attract quite a lot of attention

[Alfred R Jones]

There's a world of difference between the PJ press release and the Look campaign, as is obvious if you compare them. One contains factual details in a rather low key manner. The other screams 'Look for Me' and highlights the eye defect to the exclusion of all else.

Can we please have a link to the campaign you are referring to?

[G-Unit]

So if someone abducts and  injures her it wouldn't be his fault?

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Many people are alcoholics or gamblers. It's their own fault. Family sometimes facilitate their behaviour, however, for various reasons. The addiction can't be blamed on the facilitator, but they do make it easier for the addicted person to continue their misguided behaviour.

Some people abduct children. It's their own fault. Leaving children home alone makes it easier for an abductor to satisfy his/her needs. The abduction can't be blamed on those who left the child unsafe, but they made it easier for the abductor to achieve his/her aims. The abductor then sees a huge media campaign asking everyone to 'look' at children's eyes. He or she has a look at the abducted child's eyes and panics. He/she kills or maims the child.

[G-Unit]

Can we please have a link to the campaign you are referring to?

If you look at the first two pages of the thread you can compare the PJ release with the posters and press releases showing the 'Look' campaign.

[Alfred R Jones]

If you look at the first two pages of the thread you can compare the PJ release with the posters and press releases showing the 'Look' campaign.

then you are wrong about the campaign being about the eye defect to the exclusion of all else.  The posters ask "have you seen me?" accompanied by pictures of Madeleine neither of which focus on her eye defect, and graphics which do highlight it, but which you would have to have had foreknowledge of to understand what the graphic represented.   I agree it was a bit gimmicky but to say that nothing else about Madeleine was featured in the campaign is wrong IMO.
ETA: sorry, the poster had 3 pix the smallest of which does feature the famous full face as shown on the cover of Kate's book.

[Alfred R Jones]

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Many people are alcoholics or gamblers. It's their own fault. Family sometimes facilitate their behaviour, however, for various reasons. The addiction can't be blamed on the facilitator, but they do make it easier for the addicted person to continue their misguided behaviour.

Some people abduct children. It's their own fault. Leaving children home alone makes it easier for an abductor to satisfy his/her needs. The abduction can't be blamed on those who left the child unsafe, but they made it easier for the abductor to achieve his/her aims. The abductor then sees a huge media campaign asking everyone to 'look' at children's eyes. He or she has a look at the abducted child's eyes and panics. He/she kills or maims the child.

As opposed to a huge campaign which asks everyone to look closely at the face of a missing child without an eye defect?  The abductor wouldn't panic in those circumstances? 

[ferryman]

If (please God) whoever took Madeleine had no intention of harming her, advertising Madeleine's eye-blemish certainly won't convince them to change their mind.

If the opposite, then highlighting the eye-blemish or not will make no difference.

The decision to advertise was justified through-and-through ....

[G-Unit]

If (please God) whoever took Madeleine had no intention of harming her, advertising Madeleine's eye-blemish certainly won't convince them to change their mind.

If the opposite, then highlighting the eye-blemish or not will make no difference.

The decision to advertise was justified through-and-through ....

So you think that publicising the fact that the child you've got has a unique eye detail which will remain with her after she's grown enough to be unrecognisable by any other means wouldn't be seen by the abductor as a problem? They wouldn't be at all worried that they have to be always on guard in case questions are asked about the eye? Pah!