UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Angelo222 on September 29, 2013, 01:46:00 AM
-
For four days we have witnessed the events in Lisbon gradually unfold to reveal the great Duarte masterplan to relieve Amaral and others of a cool £1million. The cat is out of the bag, its all to play for, the game plan has been laid bare. It is very clear that the aim for camp McCann is to persuade the honourable judge that the Amaral book destroyed any chances there ever was of finding Madeleine.
I fail to understand how this could be?? We were told that prior to the launch of the Amaral book and documentary that the search for Madeleine had tapered off. According to witnesses the McCanns were beginning to get their life together when on the launch of the book all hell let loose.
My question to everyone therefore is, surely the book rekindled interest in the case and in a way that the McCanns couldn't hope to create themselves? Surely the very successful book got people talking and thinking about Madeleine? Even if the conclusion in the book was that she was most probably dead surely they still had to find her?
Far from destroying the search the book encouraged it!!
-
For four days we have witnessed the events in Lisbon gradually unfold to reveal the great Duarte masterplan to relieve Amaral and others of a cool £1million. The cat is out of the bag, its all to play for, the game plan has been laid bare. It is very clear that the aim for camp McCann is to persuade the honourable judge that the Amaral book destroyed any chances there ever was of finding Madeleine.
I fail to understand how this could be?? We were told that prior to the launch of the Amaral book and documentary that the search for Madeleine had tapered off. According to witnesses the McCanns were beginning to get their life together when on the launch of the book all hell let loose.
My question to everyone therefore is, surely the book rekindled interest in the case and in a way that the McCanns couldn't hope to create themselves? Surely the very successful book got people talking and thinking about Madeleine? Even if the conclusion in the book was that she was most probably dead surely they still had to find her?
Far from destroying the search the book encouraged it!!
Agree 100%
-
The Bigger question is, are you the promoting /advertising this forum at the detriment of Madeleine?
Stellar question, Neeley.
Truth is all of us on here have a responsibility.
I don't know if this point has been made before on this forum, but it is an important one, that collectively probably all of us here are making a meaningful contribution to the welfare of children in general, by being more aware of the dangers posed to children left unattended, and in appreciating our own children even more than we would do if we were not so caught up with tragedies like this one.
It is probably true to say that many, many thousands of parents across the world have also become significantly more diligent over their children as a result of this case. Losing a child is a primal fear, which must be one of the driving motivations in being interested in a case like this - the fear that it could have been us. Hence our subliminal readiness to criticise the McCanns - for allowing the unthinkable to touch us.
It is an enormous tragedy that Madeleine had to be the sacrificial lamb in this lesson, but perhaps this is God's way of reinforcing the fact that we have to be as careful as we can with our children at all times and never leave them unattended or with someone we don't know very well. The lives of many children will have been protected and restored as a result of the knowledge that this case has brought to the attentions of the world - and for all the mistakes they've made, I don't think the McCanns can be criticised for that.
-
Even if the conclusion in the book was that she was most probably dead surely they still had to find her?
Far from destroying the search the book encouraged it!!
How many readers do you imagine would have the means to go searching for a dead body? Would the readers while out on their travels ever have the chance to come across a dead body and think oh that looks like Madeleine?
If only one reader was sure they had seen a live Madeleine but thought, "It can't be she's dead", that would be one too many.
I don't know how many copies of the book were sold but multiply that by how many friends, work colleagues, family etc the readers have informed. How many people read blogs, forums, facebook, newspapers, worldwide news etc They have all been informed Madeleine is dead.
How has this encouraged the search?
-
For four days we have witnessed the events in Lisbon gradually unfold to reveal the great Duarte masterplan to relieve Amaral and others of a cool £1million. The cat is out of the bag, its all to play for, the game plan has been laid bare. It is very clear that the aim for camp McCann is to persuade the honourable judge that the Amaral book destroyed any chances there ever was of finding Madeleine.
I fail to understand how this could be?? We were told that prior to the launch of the Amaral book and documentary that the search for Madeleine had tapered off. According to witnesses the McCanns were beginning to get their life together when on the launch of the book all hell let loose.
My question to everyone therefore is, surely the book rekindled interest in the case and in a way that the McCanns couldn't hope to create themselves? Surely the very successful book got people talking and thinking about Madeleine? Even if the conclusion in the book was that she was most probably dead surely they still had to find her?
Far from destroying the search the book encouraged it!!
if this thread had one oita of truth in it then amarals legal team would be using the argument...they are not
-
Stellar question, Neeley.
Truth is all of us on here have a responsibility.
I don't know if this point has been made before on this forum, but it is an important one, that collectively probably all of us here are making a meaningful contribution to the welfare of children in general, by being more aware of the dangers posed to children left unattended, and in appreciating our own children even more than we would do if we were not so caught up with tragedies like this one.
It is probably true to say that many, many thousands of parents across the world have also become significantly more diligent over their children as a result of this case. Losing a child is a primal fear, which must be one of the driving motivations in being interested in a case like this - the fear that it could have been us. Hence our subliminal readiness to criticise the McCanns - for allowing the unthinkable to touch us.
It is an enormous tragedy that Madeleine had to be the sacrificial lamb in this lesson, but perhaps this is God's way of reinforcing the fact that we have to be as careful as we can with our children at all times and never leave them unattended or with someone we don't know very well. The lives of many children will have been protected and restored as a result of the knowledge that this case has brought to the attentions of the world - and for all the mistakes they've made, I don't think the McCanns can be criticised for that.
Well said, I totally agree with you, with a small exception.
Where I'm a critic of the McCann & Co, is that when trying to cover up for an eventual accident, they aggressively accused everyone else but themselves for what occurred with the little child. Had they been more humble and accepted their own faults, they would be a better help for every family and child in the world. So far they did nothing to help discover what happened to the little one, every measure they take is on their own behalf - just my opinion.
Amaral's book, as he explained when he wrote the Preface and when he presented it (which is confirmed by the Supreme Court, when they upheaveled the injunction for good), was meant to defend his honor that had been (and still is) blotched by the McCann's UK controlled Media, and to clarify what the investigation revealed about the disappearance of Madeleine.
Unfortunately, even though the Investigation files are out, and have been translated without any cost for anyone that wishes to consult them, the UK Press continues to follow the McCann PR directions, and many people choose to close their eyes to the real events.
Let's hope that some day people start to look more for Madeleine and less at Kate and Gerald campaign. That would be a true lesson for the world.
-
if this thread had one iota of truth in it then Amaral's legal team would be using the argument...they are not
How do you arrive at that conclusion Dave? Dr Amaral's lawyer is yet to call any witnesses and if I were him I would be keeping my powder dry until that time.
There is little doubt that the Amaral book "The Truth about the Lie" or "The Truth of the Lie" depending on which translation you wish to believe, brought huge and vital awareness to the public. The conclusion in the book might not be what the McCann family wanted to see but that is not the issue here. The McCanns are not suing Gonçalo Amaral & Others because they damaged their own reputations (at least according to what we have seen in Court in Lisbon so far) they are suing because they claim the book hindered the search for Madeleine.
I find it difficult to understand how they can ever achieve this. The Amaral book was sold in many countries throughout the world including Latin America. It brought Madeleine's image and the knowledge of the disappearance to thousands who might otherwise not have heard about it. In reality, the book made people aware that there was a missing 3-year-old out there called Madeleine. They might not have been looking for a live child if the conclusion in the book is to be believed but they were looking for her all the same.
-
Well said, I totally agree with you, with a small exception.
Where I'm a critic of the McCann & Co, is that when trying to cover up for an eventual accident, they aggressively accused everyone else but themselves for what occurred with the little child. Had they been more humble and accepted their own faults, they would be a better help for every family and child in the world. So far they did nothing to help discover what happened to the little one, every measure they take is on their own behalf - just my opinion.
Amaral's book, as he explained when he wrote the Preface and when he presented it (which is confirmed by the Supreme Court, when they upheaveled the injunction for good), was meant to defend his honor that had been (and still is) blotched by the McCann's UK controlled Media, and to clarify what the investigation revealed about the disappearance of Madeleine.
Unfortunately, even though the Investigation files are out, and have been translated without any cost for anyone that wishes to consult them, the UK Press continues to follow the McCann PR directions, and many people choose to close their eyes to the real events.
Let's hope that some day people start to look more for Madeleine and less at Kate and Gerald campaign. That would be a true lesson for the world.
8@??)(
well said as always luz it was never about maddie was it it was about the mcanns saving face
-
The essence of the message of truth of the lie is that Madeleine is dead and Kate and Gerry both caused her death and (with the help of their friends) covered up the fact of her death, then launched a fraudulent fund in their deceased daughter's name.
How does any of that help the search for Madeleine?
You could, perhaps, advance an argument that some people reading the book would see through (the truth of the lie) and that is undoubtedly true.
But there is a wealth of much more reliable material available that the same people are much more likely to have accessed, and which spells out that message explicitly.
Otherwise, the book (of *Amaral's) has done immeasurable damage to the search for Madeleine, by spelling out the canard that Kate, Gerry and (perhaps) their friends are 'guilty' of some sort of collective fraud.
They are not ...
*Edited to correct spelling.
-
The essence of the message of truth of the lie is that Madeleine is dead and Kate and Gerry both caused her death and (with the help of their friends) covered up the fact of her death, then launched a fraudulent fund in their deceased daughter's name.
How does any of that help the search for Madeleine?
You could, perhaps, advance an argument that some people reading the book would see through (the truth of the lie) and that is undoubtedly true.
But there is a wealth of much more reliable material available that the same people are much more likely to have accessed, and which spells out that message explicitly.
Otherwise, the book (of *Amaral's) has done immeasurable damage to the search for Madeleine, by spelling out the canard that Kate, Gerry and (perhaps) their friends are 'guilty' of some sort of collective fraud.
They are not ...
*Edited to correct spelling.
I appreciate very much the courage and tenacity of those who believe the McCanns, but as long as they are of good faith. Ferryman, your "essence" of GA's book is biased : it doesn't say that "Kate and Gerry both caused her death and (with the help of their friends) covered up the fact of her death, then launched a fraudulent fund in their deceased daughter's name."
The fund isn't a PT case anyhow.
-
The title "The truth of the lie" is a spectacular oxymoron, but I don't admire the book has been translated in French "L'enquête interdite" (the forbidden investigation) and in German "Die Wahrheit über die Lüge" (the truth about the lie), because it is what is actually pretended in this book.
The "truth of the lie" means something else and I must say that GA's book doesn't achieve that purpose. Could he now ?
-
The essence of the message of truth of the lie is that Madeleine is dead and Kate and Gerry both caused her death and (with the help of their friends) covered up the fact of her death, then launched a fraudulent fund in their deceased daughter's name.
How does any of that help the search for Madeleine?
You could, perhaps, advance an argument that some people reading the book would see through (the truth of the lie) and that is undoubtedly true.
But there is a wealth of much more reliable material available that the same people are much more likely to have accessed, and which spells out that message explicitly.
Otherwise, the book (of *Amaral's) has done immeasurable damage to the search for Madeleine, by spelling out the canard that Kate, Gerry and (perhaps) their friends are 'guilty' of some sort of collective fraud.
They are not ...
*Edited to correct spelling.
but after almost 7 years maddie is likley dead i know it is hard to face but if she truly was abducted at her age shewas when she vanished she mos tlikley would not have suvived and imo it demeans maddie to think she is alive and unharmed with a so called pedo almost 7 years later there is no easy way to look at this case either she is alive and most likley being abused etc or she is dead
-
Truth is all of us on here have a responsibility.
Absolutely, but not only here ! And truth isn't as simple as an "unlie".. So, yes, it's a huge responsibility. That's also what dignifies us.
-
Absolutely, but not only here ! And truth isn't as simple as an "unlie".. So, yes, it's a huge responsibility. That's also what dignifies us.
thats why even though people have been critical with us for our stance we continue for maddie
-
The essence of the message of truth of the lie is that Madeleine is dead and Kate and Gerry both caused her death and (with the help of their friends) covered up the fact of her death, then launched a fraudulent fund in their deceased daughter's name.
How does any of that help the search for Madeleine?
You could, perhaps, advance an argument that some people reading the book would see through (the truth of the lie) and that is undoubtedly true.
But there is a wealth of much more reliable material available that the same people are much more likely to have accessed, and which spells out that message explicitly.
Otherwise, the book (of *Amaral's) has done immeasurable damage to the search for Madeleine, by spelling out the canard that Kate, Gerry and (perhaps) their friends are 'guilty' of some sort of collective fraud.
They are not ...
*Edited to correct spelling.
Nowhere in the book it is said that the McCann or any of their friends caused the child's death. Just like in the files, and in the Archival Report from the AG, it is said that the child is most probably dead, and she may have died from an accident and the parents covered up that death.
Nevertheless, that didn't impede that lots of sightings and some foolish theories have been reported in the Press.
Neither did it interfere with the blackmail to David Cameron in order to approve a multimillion operation by a metropolitan police.
The argument that the book has hindered the search is bogus, in fact it is insulting when produced by people that confessed in an interview that they were too busy to physically search for their child.
-
I don't know if this point has been made before on this forum, but it is an important one, that collectively probably all of us here are making a meaningful contribution to the welfare of children in general, by being more aware of the dangers posed to children left unattended, and in appreciating our own children even more than we would do if we were not so caught up with tragedies like this one.
It is probably true to say that many, many thousands of parents across the world have also become significantly more diligent over their children as a result of this case. Losing a child is a primal fear, which must be one of the driving motivations in being interested in a case like this - the fear that it could have been us. Hence our subliminal readiness to criticise the McCanns - for allowing the unthinkable to touch us.
It is an enormous tragedy that Madeleine had to be the sacrificial lamb in this lesson, but perhaps this is God's way of reinforcing the fact that we have to be as careful as we can with our children at all times and never leave them unattended or with someone we don't know very well. The lives of many children will have been protected and restored as a result of the knowledge that this case has brought to the attentions of the world - and for all the mistakes they've made, I don't think the McCanns can be criticised for that.
I'm not sure of this.
If Madeleine was abducted from her bed, the McCanns are right to say they're innocent, they couldn't possibly foresee it. And they're right also to say it could have happened during their sleep since that abduction was noiseless. The open door could have facilitated the process but surely wasn't the origin of it.
The neglect argument doesn't make sense and I can't see any kind of lesson here.
-
they were too busy to physically search for their child.
Yes, but they were too busy organizing search campaigns. Isn't that expected of parents of a genuinely abducted child ?
-
Yes, but they were too busy organizing search campaigns. Isn't that expected of parents of a genuinely abducted child ?
Organising search campaigns? A lot of people will frown at this. Bottom line is if the McCanns couldn't be bothered to go out and physically search for their supposedly abducted daughter then why the hell should anyone else do it? They are such hypocrites attempting to place the blame at the feet of Amaral for the lack of searching. What searching have they done these past 6 years??
-
Nowhere in the book it is said that the McCann or any of their friends caused the child's death. Just like in the files, and in the Archival Report from the AG, it is said that the child is most probably dead, and she may have died from an accident and the parents covered up that death.
Nevertheless, that didn't impede that lots of sightings and some foolish theories have been reported in the Press.
Neither did it interfere with the blackmail to David Cameron in order to approve a multimillion operation by a metropolitan police.
The argument that the book has hindered the search is bogus, in fact it is insulting when produced by people that confessed in an interview that they were too busy to physically search for their child.
Are you sure it says this in the archiving report ...I think you are confused
-
Are you sure it says this in the archiving report ...I think you are confused
Translate the Report if you don't trust the actual translation, but don't keep questioning what everyone can read.
-
Organising search campaigns? A lot of people will frown at this. Bottom line is if the McCanns couldn't be bothered to go out and physically search for their supposedly abducted daughter then why the hell should anyone else do it? They are such hypocrites attempting to place the blame at the feet of Amaral for the lack of searching. What searching have they done these past 6 years??
You seem to be fixated with the idea that the only way to search for a missing person is 'physically.' And yet if you were to ask any of the experts/professional organisations you would learn that that is probably the least productive use of time and money - and that it is keeping the missing person's profile as high as possible for as long as possible in the public's eye which gives that person the best chance of being found.
Traipsing around Portugal with shovels in their hands may make for a good photoshoot - but they might as well be looking for a needle in 10 million haystacks - especially as they don't even know whether Madeleine is in Portugal or not.
Surely the best way to search for a missing person is the one that has already been proven to be the best?
If you wanted to buy a new TV - would you physically travel around to every Store to find out the best deal, or would you pick up the phone or use the internet to achieve the same result in a fraction of the time. It's the same principle IMO.
-
You seem to be fixated with the idea that the only way to search for a missing person is 'physically.' And yet if you were to ask any of the experts/professional organisations you would learn that that is probably the least productive use of time and money - and that it is keeping the missing person's profile as high as possible for as long as possible in the public's eye which gives that person the best chance of being found.
Traipsing around Portugal with shovels in their hands may make for a good photoshoot - but they might as well be looking for a needle in 10 million haystacks - especially as they don't even know whether Madeleine is in Portugal or not.
Surely the best way to search for a missing person is the one that has already been proven to be the best?
If you wanted to buy a new TV - would you physically travel around to every Store to find out the best deal, or would you pick up the phone or use the internet to achieve the same result in a fraction of the time. It's the same principle IMO.
How can you dare equate looking for a tv to a missing child ?
Unbelievable.
-
How can you dare equate looking for a tv to a missing child ?
Unbelievable.
I haven't. But I'm not in the least surprised that you don't understand the idea of a 'principle'
-
You seem to be fixated with the idea that the only way to search for a missing person is 'physically.' And yet if you were to ask any of the experts/professional organisations you would learn that that is probably the least productive use of time and money - and that it is keeping the missing person's profile as high as possible for as long as possible in the public's eye which gives that person the best chance of being found.
Traipsing around Portugal with shovels in their hands may make for a good photoshoot - but they might as well be looking for a needle in 10 million haystacks - especially as they don't even know whether Madeleine is in Portugal or not.
Surely the best way to search for a missing person is the one that has already been proven to be the best?
If you wanted to buy a new TV - would you physically travel around to every Store to find out the best deal, or would you pick up the phone or use the internet to achieve the same result in a fraction of the time. It's the same principle IMO.
Okay. You have a witness saying that she saw a suspicious man carrying a child that appears to be your child, a few minutes later you find out that your child was "abducted" (no doubt about it), and instead of trying to go after the presumed abductor you stay in the apartment cleaning your mobile phone from any message in it, calling UK media, calling UK family and acquaintances, calling your friends and their dogs into the "supposed crime scene"..and 40 minutes after you gave the alarm to your friends you call the police. After that you keep inside the apartment walls, because there is no point in following the voluntary search groups that took all night and many other nights looking for your child.
Why search when there were hundreds, or maybe thousands, of strangers looking for her? Better keep fit. Better keep sending the twins into the creche and maintain your tennis lessons and your jogging....And latter give press releases and make photo sessions....
Are you kidding me? Where is it more efficient to keep your holiday activities, implemented by a star syndrome, than looking actively for your child?
-
I haven't. But I'm not in the least surprised that you don't understand the idea of a 'principle'
I understand the idea of a principle perfectly.
It's a pity you haven't applied the concept yourself to this pair.
-
Okay. You have a witness saying that she saw a suspicious man carrying a child that appears to be your child, a few minutes later you find out that your child was "abducted" (no doubt about it), and instead of trying to go after the presumed abductor you stay in the apartment cleaning your mobile phone from any message in it, calling UK media, calling UK family and acquaintances, calling your friends and their dogs into the "supposed crime scene"..and 40 minutes after you gave the alarm to your friends you call the police. After that you keep inside the apartment walls, because there is no point in following the voluntary search groups that took all night and many other nights looking for your child.
Why search when there were hundreds, or maybe thousands, of strangers looking for her? Better keep fit. Better keep sending the twins into the creche and maintain your tennis lessons and your jogging....And latter give press releases and make photo sessions....
Are you kidding me? Where is it more efficient to keep your holiday activities, implemented by a star syndrome, than looking actively for your child?
I don't agree with your extremely twisted version of events - so no point in going any further with this - except to say that if the McCanns were so disinterested in the abduction of their daughter, why have they spent the last six years keeping her at the centre of their universe and fighting for her rights? Why didn't they simply go home and never mention her again? You can't have it both ways.
-
I'm not sure of this.
If Madeleine was abducted from her bed, the McCanns are right to say they're innocent, they couldn't possibly foresee it. And they're right also to say it could have happened during their sleep since that abduction was noiseless. The open door could have facilitated the process but surely wasn't the origin of it.
The neglect argument doesn't make sense and I can't see any kind of lesson here.
I think the lesson here is that we are all slightly more fearful of taking chances with our children. That's all I mean.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the McCanns leaving their children, discussed ad nauseam here on this forum and elsewhere, is ultimately a matter for them.
Where we come in is in our greater ability to protect or children, owing to the awareness of danger in this kind of situation that the McCann case has raised.
Perhaps the McCanns were not aware of the dangers they were leaving their children in, and were lulled into a false sense of security at the resort. I think most parents have a clearer vision of reality today, now than the McCanns had then, 'thanks' to this case.
-
I think the lesson here is that we are all slightly more fearful of taking chances with our children. That's all I mean.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the McCanns leaving their children, discussed ad nauseam here on this forum and elsewhere, is ultimately a matter for them.
Where we come in is in our greater ability to protect or children, owing to the awareness of danger in this kind of situation that the McCann case has raised.
Perhaps the McCanns were not aware of the dangers they were leaving their children in, and were lulled into a false sense of security at the resort. I think most parents have a clearer vision of reality today, now than the McCanns had then, 'thanks' to this case.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Well said Sherlock.
How many parents have watched their children a lot closer, than they did before Madeleine was abducted?
I wouldn't believe anyone that says they haven't!
-
Organising search campaigns? A lot of people will frown at this. Bottom line is if the McCanns couldn't be bothered to go out and physically search for their supposedly abducted daughter then why the hell should anyone else do it? They are such hypocrites attempting to place the blame at the feet of Amaral for the lack of searching. What searching have they done these past 6 years??
What is the best way to prove you are reliable parents, if this is at stake, excluding the option of a direct search that doesn't seem feasible ? Isn't it campaigning to convince people there's a findable little girl and to search for her ?
-
Why didn't they simply go home and never mention her again?
Because after they claiming they would leave no stone unturned, after the dogs' intelligence, the refusal to answer questions and the lack of will to reconstitute the event, and moreover after having become celebrities, they just couldn't leave the stage without thickening the doubt about them.
-
Traipsing around Portugal with shovels in their hands may make for a good photoshoot - but they might as well be looking for a needle in 10 million haystacks - especially as they don't even know whether Madeleine is in Portugal or not.
Their last PI said he was convinced Madeleine was in some lair in a 12 miles radius half circle from PDL. What was the use of that statement if it produced no action ?
-
Because after they claiming they would leave no stone unturned, after the dogs' intelligence, the refusal to answer questions and the lack of will to reconstitute the event, and moreover after having become celebrities, they just couldn't leave the stage without thickening the doubt about them.
They have never refused to take part in a reconstruction. Kate refused to answer the 48 questions (many of which had already been answered before) on advice from her Lawyer. As Kate knew nothing about Portuguese law and her Portuguese lawyer did - are you suggesting she was wrong to take that advice?
As for calling them 'celebrities '- that's just nonsense. The only time they appear in public is in connection with Madeleine. They may have become well known but I would no more describe them as 'celebrities' - than I would describe Ben Needham or Sarah Payne's parents as such.
I refer to my original point that if the McCanns were truly as disinterested in their child's abduction as Luz claims, then their actions over the last 6 years on Madeleine's behalf would simply not have happened.
-
Yes, it is true, Cariad - and welcome to the forum, by the way - that the risk of a child being abducted is minuscule, and that the rate of accidents in the home and elsewhere is sadly very high.
The fear that parents have of losing their children to a stranger is an irrational one, totally out of proportion to the actual risk of abduction. But it is a deeply-held fear nonetheless, one which the Madeleine case taps into. I believe that many parents will have exercised a much greater degree of caution with their children, in general terms, because of this and other abduction cases, one of the results being that children will have been much less likely to have been left on their own and vulnerable to all kinds of accidents. So in that sense I think there is a connection.
My mind turns to a serious case that occurred two years ago in the community in America in which I am currently living. A child a few hundred metres away from my home went missing, and, due to the detective work and diligence of community members, was found approximately 36 hours later, unfortunately dead and dismembered, some of his remains stored in the freezer of his abductor and killer, and other remains in rubbish bins nearby.
It was a horrific case that shocked the whole community, if not the whole of New York, and immediately had the effect of parents being more diligent with their children in all sorts of ways: volunteer organisations were formed in the neghbourhood to escort children walking home from school; stricter laws on CCTV across the state were passed in the courts (the boy had been found thanks to the CCTV footage of various local business owners); local shops and organisations joined a 'safe haven' scheme, placing notices in their windows for children indicating a safe place of refuge and help should they become detached from their parents; schools instituted new safety rules and were more diligent in criminal background checking for teachers; community organisations staged events where police and other community officials spoke to parents to give advice on child safety- not just outside the home but inside too... and so on.
Some of these things were directly related to the abduction/murder case; others not. The point is that the sorry case as a whole sent out ripples that changed parental awareness; not only awareness of danger itself, but a heightened sense of how fortunate we are to have our children safe and well - helping to promote better parenting in general.
I was at home looking after my two month old baby at the time, and remember being even more caring with him than usual , feeling even more grateful than before to have a healthy baby. Many local parents spoke about being so affected; many responded very emotionally. Counselling was organised by the city for both parents and children who had been traumatised or affected by the event.
All of the above being strictly speaking irrational, because the likelihood of such an event happening again in the same place is obviously tiny. The killer was a loner who is now serving a life sentence and will not be able to strike again. But at the same time, the abduction prompted us all to be kinder and more appreciative, and more diligent in general terms.
The Internet ate my post!!
The gist of it was that although I worry that we're instilling unnecessary fears into our children, having read your post I have to agree with you that there is a greater good served by heightened vigilance.
-
Certainly a thoughtful post by Sherlock, which I read with great interest ...
-
Hate to state the obvious but no one would look for a deceased child.
And given that is the main impression given by Amarals book, then he has had an effect on perhaps preventing the general public in Portugal looking for Madeleine.
-
Hate to state the obvious but no one would look for a deceased child.
And given that is the main impression given by Amarals book, then he has had an effect on perhaps preventing the general public in Portugal looking for Madeleine.
In a court of law that has no value. That's merely an opinion unproved by factual evidence. Or better, unsustained opinion, rather than unproved.
-
Their last PI said he was convinced Madeleine was in some lair in a 12 miles radius half circle from PDL. What was the use of that statement if it produced no action ?
How do you know it produced no action? Do you think that because something was not publicised to the whole world it could not have happened? For all we know there may have been loads of actions which we have not been told about, - and why should we be told if it was felt that to divulge certain information might be detrimental to the search or might aid the abductor. This isn't a soap opera where all is revealed to the viewing public at some stage.
-
How do you know it produced no action? Do you think that because something was not publicised to the whole world it could not have happened? For all we know there may have been loads of actions which we have not been told about, - and why should we be told if it was felt that to divulge certain information might be detrimental to the search or might aid the abductor. This isn't a soap opera where all is revealed to the viewing public at some stage.
Was the presence of PI Edgar part of a soap opera ?
-
Was the presence of PI Edgar part of a soap opera ?
Off topic, I know, but there's definitely a bit of the Agatha Christie to Redwood.
-
Their last PI said he was convinced Madeleine was in some lair in a 12 miles radius half circle from PDL. What was the use of that statement if it produced no action ?
Not forgetting the buried on a hillside dream or the dumped in a reservoir vision. I don't think you could make this nonsense up if you tried.
I must say I really have to laugh when I hear Gerry McCann complain that Amaral thwarted the search for Madeleine when he himself is more concerned with events in Leicester than he is of any proper search in Portugal.
-
Not forgetting the buried on a hillside dream or the dumped in a reservoir vision. I don't think you could make this nonsense up if you tried.
I must say I really have to laugh when I hear Gerry McCann complain that Amaral thwarted the search for Madeleine when he himself is more concerned with events in Leicester than he is of any proper search in Portugal.
I'm afraid those Metodo3, Halligen and PI Edgar were show off search, an expensive one but at least they weren't paying for it, so why should they refuse (M3 and H were Mr Kennedy's brilliant inventions it seems) ?