Surely the Amaral book "The Truth of the Lie" helped the search for Madeleine?

[AnneGuedes]

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 ?

[Benice]

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. 

[Cariad]

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.

[ferryman]

Certainly a thoughtful post by Sherlock, which I read with great interest ...

[LagosBen]

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.

[Luz]

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.

[Benice]

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.

[AnneGuedes]

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 ?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

[Angelo222]

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.

[AnneGuedes]

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) ?