Clutchbag, that is exactly the video I was referring to.
Tink
Fits right in with Gerry planning her anniversary celebrations, mere weeks after she went missing.
He wanted to hold a massive concert with a bunch of famous people on the year's anniversary of her disappearance. (Another promise that didn't happen).
she had only been gone a matter of weeks at this stage.
:sick:
Shocking isnt it <modsnip>, isnt a parent allowed to laugh? Well NO not really, why would any parent whose child has been snatched by a stranger and be in god knows what situation have anything to joke and laugh about SO SOON, days,not months or years
BBM
This was completely taken out of context.
Families of missing children are told to plan for the long term and are given advise on how to keep their child in the spotlight. If you'd actually read any of what Gerry McCann said on his blog etc at the time you would see he was constantly saying 'if Madeleine is not found'.
US department of justice info for families of missing children
"After a week or so, however, if your child has not been found, you may run into the opposite problem. If media interest dies down, you will have to work to keep the story going. Here are some things you can do to keep your child's story in the public eye".
"Devise "media hooks" to keep your child's story in front of the public. Schedule a press conference on an important day"
"Remember, you don't know how long you will have to search for your child, so you need to plan for the long term"
http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/childismissing/ch3.html#ch3-2
Then how can it be justified that Gerry ignored LE advice which was to NOT publicise Madeleine's colomboma?
LE believed that would cause her death, if indeed she was abducted and still alive.
Gerry ignored this advice, thereby risking his daughter's life. He knew it at the time, and disregarded it. He was more concerned with running his campaign (some would say, making money).
Using the excuse that he was only doing as he was advised is totally false. He did the opposite. He ignored advice, and put Madeleine in harm's way (of course his cavalier attitude is explained once you realise he knew Madeleine was not in the hands of an abductor at all).
The McCanns ignored police advice not to publicise Madeleines distinctive mark in her right eye, a coloboma. They said that if she was with an abductor, it could place her life in danger.
On 15 July 2009, Gerry McCann said: We thought it was possible that publicising her coloboma could harm Madeleine. Her abductor might do something to her eye. But in marketing terms it was a good ploy.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/index.html
A grieving father does not think of his daughter in "marketing terms". In my opinion only.
:sick:
:cow:
Maybe he was nervous and out of his element? I laugh all the time in the most unusual circumstances - not from humor - but because if I don't laugh, I'm likely to fall apart.
Yes, it seems odd and it gets odder when combined with all the other odd things -- but I don't see it as "defining" because of my own quirky habit.
Salem
When you provide a link it would help if it took us straight to what you are saying because I could not find the information on the page.
Where is the evidence that the police advised the McCanns against publicising Madeleine's coloboma?
They published this information themselves on the 5th may for their press report! (I'm searching for the link)
The July 15th 2009 date as far as i'm aware is incorrect it actually came from an issue of vanity fair magazine on January 10th 2008. And was as usual taken out of context.
Here is what was actually said
Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.
"Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy."
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/mccanns200802?currentPage=5
Again from the department of justice about what to do when your child is missing
"The more people who know that your child is in danger and what your child looks like, the better the chances are that someone will recognize your child and report his or her whereabouts. —Claudine Ryce"
"Consider using publicity gimmicks to etch your child’s face in the public’s memory. Have your child’s picture printed on buttons, T-shirts, bumper stickers, stamps, and baseball-type cards"
http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/fam_surv.pdf
P58
They would certainly have had people who know about this stuff advising them on what to do.
Lol thanks for posting it for me!
I'm of the opinion that the best chance they had of recovering their daughter was probably to cooperate with the police investigation in the first place, but that's just me.
Kate's idea of "co-operation" is as follows -
When asked for the reason why the curtain behind the sofa under the side window, whose photograph was shown to her, is ruffled, she did not reply. She did not reply to the question if someone passed behind that sofa.
When asked for how long she searched inside the apartment after detecting the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine, she did not reply.
When asked why she said right away that Madeleine was abducted, she did not reply.
Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why she left the twins alone at home to go to the Tapas to raise the alarm, even because the supposed abductor might still be inside the apartment, she did not reply. Why she did not ask the twins right away what had happened to their sister, or why she did not asked them later on, she did not reply.When questioned about having raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly she said, which words she used, she did not reply.
When asked about what happened after she raised the alarm at the Tapas, she did not reply. When asked whether she had a mobile phone with her at that moment, she did not reply. When asked why she went to alert her friends instead of shouting from the balcony, she did not reply.
From her Arguido interview with the PJ on 7 Sept 2007...plenty more of her tight lipped rubbish at the link.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta6
:banghead:
:sick:
I'm not going over Kate's interview again.
You still haven't said where you got your information regarding them ignoring LE's advice regarding the coloboma?
They were told by the PJ NOT to publicise this but gerrythought it was a good marketing ploy remember? gerrymccanns OWN words
Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleines unique right eyea risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.
Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris is Madeleines only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her orhe grimacesher abductor might do something to her eye. But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.
vanity fair interview
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id63.html
I already quoted these exact words, from this exact article a couple of posts ago. Where exactly does it say that the PJ told them not to publicise this? I've seen the press report that the PJ gave the police on the 5th May in which they say she has a brown mark on her pupil. I need to find that link.
I have seen no link to evidence that says the PJ told them not to publicise her colomba.
[/B]
Here's what Kate and Gerry said on TV -
G. You know a few people have said to us you know too much publicity might not be good because somebody, whoever's got her might keep her hidden and obviously everything that we're doing at the minute has a slight risk to it which is a horrible situation to be in when you're dealing with your daughter but overall, we felt rather than sit back and not do anything that this was the way to go.
G. We've done a lot of things on our own and clearly there's mixed signals from what could be done in terms of the North American experience
K. Certainly what Gerry learned from NcMA in Washington was that by having her image out there was definitely the right thing to do. In one in six children that are recovered, it's because somebody's recognised and the laws in the States are very different from here and again they're well ahead of the game. They've got their Amber Alert so you know within two hours of the child getting taken, a police report has to be filed and obviously, the response time in Europe has to be quicker. It has to be quicker.
If is quite clear from their statements that it is the cautious non-American approach they are rejecting.
The cautious non-American Policing approach, to be precise.
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078141/Rebuttal of "Fact" 35
:cow:
Well, I think it would have been rather hard for anyone to look for Madeleine without seeing her picture but gotta admit that it sounds a little bad when Gerry balances the danger that his child might be hurt or the abductor would poke her eye out against marketing ploy and marketing ploy wins. The wording could have been better.
But I have always thought that the missing person reports that have no photo attached are pretty pointless. You know, the police are looking for a white male, in his thirties, average height, average weight, brown hair, wearing jeans and a dark coat. On a busy street you can pass fifty people fitting that description in a matter of minutes.