Maddie and the eye - Why do they lie

And so, they play the coloboma bit down. They don't want to talk about it any more.

PeterMac wrote:But on Madeleine's Missing People page is this.

Missing
Madeleine Mccann
Reference No: 07-008774
Age at disappearance: 3
Missing Since: 03-May-2007
Missing from: Praia da Luz, Portugal
Madeleine has bluey-green eyes and her right eye is distinctive as the pupil runs into the iris. The second image is her age-progressed to 9 years old. If you think you can help the search please call Missing People. Call. Text. Anytime. Free. Confidential. 116000

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

What on earth is going on ?

tigger wrote: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.”

.

suzyjohnson wrote:Well, I just think, as time has gone on they have realised ( whether they are innocent or not) that drawing attention to a coloboma was not such a good idea. I suppose they can't really prevent anyone else from saying anything about it since that information is already known.

1. not knowing dead or alive = parents are complete idiots.
   
2. knowingly dead = what's the point in rewriting history.
   
3. knowingly alive but safe present tense = "Foster parent's" friends have been asking awkward questions or making telling suggestions "your child's eye is just like that McCann child on the news, isn't that odd"
   
4. knowingly alive but not knowingly safe past tense = she's dead present tense
   
5. 3 above = McCanns know where she is
   

PeterMac wrote:

MRNOODLES wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:Well, I just think, as time has gone on they have realised ( whether they are innocent or not) that drawing attention to a coloboma was not such a good idea. I suppose they can't really prevent anyone else from saying anything about it since that information is already known.

Yes maybe that's the point of the whole back track.  They wouldn't consider their daughter coming to harm, if they already know she already has.  Then when it was pointed out to them.  They must've thought about it, and now are pretending coloboma campaign never really happened. Because innocent parents would not have been so daft.

But that still only goes so far towards explaining this attempt to rewrite history.
Surely the better thing would have been simply to shut up about it, rater than to try to deny they ever did it.
Gerry had to give the infamous reply about "good marketing" very early on, so it has always been out in the open.

Ditto the nonsense about not calling Madeleine Maddy / Maddie. I just don't see what it achieved, other than to allow people to demonstrate with evidence that they were blatantly lying, but about something that frankly didn't matter.

Or have they just got into the habit of lying about everything, all the time.
It is very strange.