Major Contradiction on Official Find Madeleine site

On the front of the home page

Why do we continue?
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed.

Under missing children section - Kate's message

(snippet of the message)
All missing children are vulnerable to exploitation including sexual exploitation, with this being the motive in many of those cases of stranger abductions where a motive can be determined. Child sexual exploitation and child pornography in particular, is sadly and shockingly extensive worldwide. It is a multi-billion dollar industry aided by the use of the Internet with the ‘thirst’ for younger victims growing. Once again, my ‘bubble’ of a life burst as I began to discover the facts relating to this now global crisis. As we travelled through Europe in an attempt to raise awareness of Madeleine's abduction and appeal for help, we were repeatedly made aware of the unbelievable existence of such a horrifying activity and its vastness in our so called civilised and ‘child-loving’ society. How can such ‘businesses’ be condoned or tolerated by us all? What are the benefits for our children of being in a European Union where several member countries offer child pornography as a LEGAL past time? The most vulnerable members of our society are our children and they deserve better than this. Lack of sex offender registers, lack of reliable tracking systems for known offenders and no CRB check requirements , not even for those working with children are other major areas of concern within many parts of Europe. My eyes have certainly been opened to a whole new world out there - a very worrying one.

As a parent of an abducted child, I can tell you that it is the most painful and agonising experience you could ever imagine. My thoughts of the fear, confusion and loss of love and security that my precious daughter has had to endure are unbearable - crippling. And yet I am not the victim, Madeleine is. No child should EVER have to experience something so terrible.

But they is no suggestion she has come to any harm?

quote
and no CRB check requirements , not even for those working with children are other major areas of concern within many parts of Europe.

Was this a major concern of yours and Gerry's before you left for Portugal? While you were holidaying there it was with a British company, did you, knowing you intended to leave 3 under 4s in a kids club for many hours, check to confirm that the CRB cheks put in place for your children's care at home had been done for the creche staff? I know people working on British cruise ships looking after children who are CRB checked. It matters not that this was a holiday , you advertised to strangers in PdL that your children were regularly unattended for a few hours each evening. Anyone at that creche with an ulterior motive for working with children could have posed a danger. You were not happy leaving a stranger with them in the apartment as a babysitter. Yet you were happy to let strangers mind your children day after day. They would have had access in private to your eldest, taking her to the toilet for example.
As for the twins, they were in nappies weren't they? On multiple occasions strangers in their creche were changing their nappies.
So what checks did you make to ensure the safety of your vulnerable little ones I wonder.

dragonfly wrote:On the front of the home page

Why do we continue?
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed.

Under missing children section - Kate's message

(snippet of the message)
All missing children are vulnerable to exploitation including sexual exploitation, with this being the motive in many of those cases of stranger abductions where a motive can be determined. Child sexual exploitation and child pornography in particular, is sadly and shockingly extensive worldwide. It is a multi-billion dollar industry aided by the use of the Internet with the ‘thirst’ for younger victims growing. Once again, my ‘bubble’ of a life burst as I began to discover the facts relating to this now global crisis. As we travelled through Europe in an attempt to raise awareness of Madeleine's abduction and appeal for help, we were repeatedly made aware of the unbelievable existence of such a horrifying activity and its vastness in our so called civilised and ‘child-loving’ society. How can such ‘businesses’ be condoned or tolerated by us all? What are the benefits for our children of being in a European Union where several member countries offer child pornography as a LEGAL past time? The most vulnerable members of our society are our children and they deserve better than this. Lack of sex offender registers, lack of reliable tracking systems for known offenders and no CRB check requirements , not even for those working with children are other major areas of concern within many parts of Europe. My eyes have certainly been opened to a whole new world out there - a very worrying one.

As a parent of an abducted child, I can tell you that it is the most painful and agonising experience you could ever imagine. My thoughts of the fear, confusion and loss of love and security that my precious daughter has had to endure are unbearable - crippling. And yet I am not the victim, Madeleine is. No child should EVER have to experience something so terrible.

But they is no suggestion she has come to any harm?

All missing children are vulnerable to exploitation including sexual exploitation, with this being the motive in many of those cases of stranger abductions where a motive can be determined.

Sorry to disagree dragonfly, but I cannot see how there can be a major contradiction here given that the motive for Madeleine's 'abduction' hasn't been officially determined. However, there does seem to be some misunderstanding or discrepancy in relation to child pornography and the sexual exploitation of children because according to data from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (as of December 31, 2011) most child pornography victims are abused by someone they know. Of the child victims who have been identified by law enforcement, 79% were victimized by an adult they knew and trusted – a parent/guardian (22%), another relative (10%), or a family friend (47%).

TESTIMONY OF MICHELLE COLLINS
Vice President, Exploited Children Division and Assistant to the President of NCMEC
NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN
Before the U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION
February 15, 2012
“Federal Child Pornography Offenses”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

russiandoll wrote: quote
and no CRB check requirements , not even for those working with children are other major areas of concern within many parts of Europe.

Was this a major concern of yours and Gerry's before you left for Portugal? While you were holidaying there it was with a British company, did you, knowing you intended to leave 3 under 4s in a kids club for many hours, check to confirm that the CRB cheks put in place for your children's care at home had been done for the creche staff? I know people working on British cruise ships looking after children who are CRB checked. It matters not that this was a holiday , you advertised to strangers in PdL that your children were regularly unattended for a few hours each evening. Anyone at that creche with an ulterior motive for working with children could have posed a danger. You were not happy leaving a stranger with them in the apartment as a babysitter. Yet you were happy to let strangers mind your children day after day. They would have had access in private to your eldest, taking her to the toilet for example.
As for the twins, they were in nappies weren't they? On multiple occasions strangers in their creche were changing their nappies.
So what checks did you make to ensure the safety of your vulnerable little ones I wonder.

One of the first things the PJ asked Kate is why she left two children just over two years old alone when she was convinced Maddie had been 'taken'.
This story continued, despite Gerry's theory that the abductor had been in the apartment at the same time that he did his check.
My worry is also about linguistics - (as Kate said again in the Irish interview) why would Maddie possibly be 'cowering' in a cupboard? Why Kate? What put that verb into your head?
Even if I was making it up, I'd use 'hiding' not cowering. 'Maddie and her fear of pain' - yes that would make her cower. That phrase is in the diary twice I believe. Fear of pain and cowering go together. Frightened by intruder and hiding go together.

Olympicana_Reloaded wrote:

Sorry to disagree dragonfly, but I cannot see how there can be a major contradiction here given that the motive for Madeleine's 'abduction' hasn't been officially determined. However, there does seem to be some misunderstanding or discrepancy in relation to child pornography and the sexual exploitation of children because according to data from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (as of December 31, 2011) most child pornography victims are abused by someone they know. Of the child victims who have been identified by law enforcement, 79% were victimized by an adult they knew and trusted – a parent/guardian (22%), another relative (10%), or a family friend (47%).

TESTIMONY OF MICHELLE COLLINS
Vice President, Exploited Children Division and Assistant to the President of NCMEC
NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN
Before the U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION
February 15, 2012
“Federal Child Pornography Offenses”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sorry to disagree dragonfly, but I cannot see how there can be a major contradiction here given that the motive for Madeleine's 'abduction' hasn't been officially determined.

Hello Olympicana_Reloaded ,
That is my point if we 'were' to be of the belief that she was abducted as the Mccann's are upholding, ' No motive has been determined ' so being 'abducted ' by a predator and not a 'loving family wanting a child' can not and has not be ruled out , and with the constant spouting of 'there is no suggesting she has come to any harm or on this particular quote 'absolutely [/b[b]]nothing to suggest' goes against all logic and statistics , ie firstly most children who come to harm/abused/killed is likely to be from a family member first, someone they know ect ect, The website clearly states 'absolutely nothing to suggest has come to no harm , despite otherwise dog alerts included is a suggestion that all is not right, yet the dogs are even dismissed I believe this is clearly a contradiction , How can it not be?

If it had been someone looking for a child to bring up as their own, Amelie would have been 'taken', not Maddie. Statistically it is highly, highly likely that Madeleine would have been harmed - possibly in the way her dear mother imagines on page 129 of her book.
The supposition that she has not been 'harmed' flies against all the evidence of such cases.
Given a choice between Maddie a 'screamer' and a child that 'could throw a tantrum' (all family evidence) and easy, sleepy Amelie, there really is no choice is there? If they wanted a child not to harm her but simply because they wanted a child of their own, it would have been Amelie. Barely a memory of her real parents.
I'm with Dragon fly.

tigger wrote:

My worry is also about linguistics - (as Kate said again in the Irish interview) why would Maddie possibly be 'cowering' in a cupboard? Why Kate? What put that verb into your head?
Even if I was making it up, I'd use 'hiding' not cowering. 'Maddie and her fear of pain' - yes that would make her cower. That phrase is in the diary twice I believe. Fear of pain and cowering go together. Frightened by intruder and hiding go together.

That phrase 'Maddie and her fear of pain' is intriguing. But why does it have to be an intruder? The mother who is known to have a bad temper could slap her child routinely.

Surely, emotional harm IS harm. Just the mere fact that Maddie has been
forcibly seperated from her family (if the McCanns' story is to be
believed) will cause her emotional harm. On that point alone, there's a major contradiction between the statements dragonfly highlights.

Ribisl wrote:tigger wrote:

My worry is also about linguistics - (as Kate said again in the Irish interview) why would Maddie possibly be 'cowering' in a cupboard? Why Kate? What put that verb into your head?
Even if I was making it up, I'd use 'hiding' not cowering. 'Maddie and her fear of pain' - yes that would make her cower. That phrase is in the diary twice I believe. Fear of pain and cowering go together. Frightened by intruder and hiding go together.

That phrase 'Maddie and her fear of pain' is intriguing. But why does it have to be an intruder? The mother who is known to have a bad temper could slap her child routinely.

I brought up the 'fear of pain' (which is translated in the book as 'fear and pain') because that would go with the verb cower.
To cower imo needs another person to be cowering from. So yes, a mother with a bad temper would make a child cower and as you and Nina pointed out, a child would cower if they thought an expected punishment would arrive any moment.

I just don't think it's the right verb to use in connection with hiding from an intruder you don't know and who hasn't done you any harm before. Especially if she was 'a screamer' - it's not in character in the situation as described.
I may well be nitpicking here, but the phrase used several times by Kate - find her cowering - why would that have come up at all? It does suggest that this would not be the first time Kate had found her cowering - that's my worry.

Covwering means hiding in fear from expecting pain or punishment coming her way.
If cowering is a regular thing Maddie did then she was living in fear of either her Mum or her Dad.
There is no other reason for a child to cower.

Nina wrote:

Ribisl wrote:tigger wrote:

My worry is also about linguistics - (as Kate said again in the Irish interview) why would Maddie possibly be 'cowering' in a cupboard? Why Kate? What put that verb into your head?
Even if I was making it up, I'd use 'hiding' not cowering. 'Maddie and her fear of pain' - yes that would make her cower. That phrase is in the diary twice I believe. Fear of pain and cowering go together. Frightened by intruder and hiding go together.

That phrase 'Maddie and her fear of pain' is intriguing. But why does it have to be an intruder? The mother who is known to have a bad temper could slap her child routinely.

I had a very strict upbringing from my Mum who slapped me daily, the last slap was on my wedding day which was 51 years ago today [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] . It was the norm that daily I would do something that caused great annoyance and get a slap, and always my head.

By her own admission in relation to the crying incident, KM is a shaker. I'm not sure what is worse, a slapper or a shaker, since any form of violence, especially when used against children is abhorrent, but I do recall reading somewhere that shaking small children is particularly dangerous.

That interview - we had a recent discussion over that. But the main point of the crying was 'what do you mean you woke up?' It's the waking up that seems to be more distressing to Kate than the crying. On top of that we see her making shaking or grabbing movements suggesting that that is what she should have done.
Children waking in the night seem to be quite unusual to Kate. We can guess why.

My child, I'd cuddle, feel guilty that because of me leaving her alone she was afraid and cried. I certainly wouldn't feel like shaking or grabbing her to find out what she was trying to say.

Such emotions don't seem to occur to Maddie's parents, children seem to like so much furniture to them. Put them there, they will stay there....

How very fortunate she didn't have six children as that was the number she wished for in the beginning...Or if it was meant as a joke (in the book) when she described her thoughts about her future; before she had knowledge of her fertilityproblems.

I have a friend who made an active choice not to have children. She feels she constantly has to explain this decision to working colleagues and even parents and to her brother aswell. She tells them that she is happy with her life as it is, being able to travel, work as much as she wants, sleep in the mornings/through nights etc etc. With other words she is not willing to sacrifice anything in her present life, and neither is her husband. They both ignored the pressure from people in their environment in order to continue their life the way they want it. As a parent I know that children wake up at nights, they get ill sometimes and need their parents to be there for them, comfort them even when mum and dad are ill themselves (or just deadly tired ). Yes it is tough sometimes but if I'm not ready for all that, then why do I insist having children and risk neglecting them because I just want it ALL, get together with friends, drinking, in short words enjoying adult company more than spending time with your children - but still you want to show the world that you have a family...

A certain family could have enjoyed their adult evenings (without having to interrupt the fun and check the children) if a babysitter had been present the whole time. But that would have made all the intruders scared and they'd ran away empty-handed, can't let that happen can we?

Yes, furniture are easier to handle(but sometimes heavier) than children..(But I could never ever love them as I love my children)

tigger wrote:If it had been someone looking for a child to bring up as their own, Amelie would have been 'taken', not Maddie. Statistically it is highly, highly likely that Madeleine would have been harmed - possibly in the way her dear mother imagines on page 129 of her book.
The supposition that she has not been 'harmed' flies against all the evidence of such cases.

I agree. It's one of a list of 'probabilities' they're up against:

1) It's statistically more probable that MBM came to harm at their hands not a stranger - denied vehemently from the first shout
2) It's statistically more probable that IF she was abducted by a stranger, she was killed very shortly afterwards - denied throughout
3) It's statistically 100% probable that an abductor would leave forensic or physical evidence of his visit - none found
4) It's highly statistically probable that the dogs correctly alerted to Madeleine's cadaver odour and blood (in house, garments, toys and car)
5) It's highly statistically probable that someone using Carter-Ruck to sue people left right and centre is trying to hide something

One layer of probability on its own is significant, but each layer multiplies the overall probability of their involvement. I think the McCann's see these things in 2D; a sort of linear fashion. To them, each thing, each piece of evidence, each discrepancy, each crack in their story represents just one thing after another to explain. Kate's bewqk plods doggedly through a shopping list of such problems. They don't seem to be able to see the bigger picture we can.

tigger wrote:That interview - we had a recent discussion over that. But the main point of the crying was 'what do you mean you woke up?' It's the waking up that seems to be more distressing to Kate than the crying. On top of that we see her making shaking or grabbing movements suggesting that that is what she should have done.
Children waking in the night seem to be quite unusual to Kate. We can guess why.

My child, I'd cuddle, feel guilty that because of me leaving her alone she was afraid and cried. I certainly wouldn't feel like shaking or grabbing her to find out what she was trying to say.

Such emotions don't seem to occur to Maddie's parents, children seem to like so much furniture to them. Put them there, they will stay there....

Very perceptive observation, tigger. I guess this is all part of the making of a narcissistic mother that she cannot empathise with her child's distress. No hugging her gently and trying to coax out of her what's made her cry. Instead, Kate's immediate reaction is almost a slight annoyance at her for not being perfectly happy with her holiday in the crèche. In that situation, I can easily imagine Madeleine clamming up and not bothering to explain things which might cause further discord with her mother. Children can be extremely sensitive to their parent's moods and they learn from very early on how best to deal with it.

Upon reflection it does seem the following statement could be interpreted as a contradiction given the recent conviction of US coach Jerry Sandusky on child sex abuse charges. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"As we travelled through Europe in an attempt to raise awareness of Madeleine's abduction and appeal for help, we were repeatedly made aware of the unbelievable existence of such a horrifying activity and its vastness in our so called civilised and ‘child-loving’ society. How can such ‘businesses’ be condoned or tolerated by us all?"

Nice Guy Molesters’ Believe They’re ‘Child Lovers’

“I enjoy young people,” Jerry Sandusky told NBC’s Bob Costas Monday. “I love being around them.”

That was Sandusky’s explanation after being accused of 40 counts of child molestation charges. He enjoys kids. He started the popular and successful Second Mile charity; he says he even felt like a kid himself sometimes.

But that ‘nice guy’ defense is a classic tactic of a child sexual predator, said Ken Lanning, a former FBI special agent for 30 years and now a consultant in the area of crimes against children. This type of child predator hones in on children who are particularly vulnerable, then gives them whatever it is they feel they’re missing. Poor? The predator will shower the child with gifts and money, Lanning said. No dad? The child molester looks to fill that void by acting as a fatherly figure.

“They call themselves child lovers,” said Lanning. ”They nurture these kids, so when someone asks, ‘Did you molest this child?’ they say, ‘I would never molest or hurt a child.’”

“In their mind, it’s not molesting, it’s love,” he said.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Surely, given the McCann's keen interest and concern for missing and exploited children the term "child loving" society does seem to be a rather inappropriate, if not contradictory term to be using.

Kate's comment in her book that, on Madeleine's 4th birthday, it was unbearable not being able to "love and please her and enjoy her delight" is also highly inappropriate terminology.

from MM forum
Official Find Madeleine Campaign

We have updated our online store to make it easier to purchase items to help in the search for Madeleine.

Please let us know if you come across any issues when ordering.

Thank you for everything you do to help us in the search

A reminder of what is on offer at the online store.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Form an orderly queue please!

They have money. Why don't they give the items out for free especially now they apparently no longer have private investigators as a result of the SY review? I suppose they need to keep a healthy balance in the coffers what with all the legal actions they're involved in.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Snip from tigger's post on page 2

"23.00 hrs, OC guest G. McK. approached the McCann’s apartment from the bushes at the rear of the apartment Mr McCann was looking our over the swimming pool and did not see Mr McKenzie. Mr McCann was absolutely distraught telling the person receiving the call that he feared “she (Madeleine McCann) had been taken by paedophiles”He said something along the lines of there being Paedophile gangs in Portugal and that they had abducted Madeleine. I was so shocked by this, having originally thought that she had just wandered off.”


Gerry already asserts that Madeleine was in the hands of paedophiles and Kate has told us what her thoughts are page 129 so it is a major contradiction.

dragonfly wrote:On the front of the home page

Why do we continue?
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed.

Under missing children section - Kate's message

(snippet of the message)
All missing children are vulnerable to exploitation including sexual exploitation, with this being the motive in many of those cases of stranger abductions where a motive can be determined. Child sexual exploitation and child pornography in particular, is sadly and shockingly extensive worldwide. It is a multi-billion dollar industry aided by the use of the Internet with the ‘thirst’ for younger victims growing. Once again, my ‘bubble’ of a life burst as I began to discover the facts relating to this now global crisis. As we travelled through Europe in an attempt to raise awareness of Madeleine's abduction and appeal for help, we were repeatedly made aware of the unbelievable existence of such a horrifying activity and its vastness in our so called civilised and ‘child-loving’ society. How can such ‘businesses’ be condoned or tolerated by us all? What are the benefits for our children of being in a European Union where several member countries offer child pornography as a LEGAL past time? The most vulnerable members of our society are our children and they deserve better than this. Lack of sex offender registers, lack of reliable tracking systems for known offenders and no CRB check requirements , not even for those working with children are other major areas of concern within many parts of Europe. My eyes have certainly been opened to a whole new world out there - a very worrying one.

As a parent of an abducted child, I can tell you that it is the most painful and agonising experience you could ever imagine. My thoughts of the fear, confusion and loss of love and security that my precious daughter has had to endure are unbearable - crippling. And yet I am not the victim, Madeleine is. No child should EVER have to experience something so terrible.

But they is no suggestion she has come to any harm?

Jerry Sandusky sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison for child sex abuse

Former Penn State coach defiant before sentencing as he blames media and legal conspiracy for his June conviction

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sandusky case reminds us of how we can all protect children

From Anne Pfeiffer, executive director of Pat’s Place Child Advocacy Center in Charlotte:

I often talk with adults who are victims of child sexual abuse. Many share a commonality: when they were young, they weren’t able to tell.

This is Lynn’s account: “When I was 8 years old, my father quietly entered my bedroom and sexually abused me for the first time. Four years and countless terror-filled nights later, he was through with me. His acts are etched in my memory. As a young girl, I would lie in bed waiting for him to come home, drunk, late at night. At the sound of the garage door rising, I froze. I heard his keys drop on the kitchen counter; his footsteps close in on me as he climbed the stairs. Each night, I lay in bed, praying he would walk past my door. Thirty-eight years later, the sexual abuse I endured at the hands of my father is part of my consciousness every single day. The effects of his harm seep into every facet of my life: my marriage, the way I parent, my friendships, my work. I have nightmares. Sometimes, I re-live the abuse.

“My father stole my soul; I fought and got it back. I confronted, he denied. I walked away. It may be fair to say that no one could’ve stopped my father from hurting me. He is a handsome, powerful, wealthy man. He is well connected, well thought of, a leader in a faraway community. No one had ever stood up to his power; no one had ever said ‘no’ to him or questioned his motives.”

This is Lynn’s account and there are countless others. No one protected Lynn. No one stood up for her. She never told. And that’s how it happened with Jerry Sandusky. Penn State’s most powerful leaders turned their backs on at least 12 young boys, in order to uphold an image, to preserve an institution.

Tuesday, Jerry Sandusky was sentenced to 30 to 60 years for his actions. The unfolding story raised our collective consciousness. Now we cannot let the conversation around protecting children from sexual abuse end. Every child depends on us to keep this issue in the forefront.

Sexual abuse happens in every town, every city, every state; it does not discriminate by socio-economic level, along racial lines, or educational achievement. Most victims, 90 percent, are hurt by someone they know, trust, maybe even love. We know that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually abused by the time they are 18 years old. Less than 1 in 5 will tell.

There are things we must do to help prevent child sexual abuse. First, we have to say the words, “sexual abuse” often, out loud, to each other, to our children. We must learn the warning signs and put into practice good policy to ensure child safety. Then, we need to observe, listen, and report our suspicions or questions. We must let perpetrators know that we are watching. As adults, we must participate. Contact Pat’s Place at 704-335-2760 to register for our Stewards of Children training, a 2.5 hour session to educate adults about child sexual abuse and provide simple, effective strategies to protect children from abuse, the behaviors and grooming techniques of perpetrators, and how to intervene and react responsibly if warning signs exist.

Lynn’s father and Jerry Sandusky both wounded innocent children. While we cannot change their pasts, we can change the future for children yet to come. Child sexual abuse is preventable, and there is a role for all of us to make it stop.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

All missing children are vulnerable to exploitation including sexual exploitation, with this being the motive in many of those cases of stranger abductions where a motive can be determined.

Yet, her Maddie taken by *stranger* is an exception to the rule - there is no evidence she's come to any harm is what she had also said.

Reminding people to buy their products online at this stage is so tacky when Review is ongoing and pte detectives probably no longer used.

Why aren't they horrified by say-ville crime against children? They haven't comment.

Wasn't their story that Madeleine had been abducted by paedophiles, so to say there was no evidence she had come to harm is a contradiction almost by definition.

The moment Madeleine left her family, she was harmed. Even if we are to take the example of a family looking for a child of their own, taking Madeleine from the sibilings she knew, from the parents she knew, still caused her harm.

It is not possible to say that Madeleine has not been harmed, regardless of the circumstances in which she was taken.

sami wrote:The moment Madeleine left her family, she was harmed. Even if we are to take the example of a family looking for a child of their own, taking Madeleine from the sibilings she knew, from the parents she knew, still caused her harm.
It is not possible to say that Madeleine has not been harmed, regardless of the circumstances in which she was taken.

That is the strange thing about that statement.
To forcibly take a small child from the lawful custody of its parents and against its consent MUST cause, at the very least, psychological harm.

To forcibly take a small child from the lawful custody of its parents and against its consent MUST cause, at the very least, psychological harm.

Taking it a stage further, are the McCanns saying that child abduction where the child is not physically harmed is only a crime because it hurts the parents?

I would think they're in a minority of two in that one.