This isn't a pro or anti McCann Q...so lets try & put our head together for once...ok?!
I'm begining to believe that there are 2 schools of thought with regards to finding missing children :
1. Some experts believe that a wide media coverage results in the public easily recognising the child which leads to a quick finding of the baby.
2. Some experts believe that its better for Police & Private investigators to go underground, lulling the abductor into a false sense of security, leading them to come out with the child when the child is rescued & abductor is nabbed.
Now, i don't say that the McCanns were wrong to immediately opt for full coverage of their missing Madeleine.
They were obviously advised by experts who know more about abductions than any of us here.
Also, being in a foreign country, they had to attempt the quickest option & its a fact that wide coverage normally results in quick findings.
My Q is what is your opinion? Which option do YOU prefer?
Its obviously a very very tough call to make as its simple to see that wide coverage leads to the abductor getting into a panic which could be dangerous for the child. At the same time, wide coverage is a known surefire way to ensure that people keep their eyes & ears open for the child which is vital for the child's quick & safe return.
Personally, i think that tho' option 2 may take longer, which would be a nightmare for both the parents as well as the child, it is a safer option.
God bless little Madeleine & her grieving family.
2007-11-01
19:54:44
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Faith
6
in
Current Events