To think the Met spending £5 million on Maddie McCann is unfair on others who have missing children

[Ilovemyself]

I know how retched I would feel if I were in the McCanns position, and would want no expense to be spared in the hunt for answers.

But I can't help but think that this case has been so high profile that other cases must have funding cut or not even be followed up as the budget is limited.

I honestly don't know what the answer is, but it does seem this case has benefitted in ways others wouldn't.

I feel bad for thinking its unfair on others, but just can't help wondering how other victims of serious crime feel.

Janey68 and Jessica. Exactly the point I was trying to make. The point is that a 2 year review and personal intervention by the PM in this case is not given to other cases.

Emily - just because the case has huge media attention doesn't mean it is more worthy than the others - it just means that the McCanns PR roller coaster is still going

Of course I hope they resolve this case, and that the McCanns get the answers they, as any parent deserve. But the argument is still valid as to the effort that is put in and the reason for that effort.

And to say you are glad that us lot are not in charge is crazy- most of us would try and divert more funds on that direction. But the truth of the matter is that how big or small £5 million is, there is still only a very limited pot of money and it is being disproportionately spent ( in my opinion for PR gains)

I don?t think it?s about preferencial treatment or scoring political browny points or about the met increasing their positive public profile. I think it?s about satisfying a curiosity if you like, about one of the world?s greatest unsolved mysteries.

Because if you strip away the emotional nature of the case, the fear, the circumstances, the judgements etc that?s essentially what it is. One night a child disappeared from a holiday apartment and was never seen again. There was no trace, no evidence. No witnesses. There was only speculation as to what might have happened.

As a parent you of course would want to know what had happened to your child. But as a police authority who habitually solves crimes through the gathering of facts and evidence without the addition of emotion and personal feeling, there must be an element of wondering how it is that a child could vanish into thin air without a trace, and given the amount of media coverage was never seen or heard of again, or even that no-one who might have known what happened actually came forward to offer up an explanation.

It?s unheard of for people to vanish like that without a trace. Cases like Keith Bennett are entirely different. We know he was murdered; it?s more a case of knowing where he is. The Egyptian girl was abducted by a parent but equally, it?s known what happened to her it?s just not known where she is. Even cases like Andrew Gosden there are some facts ? he ran away from home willingly, we just don?t know the circumstances or where he went.

Children like Jinette Tait who disappeared ? her bicycle was found, and although no trace of her was found it?s easy enough to piece together the puzzle, and iirc it?s now speculated as to what happened to her.

But Madeleine Mccann disappeared one night without a trace, and there isn?t really even a real idea as to what might have happened to her. Was she taken? In which case why her and not one of the twins? Did she wander off and fall in the sea or a hole or was taken from wherever she wander to? Was there some involvement by someone in the group ? reality is that no-one knows or even has any idea why this child disappeared and where she disappeared to. It?s unheard of for this sort of thing to happened and there to not only be no resolution, but actually, no idea of what even happened, and no evidence ? nothing.

I know that all sounds a bit emotionless, but in twenty, thirty, fifty years time when people talk of unsolved mysteries and they talk of Madeleine Mccann people will talk about it in an emotionless way because they had no connection, so it?ll be ?how sad but how absolutely bizarre that it could have happened that way.?

wannaBe - "It's unheard of for people to vanish like that without a trace"???

Do you REALLY believe that? Do you live on a different planet to the rest of us? THOUSANDS of people disappear every year with no trace and no clue as to what happened.

And as for saying it's one of the world's greatest unsolved mysteries....

Of course they do - and with the majority it is a personal choice. None of them are three years old.

For a child to disappear from her bed like that without a trace is unheard of yes. Yes many people do disappear seemingly without a trace but these are often adults who find a way to disappear iyswim or teenage runaways who disappear on to the streets somewhere etc , and the resources are usually not used to find them in the same way because it is usually known that they disappeared willingly as opposed to a three year old who had no input into her own disappearance.

There are of course other unsolved mysteries e.g. Claudia Lawrence, but even in the case of her disappearance while there is seemingly little evidence, there are details about her lifestyle etc which have led police to some idea as to what may have happened to her, even if they don?t know where or who etc.

So I stand by what I said ? for a child to disappear in this way is unheard of ? not least because she was never traced and there was never any evidence as to what may have actually happened too her.

And of course it is an unsolved mystery. It is of course the tragic disappearance of a child, but it happened in such mysterious circumstances that it is and will remain a mystery ? in the same way as e.g. ben Needham?s disappearance is, and many people are not as closely associated with that because it happened such a long time ago. In the same timeframe as with that case, Madeleine Mccann will also become one of those cases. Not everyone will be emotionally attached to it because A, people forget and move on, B, people won?t have been there at the time when the media hype was surrounding it. For the family finding out what happened will bring closure. For many other people though finding out will bring a sense of ?so that?s what happened.? It can?t bring anything more than that because none of us are actually attached to this case.

Agree to an extent in that its a very very unusual set of circumstances. But it's not unique. Apart from Ben needham there are other cases of children mysteriously disappearing. Genette Tate has already been mentioned and no trace has ever been found of her- yes her bike was found abandoned but no one has ever been charged with a crime and I can't see how the case is fundamentally different to the McCann one, insofar as no one actually knows what happened.
Then there is the lad who disappeared on the same date as Madeleine but a few years before: Daniel Entwistle. Again there is speculation as with MM- did he fall into water (he lived in a coastal area) , was Some other person (s) involved ... Again I think this is a fair parallel with MM. The case has never been resolved and has never recieved anywhere near the publicity and funding that MM has. You can't help but wonder whether leads could have been found if as many resources were ploughed in.

There is a finite budget and surely all these cases are equally deserving

Well, if the "£5 million" were divided among all the cases of missing children I doubt anyone would be found or any mysteries solved.

Is it not possible that the police are aware of leads in this case which would make it worthwhile undertaking an investigation?

So I don't see how not investigating one situation benefits the victims or family of another.

Emily - correct. But HOW do you decide which gets the money and resources and which don't? Which family/child/person is more deserving?

But the leads have only been discovered because of the 2 year review of the McCann case which has already happened Emily. That's the point many of us are making. The case has been given unprecedented publicity and treated as a 'special', 'more deserving' case on every level: from the way the parents have been presented to the funding given to it. That's what sits uneasily with many of us. And in a sense the £5 million is not the key issue: if the budget were £5 billion surely the principle should be that cases are treated equitably.

At the end of the day, the Met are gaining far more in terms of their public image and credibility by investing in this case, than by investing in others. They are not investing so much because madeleine is more deserving, or because there is a more reasonable chance of resolving the case. It's because the massive manipulation of public perception about the case has been unprecedented. This is a response to the whole 'McCann machine.' And that's what's wrong.

I didn't say the case is more "worthy" than any other because it has media attention.

Both of the posts Janey68 says are exactly what I mean!

jbfletcher I don't know.

Maybe now that the precedent has been set, if anything as tragic happens again, then there will automatically be this 2 year review because that's what parents will be able to expect. It might ultimately save a child that is currently waiting to even be conceived.

Well let's hope so but I will be very surprised if it happens. I also wonder why it hasn't happened for the other cases mentioned which have occurred over recent years

Alternatively, other cases DO get reviewed periodically but because there is no massive media interest, those reviews don't get reported.

There are cold case reviews, yes. But I think the difference here is that the review and investment of such high levels of funding have been triggered by the massively high profile of this case, and the personal involvement of the PM etc... All cases certainly don't get that.

That doesn't mean this one shouldn't get it though. The problem is with the other cases, not the one that is being dealt with well.

The McCanns have had a huge amount to deal with with the media storm that came about after the disappearance of their child, and some of that is a good thing, some isn't. I don't think they can be blamed for wanting as much attention as possible when there's a chance it could have lead to their child being found. They may have made mistakes in the way they have dealt with some things along the way, but who wouldn't? People make mistakes when cooking their dinner sometimes, I don't think they can be blamed for mistakes made with something so huge.

Maybe this case is getting extra resources because of all the media attention, but I don't see that as a bad thing at all.

I agree clouds

The Madeline McCann case is not comparable with Ben Needham or Genette Tate (both of which I do remember), because of the change in the media in the years since the former case.

The McCann have been forced into an invidious position in the most horrible of circumstances

McCanns

Good points well made clouds and jamie

"Maybe this case is getting extra resources because of all the media attention, but I don't see that as a bad thing "...

But surely resources should be carved up equally in the first instance, and then subsequently on the basis of viable leads and the likelihood of a resolution to the case? I think ploughing extra resource into a case because it is high profile in the media is hardly a rigorous or morally sound method of allocation. The fact is, if other comparable cases were given a 2 year long review such as this one, then they may well have thrown up new leads to follow. They just never had that chance that this one has.

And if you want to dismiss genette Tate and Ben Needham as being too long ago, then look to the more recent cases such as Daniel entwistle which is highly comparable, took place within the context of Internet and other developments in the media. There has been no resolution to this case, no evidence as to whether he is alive or dead and yet hardly any media coverage or funding compared to the McCann case

I doubt anyone was "dismissing" those children. That isn't how read it.

I think we all need to remember that whilst this might provide some interesting debate material the subject in hand is of missing children.
The most precious loved ones of real people.
So important to be respectful.

But if you carve up resources equally as soon as something happens, then you end up with money being wasted on one case where there is little work left to do, and leads being ignored in other cases because investigators have chosen to follow other ones before the money has run out.

It's not about sharing resources equally, or at least it shouldn't be. It's about doing what needs to be done in each case and taking each case on its own merits.

I'm not dismissing the other cases at all, but if there is valuable work that could still be done in those cases than that should be highlighted and funded in its own right. It has nothing to do with the McCann case, it can be discussed without bringing Madeleine McCann into it.

I can see what you are saying Janey, but what do you think should happen now? Should the McCanns be told that they shouldn't have had the 2 year review, or be told that even though the review was done and there are leads they could follow that they are going to ignore them because we still don't know what happened to Ben Needham?