How did the McCanns dispose of the body - how did they do it ?

[gitana1]

Seeking donations more like.

How do you explain that the McCann never once physically looked for their daughter?

How do you explain the McCann leaving Portugal to visit the Pope (and several other important folk), when their daughter may have been discovered at any moment, injured and crying for her mummy?

How do you explain the McCann leaving their twins alone in the room their sister had just been "abducted" from?

Hey, Sapphire. Well, the McCanns were upper middle class doctors. Surely they didn't need to disappear their daughter in order to make money from donors.

I hear this criticism a lot when families of the missing or dead seek or benefit from donations. People get really upset and/or suspicious when a family obtains monetary donations in such a situation but I really haven't heard of one actual proven case of fraud when it comes to such situations or of a family getting rich or even being able to live off donations or money made from their missing kid for long.

And, it's damned if they do, damned if they don't. If this family never spoke, they would be accused. Now that they do, they are somehow seeking money. It doesn't seem logical to me at all.

Guilty parties generally stay way under the radar after they feel they have gotten away with a crime. They don't seek a ton of publicity. They don;t demand answers. Only the most evil of them all - OJ, who was desperate to make money and wrote that gross book, "If I did it." and Drew Peterson, whose sense of sociopathic entitlement and invulnerability were a thing to behold - do not shy from publicity, on occasion. I just don't see this family as anything close to the likes of those clowns. Even if they killed their daughter or covered up her death.

So, their behavior simply does not fit the profile of the guilty, to me.

Why didn't she physically search for her kid? Shock. Fear. Who knows. When she realized she wasn't there, dread kicked in and she feared the worst. You know that people react differently.

As to the Pope visit, I'm Catholic. So I very well understand that visit. I don't know what else to say about that but having him bless the photo of her little, missing daughter was like a huge bolt of hope. he is the head of the church.

And, it had been about a month when the family made that visit. By then, it was unlikely that their daughter was going to discovered at any moment, injured and crying for her mummy. That may have been the case in the first hours or even days, but not a month later. And they must have known that. The sense of desperation must have been insane and going to the pope must have felt like real action and a real chance at getting their kid back.

Why did she leave the twins in the apartment to sound the alarm? Shock. Not thinking clearly.

None of the things listed here make me conclude that these parents killed their kids. I'm sure that others could give me a thousand other reasons why I should be certain of their guilt. But, I have looked at a lot of the various claims regarding their guilt and for multiple reasons, was not impressed. And I do not want to argue in circles with everyone about this case. It's why I don't post on the McCann threads very often at all.

But, I wanted gord to know that not everyone here is convinced of their guilt.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Hey, Sapphire. Well, the McCanns were upper middle class doctors. Surely they didn't need to disappear their daughter in order to make money from donors.

I hear this criticism a lot when families of the missing or dead seek or benefit from donations. People get really upset and/or suspicious when a family obtains monetary donations in such a situation but I really haven't heard of one actual proven case of fraud when it comes to such situations or of a family getting rich or even being able to live off donations or money made from their missing kid for long.

And, it's damned if they do, damned if they don't. If this family never spoke, they would be accused. Now that they do, they are somehow seeking money. It doesn't seem logical to me at all.

Guilty parties generally stay way under the radar after they feel they have gotten away with a crime. They don't seek a ton of publicity. They don;t demand answers. Only the most evil of them all - OJ, who was desperate to make money and wrote that gross book, "If I did it." and Drew Peterson, whose sense of sociopathic entitlement and invulnerability were a thing to behold - do not shy from publicity, on occasion. I just don't see this family as anything close to the likes of those clowns. Even if they killed their daughter or covered up her death.

So, their behavior simply does not fit the profile of the guilty, to me.

Why didn't she physically search for her kid? Shock. Fear. Who knows. When she realized she wasn't there, dread kicked in and she feared the worst. You know that people react differently.

As to the Pope visit, I'm Catholic. So I very well understand that visit. I don't know what else to say about that but having him bless the photo of her little, missing daughter was like a huge bolt of hope. he is the head of the church.

And, it had been about a month when the family made that visit. By then, it was unlikely that their daughter was going to discovered at any moment, injured and crying for her mummy. That may have been the case in the first hours or even days, but not a month later. And they must have known that. The sense of desperation must have been insane and going to the pope must have felt like real action and a real chance at getting their kid back.

Why did she leave the twins in the apartment to sound the alarm? Shock. Not thinking clearly.

None of the things listed here make me conclude that these parents killed their kids. I'm sure that others could give me a thousand other reasons why I should be certain of their guilt. But, I have looked at a lot of the various claims regarding their guilt and for multiple reasons, was not impressed. And I do not want to argue in circles with everyone about this case. It's why I don't post on the McCann threads very often at all.

But, I wanted gord to know that not everyone here is convinced of their guilt.

I don't mean to imply they killed her for profit.

No, I think the truth is far darker, but I think the profit was serendipity. A silver lining to a very ugly black cloud.

The thing with the McCann is, there is not one single aspect anyone can point to and say "there, that's proof". There are however, many many seemingly unrelated discrepancies, facts, behaviours, which on their own can each be explained away, but viewed as a whole, add up to a very unpleasant portait.

The other thing the McCann supporter cannot do, is provide one single shred of evidence of an intruder. Not one...nor a feasible explanation of how the abduction actually went, or for how he got her out of PDL.

:cow:

 

[Cherwell]

People get really upset and/or suspicious when a family obtains monetary donations in such a situation but I really haven't heard of one actual proven case of fraud when it comes to such situations or of a family getting rich or even being able to live off donations or money made from their missing kid for long.

Try googling "Shannon Matthews" :wink:

 

[Clutchbag]

Hey, Sapphire. Well, the McCanns were upper middle class doctors. Surely they didn't need to disappear their daughter in order to make money from donors.

I hear this criticism a lot when families of the missing or dead seek or benefit from donations. People get really upset and/or suspicious when a family obtains monetary donations in such a situation but I really haven't heard of one actual proven case of fraud when it comes to such situations or of a family getting rich or even being able to live off donations or money made from their missing kid for long.

And, it's damned if they do, damned if they don't. If this family never spoke, they would be accused. Now that they do, they are somehow seeking money. It doesn't seem logical to me at all.

Guilty parties generally stay way under the radar after they feel they have gotten away with a crime. They don't seek a ton of publicity. They don;t demand answers. Only the most evil of them all - OJ, who was desperate to make money and wrote that gross book, "If I did it." and Drew Peterson, whose sense of sociopathic entitlement and invulnerability were a thing to behold - do not shy from publicity, on occasion. I just don't see this family as anything close to the likes of those clowns. Even if they killed their daughter or covered up her death.

So, their behavior simply does not fit the profile of the guilty, to me.

Why didn't she physically search for her kid? Shock. Fear. Who knows. When she realized she wasn't there, dread kicked in and she feared the worst. You know that people react differently.

As to the Pope visit, I'm Catholic. So I very well understand that visit. I don't know what else to say about that but having him bless the photo of her little, missing daughter was like a huge bolt of hope. he is the head of the church.

And, it had been about a month when the family made that visit. By then, it was unlikely that their daughter was going to discovered at any moment, injured and crying for her mummy. That may have been the case in the first hours or even days, but not a month later. And they must have known that. The sense of desperation must have been insane and going to the pope must have felt like real action and a real chance at getting their kid back.

Why did she leave the twins in the apartment to sound the alarm? Shock. Not thinking clearly.

None of the things listed here make me conclude that these parents killed their kids. I'm sure that others could give me a thousand other reasons why I should be certain of their guilt. But, I have looked at a lot of the various claims regarding their guilt and for multiple reasons, was not impressed. And I do not want to argue in circles with everyone about this case. It's why I don't post on the McCann threads very often at all.

But, I wanted gord to know that not everyone here is convinced of their guilt.

Shock would strengthen the maternal protective instinct, but we have the mother leaving her other babies when she KNEW inher own words her eldest one was abducted

As for the money, they have not been transparent on where it has gone and they also CHARGE people for ordering missing posters when the millions they gained were for all this sort of thing, doesnt that strike you as strange

 

[SapphireSteel]

At the end of the day people are entitled to believe what they wish.

Heck, otherwise intelligent and apparently sane people still believe that God created Eve out of Adam's Rib.

What people are not entitled to, is to harangue non-creationists with their own non-evidence, or to refuse to enter into a mindful debate with someone who has compelling evidence of evolution.

That is just being ignorant and narrow minded.

The McCann supporters tend to be very one eyed in their support, to have absolutely zero evidence of an intruder, and lack even a logical theory as to how the "abduction" was actually carried out...much like your average Creationist.

I personally believe third party abduction to be physically impossible, if you know the facts.

:dunno:

 

[brit1981]

PDl is quiet, but also full of hundreds of stranger due to the holiday complex which was spread throughout the village. In villages like that strangers and cars are just not noticed because people use them all the time. And at the time of the abduction it was evening and people who used the evening creche were taking their children to and/or from it so no-one would think it very strange to see an adult carrying a child.

Going by people outside the tapas nine we know madeleine was alive and well at at least half past five, we know gerry was seen on the tennis courts at six to half past seven, we know David payne was seen leaving the courts at approx half sixish, we know kate and gerry were seen at the tapas resturant dressed for dinner at half past eight. we know that between half past eight and ten when the alarm was raised they were never alone together, and were only alone individually alone for about five minute each. We also know that searches were carrie dout by the complex employees and the police with sniffer dogs that night and nothing was found. We also know the mccanns did not know PDL well, had no access to a vehicle, and it is safe to assume they did not bring a spade.
So if they are involve dint he disappearence it means madeleine either died between half five and six and gerry still went off to play tennis and somehow on a busy tennis court explained the istuation to david and got him to claim he had seen madeleine alive and well at half sixish yet no-one else had heard this conversation. or she died when gerry was out and he knows nothing of what happened, or she either died when he was out or when he got back and in that brief hour he came to terms with his eldest childs death, hid her body where it has never been found whilst on foot with no digging tools, and then showered and changed for dinner and was at dinner as if nothing had happened. It does not sound likely in my opinion. It also begs the question what did jane tanner see - either she saw an innocent person who was carrying a child that just happened to match madeleine's description and this person has never come forward and her account tallied almost exactly with that of the smiths despite the fact that she did not know of the smiths sighting at the time, or she lied because at some point she had been told what had happened and been asked to lie - but why and whn was she asked?

I believe in a third party abduction, as do scotland yard. The flat was unlit, fairly secluded, had one unlocked door, a window which could be opened from the outside, and the car park door was according to previous tennants possible to open without a key from the outside. If someone had watched the patio door they could quiet easily have seen gerry leave walk in the patio door, quickly open the window as a possible escape route (or for numerous reasons to be honest eg passing the child out), and walked out of the front door into the dark car park in the space of five minutes. Scotland yard believe she was taken by a stranger and they have seen all of the facts which not one of us have seen.

The mccanns have not made a penny from the disappearence, all the money has gone to the fund (which under english law could not be set up as a charity), even the royalities from the book, and compensation which they could have kept have gone straight to the fund. There are also no ladders attached to the buildings as fire escapes.

 

[Clutchbag]

You are free to believe what you want

Not being able to fathom how anything could have happened and when doesnt mean it didnt

 

[brit1981]

true, butthe same goes for an abduction and I have just shown that those claiming an abduction could not have happened are incorrect. It could easily have happened.

 

[Clutchbag]

true, butthe same goes for an abduction and I have just shown that those claiming an abduction could not have happened are incorrect. It could easily have happened.

No evidence though but circumstantial evidence and lots of it that it didnt happen

 

[brit1981]

what circumstantial evidence. I have not seen one bit of circumstantial evidence against the mccanns.

 

[SapphireSteel]

what circumstantial evidence. I have not seen one bit of circumstantial evidence against the mccanns.

Circumstantial evidence includes but is not limited to -

They lied.
Their friends lied.
They tried to steer the investigation.
They refused to cooperate.
They were the only ones with means, motive, opportunity.
They appeared not to give a rat's about their children.
Their behaviour since has been bizarre.
The cadaver dog alerted to 5a alone in the entire resort.
The swabs in the alerted areas matched Madeleine.
They wiped their phone records.
They refused to provide medical records.
They continue to profiteer from their daughter's death
They attempted to censor the lead investigator
And on, and on...

 

[brit1981]

Circumstantial evidence includes but is not limited to -

They lied.- no they never
Their friends lied.- no they never
They tried to steer the investigation. no they never
They refused to cooperate. no they never
They were the only ones with means, motive, opportunity. so I assume you have checked every single person within a couple of hours and found that not one of them had any motive such as paedophilia? They did nto have any motive, they had hardly any means or opportunity. There are hundreds of thousands of people living within a couple of hours, the flat had two doors one was unlocked and secluded, one according to previous tennats could be opened wiothout a key from the outside and led onto a failry dark car park, the flat was unchecked for half an hour at a time. That is plenty of opportunity for anyone to walk in and out.
They appeared not to give a rat's about their children. I have not seen that. Using listenign services are common, and they made their own.
Their behaviour since has been bizarre. No it has not. I find it more bizzare that stranger s are coming up with weird and wonderful theories as to how a child could have died.
The cadaver dog alerted to 5a alone in the entire resort. The victim recovery dog did nto check the entire resort just four or five flats, which seems odd, why not check the entire resort. The recovery dog also alerts to bodily fluids including dried blood, from a living person and has alerted where no bodies have been found before, and even his handler admits that you cannot rely on the dogs alerts if they are not backed up by forensics. The dog also alerted to the card fobb which contained material from gerry mccann who is not dead.
The swabs in the alerted areas matched Madeleine. Not true at all. One swab in the flat could have come from madeleine or her father. one swab in the car came from three to five people, and had fifteen of madeleine's ninteed components which would be expected if the material had been donated by family members as 100% of madeleine's components can be found twice over in the dna of her parents, grandparents, and other relatives.
They wiped their phone records. No they never
They refused to provide medical records. No they never, they were not even in a position to refuse to provide the medical records. It was the Uk who at one point did not provide all of the medical records because the PJ failed to explain how they would be useful. However madeleine's gp did provide a statement.
They continue to profiteer from their daughter's death no they do not. They have not made a penny from it. All money goes straight to the fund which they do not get money from. They even gave up copmepnsation payments, and royalties from the book.
They attempted to censor the lead investigator No they do not. the convicted criminal amaral was removed from the case after six months, he was not the lead investigator after this point. He has since been taken to court for libel, which is something he has done to others. If he can prove his claims he has nothing to worry about,

And on, and on...

So all in all not one shred of circumstantial evidence (evidence, even circumstantial has to be true), just a minority of individuels on the internet claiming they know the mccanns are involved.

 

[brit1981]

I notice that for all the cries of the mccanns did it, not one person has come up with a theory that fits with the known facts. The timeline given by people outside the tapas nine is as follows (at dinner I have however included the tapas nine)

kidsclub workers state madeleine was alive and well at half past five. No-one has come up with any evidence they are lying.

Gerry was seen at the courts from six to half past seven by other holidya makers (not tapas nine). No-one has come up with any evidence they lied.

David was seen leaving the courts at half sixish by others on the court and not one person has been found to be lying, nor did anyone overhear any conspiracy talk between david and gerry and if madeleine was dead at this point and gerry had still gone off to the tennis courts then he woudl had to have told david and got him to lie whilst on the tennis courts.

Gerry and kate were then seen changed for dinner at half past eight by other guests, no-one has come up with any evidence these other guests lied.

From that time the tapas nine, jeremy wilkins, and restuarant staff confirm kate and gerry were only alone for five minutes individually and were not alone together. Gerry left the table at just after nine, and was seen coming back from the patio and talked to jeremy wilkins. kate was seen leaving just before ten and was seen by everyone at the restuarant coming back a few minutes later raising the alarm.

So either madeleine died between a few minutes after half five, and her father got changed, came to terms with her death, came up with a cover up, hid her body whilst on foot somewhere it was never found despite searches by people who knew the area well and then walked to the tennis courts and acted normally for the next hour and a half.
Or she either died after half seven when gerry got back or was dead by then, and gerry came home and then in the next hour came to terms with her death, came up with a plan, hid her body somewhere it was never found despite searches by people who knew the area well, showered and changed and then went to dinner and acted normally all within an hour and was not seen or heard by anyone else once (not one panicked voice as she died etc).
No-one can come up with a theory that fits these facts?
The smiths by the way never identified gerry. One of them said it was dark and he did not have glasses and never saw the mans face, but several weeks later he thought by the body language it could be gerry but was not sure. The other members of the party could nto identify the man, and several other people are 100% certain gerry was on the complex at this point (inc. people outside the tapas nine).
As for tanner she never said the person she saw walked right past gerry and jeremy. She clearly stated she saw the perosn at the top of the street walking across it for just a few seconds. Gerry and jeremy were further down the street, facing each other and facing the horizontal of the street rather than facing up the street where the person was. So unless for those few split seconds they looked up and turned towards the end of the street they would not have seen the person. Tanners sighting also matches that of the smiths.
So if the mccanns were involved it meant that madeleine's body had to be less than a thirty minutes walk away from the flat, somewhere accessible on foot to the public and somewhere easy to hide a body without a spade. The car was not hired until weeks later no evidence was found of her in it, there was no witness statements claiming there was a bad smell in it, and despite being followed by the worlds media there is not one bit of film or journalist who saw or smelt anything suspicious, and neither did the family liason officers who were appointed to them.
No-one has been able to come up with a motive based on any facts for hiding the death, an actual possible cause of death, or a motive for the death.

 

[fabgod]

I wonder why the "tapas9" won't go and do an official reconstruction if its all that simple?
I wonder what they are afraid of?

 

[SapphireSteel]

I notice that for all the cries of the mccanns did it, not one person has come up with a theory that fits with the known facts. The timeline given by people outside the tapas nine is as follows (at dinner I have however included the tapas nine)

kidsclub workers state madeleine was alive and well at half past five. No-one has come up with any evidence they are lying.

Gerry was seen at the courts from six to half past seven by other holidya makers (not tapas nine). No-one has come up with any evidence they lied.

David was seen leaving the courts at half sixish by others on the court and not one person has been found to be lying, nor did anyone overhear any conspiracy talk between david and gerry and if madeleine was dead at this point and gerry had still gone off to the tennis courts then he woudl had to have told david and got him to lie whilst on the tennis courts.

Gerry and kate were then seen changed for dinner at half past eight by other guests, no-one has come up with any evidence these other guests lied.

From that time the tapas nine, jeremy wilkins, and restuarant staff confirm kate and gerry were only alone for five minutes individually and were not alone together. Gerry left the table at just after nine, and was seen coming back from the patio and talked to jeremy wilkins. kate was seen leaving just before ten and was seen by everyone at the restuarant coming back a few minutes later raising the alarm.

So either madeleine died between a few minutes after half five, and her father got changed, came to terms with her death, came up with a cover up, hid her body whilst on foot somewhere it was never found despite searches by people who knew the area well and then walked to the tennis courts and acted normally for the next hour and a half.
Or she either died after half seven when gerry got back or was dead by then, and gerry came home and then in the next hour came to terms with her death, came up with a plan, hid her body somewhere it was never found despite searches by people who knew the area well, showered and changed and then went to dinner and acted normally all within an hour and was not seen or heard by anyone else once (not one panicked voice as she died etc).
No-one can come up with a theory that fits these facts?
The smiths by the way never identified gerry. One of them said it was dark and he did not have glasses and never saw the mans face, but several weeks later he thought by the body language it could be gerry but was not sure. The other members of the party could nto identify the man, and several other people are 100% certain gerry was on the complex at this point (inc. people outside the tapas nine).
As for tanner she never said the person she saw walked right past gerry and jeremy. She clearly stated she saw the perosn at the top of the street walking across it for just a few seconds. Gerry and jeremy were further down the street, facing each other and facing the horizontal of the street rather than facing up the street where the person was. So unless for those few split seconds they looked up and turned towards the end of the street they would not have seen the person. Tanners sighting also matches that of the smiths.
So if the mccanns were involved it meant that madeleine's body had to be less than a thirty minutes walk away from the flat, somewhere accessible on foot to the public and somewhere easy to hide a body without a spade. The car was not hired until weeks later no evidence was found of her in it, there was no witness statements claiming there was a bad smell in it, and despite being followed by the worlds media there is not one bit of film or journalist who saw or smelt anything suspicious, and neither did the family liason officers who were appointed to them.
No-one has been able to come up with a motive based on any facts for hiding the death, an actual possible cause of death, or a motive for the death.

Goncalo Amaral did. :banghead:

Then he lost his job, then he wrote and published a book, then the McCann tried to get it censored, then their attempts were overturned and it was published, then the McCann attempted to have him for libel, and so the saga grinds on.

The book is called "The Truth of the Lie" and is freely available nowdays, I highly recommend you read it.

:waitasec:

 

[brit1981]

amaral did nto work on the case for the full investigation he was taken off it half way through. He is also a convicted criminal, with his conviction being for fabricating evidence in a case relating to a missing child.
Not all of the tapas nine ever refused to do a reconstruction. The mccanns never refused, and the others only refused much later on when it turned out jeremy wilkins refused to return, and that the reconstruction was not going to be used for anything, and would nto involve everyone who was there. The only people according to the files asked to return were the mccanns, their friends, and jeremy wilkins. Not one of the other witnesses such as restuarant staff and other guests were asked to return to take part even though they were vital witnesses.

I would also not take amarals book as gospel as he makes it clear that the basics of genetics and dna (and I mean we are talking high school level here) are beyond him. One just cringes for him when he harps on about how the 15 out of 19 alleles mean it must have come from madeleine because he thinks it is a high match, yet forgets those alleles would be there if the material came form her parents, grandparents etc. He basicly claims the fact gerry and kate's alleles were found in the car mean it must be madeleines because she being their daughter also had these alleles.

 

[SapphireSteel]

amaral did nto work on the case for the full investigation he was taken off it half way through. He is also a convicted criminal, with his conviction being for fabricating evidence in a case relating to a missing child.
Not all of the tapas nine ever refused to do a reconstruction. The mccanns never refused, and the others only refused much later on when it turned out jeremy wilkins refused to return, and that the reconstruction was not going to be used for anything, and would nto involve everyone who was there. The only people according to the files asked to return were the mccanns, their friends, and jeremy wilkins. Not one of the other witnesses such as restuarant staff and other guests were asked to return to take part even though they were vital witnesses.

I would also not take amarals book as gospel as he makes it clear that the basics of genetics and dna (and I mean we are talking high school level here) are beyond him. One just cringes for him when he harps on about how the 15 out of 19 alleles mean it must have come from madeleine because he thinks it is a high match, yet forgets those alleles would be there if the material came form her parents, grandparents etc. He basicly claims the fact gerry and kate's alleles were found in the car mean it must be madeleines because she being their daughter also had these alleles.

You consistently ignore the implications of the DNA.

The point is not how many characteristics match Madeleine (although compelling), but WHERE IT WAS FOUND.

The DNA which IS Madeleine's or a close relatives, was found in every area the Cadaver dog indicated.

The Cadaver dog...ie, the dog who is trained to alert to the scent of cadaverine, which is ONLY produced by a decomposing body.

We have no other close relatives of Madeleine suspected of decomposing in and around 5a therefore common sense and direct evidence indicates the DNA in question came from a deceased Madeleine.

:banghead:

 

[brit1981]

You consistently ignore the implications of the DNA.

The point is not how many characteristics match Madeleine (although compelling), but WHERE IT WAS FOUND.

The DNA which IS Madeleine's or a close relatives, was found in every area the Cadaver dog indicated.

The Cadaver dog...ie, the dog who is trained to alert to the scent of cadaverine, which is ONLY produced by a decomposing body.

We have no other close relatives of Madeleine suspected of decomposing in and around 5a therefore common sense and direct evidence indicates the DNA in question came from a deceased Madeleine.

:banghead:

Er, it does rather matter who it belongs to, otherwise we have people accusing the mccanns on the basis that dna was found in their car. The DNA could just as easily have belonged to the mccanns and their other relatives. Aside form the fact the dog used was not exactly the most accurate, he never alerted in the place this material was found. The material was found in the cra boot, he did not alert here. He alerted at the door (and even then only after his handler stopped him and kept calling him back until he finally barked), and then alerted to a car fobb which was in the pocket of that same door. The card fobb contained material which belonged to gerry mccann. He has not yet ben declared dead on the basis of the dog alert. At no point did the dog alert elsewhere in the car, at no point was the dna found to belong to any one individuel.

 

[Donjeta]

*snipped for space and relevance*

They refused to cooperate. no they never

So all in all not one shred of circumstantial evidence (evidence, even circumstantial has to be true), just a minority of individuels on the internet claiming they know the mccanns are involved.

The 48 questions Kate McCann wouldn't answer - and the one she did

She refused to answer all the questions that could have given the investigators any information that might have helped them to find Madeleine

A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER

Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'

That is definitely refusing to cooperate in my book.

If you want to say you cooperate in the investigation you're gonna have to answer some questions for me to believe you. Sorry. I know you have the right to refuse but I have the right to call it uncooperative.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html#ixzz2AyZlWBNj

 

[fabgod]

I can see why Kate McCann woudnt answer the questions in that she was possibly annoyed and worried about the possible implications that could have arisen from answering the questions.
In fairness to her, if I was in a similar position and had done nothing wrong, there may possibly come a point where i felt that the investigation was being directed at me and I would be tempted to move to a defensive position, which may be what Kate McCann was doing?
If this was the only reason for having suspicion at the way she/they behaved, then I would give her the benefit of the doubt, but the general actions of the couple, make me think they are hiding something personally.

As for the reconstruction, the McCanns couldnt refuse because they were arguidos was how I understood it, that then leaves just the Tapas friends, what reason would they have to not return? surely it would have been in the interests of Madeleine to have assisted the PJ in a reconstruction yet they failed to help her, very sadly imo, that even after her disappearance, the people that knew Madeleine failed to help move the investigation forward