For what it's worth, this "news piece" was an utter nothing, devoid of anything but assumption and contradiction.
1. Cuomo is intrinsically linking the spray paint with her disappearance from the jump. Obviously, it seems very likely there is a connection but he
doesn't know this. So in Line 1, he's making assumptions.
2. "Where are the investigators on this?" is one question. The answer is,
you don't know because they don't tell you. Why assume they're not doing their utmost? Genuine question, you don't know where they're at, your guest can't tell you.
3. "Why haven't they bought this guy in?" Because he's in Serbia. Obviously. This is not difficult to comprehend. "At least for a conversation?" It's been made clear for days now, on multiple media outlets, that the National Police DO wish to speak with the husband. But, again, he's in Serbia. It doesn't take a detailed understanding of European sociopolitics to grasp that Spain and Serbia are two separate nations (to say nothing of the fact that the latter is not in the EU). "They should be asking him in." Again, for the love of God, they already have. He cannot be impelled to travel across Europe by Spanish police. Why is this very simple detail seemingly beyond the grasp of these two people?
4. Why assume Interpol is not involved in this process? But at any rate, it's neither here nor there. The husband is in one country. There is no need for a notice when they have his number. (The yellow notice is a different matter).
5. "In Madrid, nobody had heard of this." Totally wrong. It's been in the newspapers, it's been on the TV. I think they may be referring to Sanna / or TeleMadrid talking to the business-owner downstairs on her street who said they hadn't heard of it. But there are 6.5 million people in the Community of Madrid. The idea that Cuomo would say "nobody" as a fact is farcical. As for "very little on the local news", again, wrong. It may not be wall-to-wall coverage but then is Ana's case on the front page of the South Florida Sun Sentinel today? Is she in the 10 most-read articles today on their website? Beyond that, what is the implication here? That her case is irrelevant to the city of Madrid? If I said the name Iván Liñan Cano and people in Eureka CA told me they didn't know that name, would it be reasonable for me to starting making hard-and-fast judgements on an entire town?
6. They then speculate that maybe it's that it's somehow some kind of secret. This is bordering on the offensive by this point. A statement based on absolutely nothing. What would happen if people in Madrid knew there was a potential killer walking around? Why would that have to be some kind of state secret? Given the extremely low murder rate in Madrid, surely the opposite would be true and the people WOULD want to know of a potential killer. The woman then contradicts herself by wondering why they
wouldn't alert the public. You can't suggest something and then openly wonder why your assertion is the assertion you just made. But it's irrelevant because it
has been widely-reported. Maybe they speculate that it would hit tourism or some such? Well, Spain recently overtook France as the most visited country on earth in 2023. A single crime isn't going to change that. Certainly, the police isn't going to cover up a kidnapping or a murder in case it means Americans stop coming to enjoy their sangria in Madrid. Utter silliness.
7. She mentions "so little information" and then goes on to say the National Police
shouldn't be sharing information anyway as it would hurt the case. So, which is it?
8. The best for last: "If we don't hear the investigators are having conversations (with the husband) there's something-there's something fishy here." Woo, boy. Genuinely hard to know what he means. That the National Police have just given him a pass? What exactly does fishy mean? Moreover, why is the NP obliged to share their work with this journalist at all?
If you don't tell us what you're doing, despite my guest just saying that you shouldn't do that and me agreeing, then something strange is going on!
If anything is fishy, it would be a man who, I would wager couldn't name a single solitary criminal case in Spanish history, somehow being the arbiter of how this investigation is being run. Seems like "Jen" needs to do a better job of putting ideas in Cuomo's head. JMO.