It's important that we remember that Kate did not answer any of the questions that might have helped the police in their search for her child. Fair enough there might have been a breakdown in trust on the McCann side, that the police were not up to the job (they would say that, wouldn't they), but let's not lose sight of the fact she did not fully co operate.
Originally Posted by bigwheel
You talk about prioritising, and this brings us back to who was actually in charge of the hunt for the child, the McCanns, or the Police? You can interpret their actions charitably, or you can interpret them as being designed to take the search as far away from them as possible.
The narrative that the PJ was some hick town police force, like something out of Heartbeat, has been debunked by the detailed records they have released to the public online. Police commentators have stated what they did was consistent with a good investigation.
Only they can say why these things happened, you read the information you decide for yourself which version you believe. Just like you decide whether parents desperate to find their child would start building a fund for "legal costs" as Kate's Uncle admitted two weeks in.
You wonder where they get the money to pay for the many legal actions they have raised, and question whether that was what the fund was for. o silence anyone who questions their suspicious behaviour (remember it was experienced law officers that raised the suspicion, not wack a doodles on the internet.)?
I am not saying disregard your feelings about what their motives were, but thinking that they were decent people, and they could not do such a thing doesn't cut it. Every time parents are involved in harm to a child, we say "how could they", and then realise that ordinary people are capable of extraordinary things.
I often play Devil's Advocate with the case, and go over those 48 questions. I try to find plausible answers to them that would support their case rather than what I believe.
Heres' a couple of the things Kate wouldn't answer. Why wouldn't she answer? An innocent person would have no difficulty in answering them.
1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?