Sceptics beliefs ?

[jassi]

Is that seriously an answer you expect to be considered as a reason?
So, they knowing that they are implicit in their child's disappearance, ask for a review of the investigation into her disappearance as a bluff?

Well, they seem to have convinced you 

[The General]

What do you notice from that clip?

That, in my amateur opinion, using my flawed, biased, conditioned point of view, he's finding that particular question awkward, is evasive and the actions are incongruent with the words.

* effusive replaced with evasive. I meant evasive.

[Erngath]

Well, they seem to have convinced you 

But it hasn't convinced you.
Why?

[Erngath]

That, in my amateur opinion, using my flawed, biased, conditioned point of view, he's finding that particular question awkward, is effusive and the actions are incongruent with the words.

Have you ever been interviewed by a professional interviewer and asked if you sedated your child who has disappeared?

[The General]

Have you ever been interviewed by a professional interviewer and asked if you sedated your child who has disappeared?

No, but then I've never left my kids in a holiday apartment and lost one of them either.

[Erngath]

No, but then I've never left my kids in a holiday apartment and lost one of them either.

Tut tut, the usual deflection when a question cannot be answered.
I'm sure you haven't.
But yet you seem to know that a parent who did "lose "a child would know exactly how to respond to  a professional interviewer suggesting that the missing child had been sedated?
Excellent powers of putting oneself into a situation that you would never have been in.

[The General]

Tut tut, the usual deflection when a question cannot be answered.
I'm sure you haven't.
But yet you seem to know that a parent who did "lose "a child would know exactly how to respond to  a professional interviewer suggesting that the missing child had been sedated?
Excellent powers of putting oneself into a situation that you would never have been in.

What part of 'no' at the beginning of the response is deflection?

And to be clear, I have admitted it's extenuating circumstances, under duress / pressure after innumerable banal interviews. I even yield to the fact that they never shy away from the scrutiny, particularly the first years. But I maintain that this specific reaction is at odds with the refutation of the impertinent question, given that he probably girded his loins knowing he would likely be asked.

[G-Unit]

Why would they appeal for a review if guilty of playing a part in their child's disappearance?

That would depend on what they were trying to achieve. 

[Erngath]

That would depend on what they were trying to achieve.

I did assume that it was to continue the investigation into their missing child.
What do you believe they were trying to achieve?

[barrier]

I did assume that it was to continue the investigation into their missing child.
What do you believe they were trying to achieve?

Continue on what grounds? when SY have no jurisdiction in Portugal.

[Robittybob1]

That, in my amateur opinion, using my flawed, biased, conditioned point of view, he's finding that particular question awkward, is evasive and the actions are incongruent with the words.

* effusive replaced with evasive. I meant evasive.

Sandra asks if they used Calpol, but in his answer there is no mention of Calpol.  Gerry denies using sedatives.  Calpol IMO is not a sedative.  They may have used Calpol for there is no specific denial of Calpol use.

[Wonderfulspam]

I did assume that it was to continue the investigation into their missing child.
What do you believe they were trying to achieve?

The original investigation never need have ended, Amaral had got the boot & wasn't there to frame the McCanns anymore, Robelo tried to get them back for a reconstruction, all they had to do was convince their friends to go back with them, it was in Maddie's best interests afterall. But, alas, following the Rothley meeting, the McCanns friends decided it best not to return. The selfish b........s. Poor Maddie.

[Wonderfulspam]

Maddie was abandoned for a second time. All for the sake of a few hours spent demonstrating innocence, which wouldn't have been difficult, given how incredibly bloody innocent they are.

[Robittybob1]

Maddie was abandoned for a second time. All for the sake of a few hours spent demonstrating innocence, which wouldn't have been difficult, given how incredibly bloody innocent they are.

Who were they going to demonstrate that to?  They were asked to vacate the apartment in the middle of the night.

[Erngath]

Just acknowledging your replies Wonderfulspam
 However there is nothing in either replies which  adds anything to the answers to my original question.