pg 66 of the judgement refers to serious concerns about the abduction theory and more or less blames the McCanns for these because they did not occur the reconstitution which a) they didn't refuse to attend and b) would have not helped in any way whatsoever to advance the investigation into an abduction.
Which bit did you want?
"Page 66
… the indications and means of proof hitherto collected in it, and the inquiries that had hitherto been carried out.
That is why it is not surprising that the facts related to that investigation that the respondent refers to in the book, in the interview and in the documentary, are mostly facts that occurred and were documented in this investigation (n°80 of the proven facts).
It should be noted that the understanding defended by the respondent was, also, in almost coincident terms, shared by chief inspector Tavares de Almeida, who wrote the report addressed to the Public Ministry and dated 10/9/7 (n° 9 of the proven facts).
It has to be reckoned yet that the Public Ministry by promoting by the Instruction Judge the obtention of traffic data., alluded to their need for the investigation of the crimes of kidnapping, homicide, exposure or abandonment and concealment of a corpse, the sought to be obtained data were besides connected to the appellants and included not only the date of the facts but also the period they were in Portugal (n°10 of the proven facts).
These data were collected by the Instruction Judge (n° 11 of the proved fact).
Which means that the thesis profiled by the respondent, at a certain time, These data were collected by the Investigating Judge (point I I of the facts provided).
Which means that the thesis profiled by the course, at a certain time, deserved being hosted by the entity constitutionally in charge of the exercise of the penal action.
By the way. The defendants constituted as defendants in the criminal investigation (point S of the evidence).
This implies that they have been alleged to have committed crimes or crimes (cf.host by the entity constitutionally in charge of the exercise of the action
As a matter of fact, the appellants were constituted arguidos (formal suspects) in the same criminal investigation (n°8 of the proven facts).
This implies that emerged a well-founded suspicion they had committed crime or crimes (cf. art. 58° and 59° of the CPP).
It is true that the criminal investigation was eventually closed, in particular because none of the indications which led to the constitution of the appellants as arguidos was subsequently confirmed or consolidated (n°15 of the proven facts).
However, even in the filing order serious reservations are raised as to the likelihood of the allegation that Madeleine had been abducted. Taking into account the doubts raised by the Jane Tanner/Kate McCann version.
Those doubts that the investigation intended to see clarified by the reconstitution of the events mentioned in the closing dispatch, an initiative however that was made unfeasible by the witnesses' failure to appear after being summoned to."
