That may well have been the meaning of GA's comment, IMO.
However, some choose to interpret that as "proof" that the McCanns never wanted a review of available evidence at all, and certainly not for the investigation to be reopened, and that they are therefore necessarily "guilty", because GA said that all they needed to do was put a stamp on a letter.
A few may feel that it was some kind of double-bluff, and never say never to a first instance, going on the offensive is the best form of defence and all that (possible), but that idea doesn't seem to have materialised despite two currently open investigations.
Why go to the bother?
I doubt any identification evidence unless there was unequivocal proof would be admissible in court for the simple reason that the McCanns had had so much media exposure that it would have been unsafe.
Mr McCluskey's recollection was certainly muddied by such
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm and who is to say the same phenomenon didn't affect Mr Smith
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm whose family did not back up his opinion.
They didn't have to keep Madeleine in the public eye ... but they did.
They didn't have to raise funds to do that and to keep looking for her using PIs ... but they did.
They didn't have to write a book to boost the funds, they could have put all the income from their best seller into their own bank account as Amaral did ... but they did not.
They could have moved back home and dropped off the radar ... they loved their daughter too much not to continue looking for her ... but they kept her name to the fore despite the social media attacks they took as a result.
If that was all done as part of a double bluff ... in my opinion there would have been far easier and less expensive options both in money and emotion to do that ... and with a lot less effort.
