Ozymandius    12 Oct 14 13:02 
Are you talking about when they were made officially suspects?

They said they were staying in Portugal until she was found.

They were made 'arguidos' and came back to the UK as soon as possible.

Have you got any children?

Have you got your grey matter in gear?

Why would the McCanns be asked that question?

Unless your implying  that none of the children are theirs?

It was obviously directed at you?

A simple 'yes' or 'no' would have sufficed.

I'd guess, given your reluctance to answer, that the answer is 'no'.

But on the off chance that it's 'yes' -  would you have stayed to try and find your 'abducted' child?

Or scarpered home when named as a suspect?

10 million spent and still rising...

How much was spent on Ben Needham?

Who's stitching who..

Not from the list of questions put to Mrs McCann - all bar one - she refused to answer

Would I be right in guessing that the ONE question she answered was her name? That is, of course, only a guess. However, I would suggest that if one intends to give replies of 'no comment' one would naturally use that response for ALL questions. Answering SOME questions but not others might easily be misinterpreted as a sign of guilt.


(I just thought I'd add the 'mis')

Ok I guessed wrong. Not the first time. Won't be the last. I'd be interested if you could sorta post some indication of what you mean by 'persistently putting people down'. Something factual would be preferable.

There we go again! Another remark without one jot of substance or context attached to it. YES you posted a list of questions which the MCanns supposedly refused to answer. YES I glanced through them. NO I didn't read them in full. I didn't need to. I would have refused to answer them as well. I would humbly suggest that the questions were those of a detective who was conducting a murder inquiry. What more can I say?

Even assuming that the detective was right, would his case seriously hinge only upon his main suspects incriminating themselves? It would be very good of him to perhaps produce a little bit of something that might stand up to cross-examination...for that is where his train of thought is destined to lead.

On the other hand, assuming they were innocent, how would answering those questions help, in any way, to find a missing child? How did their refusal to respond supposedly slow down the search for the kid?

And just in a little show of self defence...will you please stop posting little sniping, personal remarks without also giving your comments some foundation in truth.
I see nobody has responded to my points about the importance, in the Jo Yeates case, of WHEN the killer actually (or supposedly) went to Holland for his Christmas trip.
Also, it is of little importance whether I do, or do not, familiarise myself with the stories and details given in the media because the police have access to all of that and possibly more...and THEY can't seem to be able to prove what has happened. So what chance would I have? What chance have YOU got, for that matter?
I could expound theories along with the best of you but I find factual stuff easier to digest.

So does ANYBODY know when Malek went to Holland for Christmas. No guesses, please.

The insults haven't half been flying around on this thread
Only yesterday, my IQ was questioned, asked if I was on drugs and mocked for not using correct legal terms, and now Naydam is a pompous ****

It's frustrating that the most notorious unsolved missing person's case appears to have no ending in sight, but no need to fall out, enough people have already suffered including sweepyface no less. I am happy to be informed/educated on the facts here if I am wrong, but opinions should be respected still

My ppst6 is to G2D.

Hang on, we can't say **** any more?

Of course. I've already answered that particular question. As have a few others on this particular fred..

By the  way, I didn't infer any skulduggery on your part.

I take back that remark.l You have deliberately accentuated the 'I' and you have thereby totally altered the context of my post. Shame on you!

Seriously, I looked at those questions and there is no way that they could answer them. They were questions that that they couldn't answer whether guilty or innocent.

I'm amazed that Facts seems to have gone over to the dark side. I thought he had a brain in his head...

call me a taxi
13 Oct 14 01:23   
Have you got any children?

naydam
13 Oct 14 01:32   
Was that one of the 48 questions? If the question is directed at me, I would need to know why you seek this information.

call me a taxi
13 Oct 14 01:42   
Have you got your grey matter in gear?
Why would the McCanns be asked that question?
Unless your implying  that none of the children are theirs?
It was obviously directed at you?
A simple 'yes' or 'no' would have sufficed.
I'd guess, given your reluctance to answer, that the answer is 'no'.
But on the off chance that it's 'yes' -  would you have stayed to try and find your 'abducted' child?
Or scarpered home when named as a suspect?

naydam
13 Oct 14 09:51   
Hmmm.  CMAT. It's interesting that you question the parentage of the child. I believe that some of Amaral's infamous (MY choice of words) list of questions made reference to similar anomalies.

That's the best you could do?

Why didn't you answer the question I asked at 1:32, instead of asking a stupid question at 1:42.

I now make you an odds-on chance to be childless.

For one so vociferous on here, why duck a simple enough question.

Here it is again:

A simple 'yes' or 'no' would have sufficed.

I'd guess, given your reluctance to answer, that the answer is 'no'.

But on the off chance that it's 'yes' -  would you have stayed to try and find your 'abducted' child, or scarpered home when named as a suspect?

Not that difficult to answer, is it?

CMAT. Well, as a person sitting here, with no outside pressures or context to the question, the obvious answer (which seems to be chitchat favourite) would be that I would stay. But that  bald question doesn't reflect the reality of the situation to which it is supposed to apply.
When faced with an aggressive detective who, in my opinion was trying to pin a murder charge on me, my answer might be very different. If, on top of the threat of a murder charge, I concluded that my presence might, in fact, be hampering the search for my lost child, I might well think about returning home to await developments. And if, on top of all that, I had concluded that I could best help in this search by mustering the services of the British media, I would give it serious consideration. And then when I thought about how upsetting all of this palaver was to my remaining children...I would head home.

Now then, giving some context to the situation and all things considered. What would YOU do?

Yes, those are the ones. Your point is...?