Good post plaiedian.
That is exactly what I was getting at.
Some people are just unbelievably naive about this case. They see the pictures of a pretty blond girl, the intelligent professional parents and they just lap up unquestioningly that events must have happened exactly as the parents assume (even though witness accounts are highly inconsistent) , they buy into the whole idea that the Portuguese police are a load of bumbling idiots (while the Met are the pinnacle of competence and integrity!) and they perceive any criticism of the mccanns as equal to people saying they must have harmed their child
It's really frustrating trying to have reasonable debate about it, and the use of public funds , though I have to say MNHQ seems to be taking a more rational approach nowadays and not deleting any post which dares to do anything other than worship the mccanns
I honestly believe if the mccanns had not been so obsessed with trying to maintain public image, it would have done their cause more good. If they had held their hands up and admitted that they were totally irresponsible by leaving their young children unattended, then perhaps they would have been more open to the early investigations and accepted that things like a reconstruction would have helped iron out the natural kind of inconsistencies which occur when a large group of people are tying to recall details.
I wonder whether they were motivated by fear of having their other two children taken away, or prosecution for child neglect, and that's why they were so intent on maintaining the line that they really hadn't been irresponsible. Ultimately it's done their image no good I think.
I think probably the way they come across in interviews is borne out of desperation that their child is missing and like plaiedian says , extreme embarrassment that they left their children; personally I don't think it's anything more sinister but I do think its wrong that they focused so much on trying to retain their image as caring parents.
Once the whole McCann machine had been set in motion, I guess it was a case of building on that image. If (for example) checks on the children hasn't been made as often as the parents claimed (and bear in mind there are inconsistencies in the timings anyway) then you can see why there would have been a reluctance to cooperate with a reconstruction. Whereas in a case where the parents have no underlying feeling that they have been negligent, there would naturally be less fear of cooperating
To return to the OP, these are precisely the reasons underlying many people's unease about huge sums of money being ploughed into this case at the expense of others. There are so many inconsistencies which could have been ironed out earlier if the focus hadn't been so much on PR. there is a limited pot of money. The case has already been given a two year review which other cases haven't had. It has been given more money and more publicity than any other missing person case .... And yet at the heart of the issue, there are still so many fundamental things which don't add up.
And finally to suggest that the Govt involvement and the Met taking it on is not influenced at all by the PR aspect of it is just nuts.