Well first the PJ final report stated that they belived the parents to be innocent as there was no evidence against them, and there was no explanation as to how they got rid of the body.
Scotland yard have stated they believe the child was taken by a stranger, but have obviously not listed the individuel reasons.
1) First there is no proof that cadaver scent was found. If we assume the dogs are always accurate we have to remember that according to
Grime the EVRD alerts to bodily fluids and dried blood from living people. Therefore there is no way of proving that the dog did not alert to dried blood for instance. If we assume that the dog did alert to cadaver scent, it does not actually implicate the McCanns anyway as I will explain later.
2) Kate had already answered these questions if one looks at the actually questions. Plus these questions were not designed to find madeleine, and her interest was in finding madeleine.
3) her parents did call her name according to witness statements.
4) I have not seen anywhere syaing both she and gerry had mobiles. But in a panic running to alert her hisband that there child was gone doe snto seem unusual.
Now the mccanns do not bluster. In the UK and Portugal it is not allowed to lie about someone. Now if someone prints lies be it on the internet or in the main stream media then they are liable for at best libel, and at worst contempt of court cases. In the McCanns case severla main stream media outlets admitted printing lies. Other people have also printe dlies and as such are now facing lawsuits. Several of the McCanns friends also won damages for lies being printed, Murat also won amages for lies being printed. If people are telling the truth then they have nothing to worry about a slibel is one of the easiest things to defend. It si also important to remember that libel cases are nto just related ot the McCanns. A man connected to the Joanna Yeates case won six figure damages for libel, and the media were prosecute dfor contempt of court for writing lies about him, currently in the UK a tory peer is taking action against individuels on the internet and the websites fro writing lies about him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/nov/09/lord-mcalpine-raises-legal-action
So the mccanns actions are not in the least unusual - if people do not want to go to court make sure they have evidence to back up their claims (also in the EU people cannot protect themselves from claiming something is just a theory/opinion/alleged if it is defamatory, and not based on facts, honest or fair comment will nto cover them), which if they are telling the truth as they claim shoudl not be so difficult.
As for what evidence is the intruder theory based on, well for the public it is base don the fact that two LEs have stated it was not the parents. The LE only have to give evidence of who committed a crime, not of who did nto commit a crime, due to the rule innocent before guilty i.e they have to demonstrate someone's guilt and not their innocence.
Ther eis also the fact that despite five years going by not one person ahs come up with a theory as to how the mccanns did it, and evidence against them that is base don facts. So far we have seen people making up claims about the forensic reports, accusing anyone official such as the FSS, SY etc of being part of a giant conspiracy if they do not support the idea the mccanns did it, and then pure speculation. If peopel have to rely on inaccuracies and giant conspiracies involving everyone from the US government, to the mcanns friends, friend's wife's mother then they are clutching at straws.
But lets look at this, for an intruder to have done it they needed to watch Gerry walk out, then open the unlocked sliding doors, walk in (perhaps opening the window as an escape route/way to hand the child out etc or perhaps it was opened earlier by the cleaner and because the curtains were shut and there was no breeze at this time the window was already open), pick up the child and then walk out again. It woudl ahve taken five minutes maximum and would not have led to the intruder leaving dna behind or even fingerprints if they wore gloves, and lets face it it was a holidya flat how can one identify an unidenitified fingerprint as belonging to a previous tennent, workman, intruder etc.
If the intruder took madeleine just after gerrys approx 9pm check then the timings fit with the Tanner sighting as she saw the man after gerry had walked from the flat steps, and a bit down the road and stopped for a few mins to talk to jeremy, meaning the abductor had by then had the few minutes needed. This also fits in with the smith sighting who saw a man matching tanners description but who they could not identify (and no they did not identify the man as gerry). Why is there a gap coudl be explained by any one of a number of theories, perhaps the abductor was supposed ot meet soemone near the flat but for some reason plans went askew and they had to walk somewhere else to meet them, perhaps they had a vehicle there etc).
If the parents did it then it becomes incredibly complicated. First of all we know madeleine was seen alive at five thirty, gerry was seen at the tennis courts at six to seven thirty, the mccanns were seen at the tapas bar at eight thorty, the mccanns were each only alone after eight thorty for five minutes each, and it got dark at eight thirty. Now for her parents to be guilty they had to dispose of the body by ten when the searches began so we can rule out them disposing of it after eight thrty as they only had five minutes each. So that means that they had a maximum of an hour (since gerry was at tennis for the six to seven thirty period) to decide to dumpt the body of their first born, go on foot without digging implements and find a suitable place to hide the body in a place they did not know and where the only had access to public areas in broad daylight without a single person seeing them and where not one person int he five years since, not even the sniffer dogs which those who think they are guilty cling to, and those who know the area well. They then had to change and appear at dinner in a normal manner. We know that the handler of the EVRD claims the dog alerts to dried blood and since he alerted in the room where someone says they bled for nearly an hour, and on a card fobb that contained geryr mccanns bodily fluid it seems that Grime is correct. Even if we assume Grime is wrong and the dog fails to alert to dried blood it doe snot implicate the mccanns nor simplify the case. It simply means that madeleine died either behind the sofa or in the wardrobe which means that it is unlikely she had been sedated, and therefore poses the question of why the mccanns would hide an accidental death (assuming she fell) when they were there. It also begs the question of how come the mccanns managed ot have to body only touch these tow spots, and did nto transfer the scent to anythign else in the flat, yet several weeks later transfered the scent to the card fobb yet not the boot, not the steering wheel, not the gearstick etc as if the person who touched the card fobb did not tiuch anythign else. This cannot be explained, unless we go back to assume Grime is correct about his dogs abilities and that it can indeed alert to dried blood or bodily fluids.
So far for all the cries of the mccanns must be guilty, not one person so convinced of their guilt has come up with any explanation as to how the mccanns disposed of the body in broad daylight in a hour on foot in public places without a single witness or the body being found.
