You have spent weeks here trying to discredit the obvious train of thought of the PJ officers in that the McCanns were suspected of being involved in some way, yet the moment that questions are raised on the UK review, then belief is acceptable.
I have even read it from a retired high ranking UK police officer that instinct and belief should be encouraged in that an experienced officer should be able to go on gut feeling and develop a case from there, but that this instinct is being forced out of the way of operating due to political pressures in the modern force (this was an officer speaking about the Tia Sharpe case in the UK).
So my point is in essence, you cannot argue against beliefs on the one hand yet then argue for it when it suits, it has to be an either/or situation.
Why do you constantly have to keep going over the same points, can we not move on from this?
The McCanns have been cleared of any involvement in an incomplete investigation, there was insufficient if any firm evidence to move the case on from where it was at that time.
The same goes for the abductor, no evidence whatsoever to prompt the PJ to continue down that avenue of investigation, shall we move on from there now?
the site is websleuths, it is for sleuthing.