Arthur
Honorary Master
I do and have (read and thought again).If you took trouble to follow the case closely and read a lot of what was said/written ... Think again ........ people are often not what they would like you to believe.
And I'm not ignorant of differences between appearance and reality. But I fail to see how that applies here when not a credible fragment of evidence is presented as grounds for 'inkling' and 'suspicion'.
I'm not sure how you arrive at the notion that I claim they're innocent - I am simply saying there should be a presumption of innocence until we have real evidence to the contrary. Despite protracted investigation by police, journalists, and private investigators from several countries not one shred of evidence even vaguely implicating the McCanns in anything suspicious has been uncovered. Yes the Press has gone moggy on all sort of stories, but when the dust settles each and every case has turned out to be without foundation.
Also, your own reasoning applies mutatis mutandis to your own unfounded allegations ... the deceit of others, quickly exposed, as Claymore points out, cannot be imputed to the McCanns without foundation. To do so undermines the postulates of justice.