There are beliefs galore on the internet about this case. Some people are quite happy to tell the world what they believe about it. Some are utterly convinced of the McCann's innocence, others of their guilt. I'm not convinced of either because I think the evidence can be used to support both opinions. A lot of my posts address this subject.
Those who are convinced of the McCann's innocence, for example, firmly believe that the police advised them to show no emotion during appeals and that they were able to comply.
Others wonder if the police really give such advice and, if they do, whether such self control is possible.
My opinion? I don't know, but on balance I find it unlikely that such advice was given and I think it would be very difficult to follow.
My opinions, therefore are not beliefs imo. I can't prove I'm right and I accept I may be wrong. All my opinions are similarly vague.
You, on the other hand, do have beliefs, one of which is;
"I think that exactly sums up the sceptics belief ... not so much in the police whose final report laid it on the line ... but in Amaral's beliefs which he formulated in 2007 and which remain the cornerstone for sceptics."
You seem convinced that you know what sceptics believe and why. You appear reluctant to accept that you may be wrong, which, imo, is why you didn't answer my question.
Therefore there's no point in me explaining my position because you won't believe what I say anyway imo.
I have firm opinions based on what some might refer to as 'research' ... and I am not so ashamed of my opinions that I fear to voice them.
You have admitted that McCann sceptics exist in your posts.
You have posted that some of these sceptics have formed themselves into groups to express and promote their scepticism of the McCanns.
You don't seem to be able to bring yourself to admit that either as individuals or groups these sceptics hold certain beliefs the similarity of which is apparent to most observers.
The thread topic is 'sceptic beliefs' of which there is a myriad of research material to chose from: fora ~ newspaper comment sections ~ social media ~ ebooks ~ podcasts and videos; which makes it a valid topic for discussion.
I am interested in what motivates sceptics ... quite obviously you are not ... but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from ad homs directed at me ... telling me what I do and do not believe ... or forecasting that I "will not believe" you.
Your 'question' is unanswerable since you are very careful not to express your opinion ... therefore without you telling the forum what
you do or don't believe ( which is what I asked for clarification) please don't invite presumptive and speculative answers referring to you personally at which I have no doubt you may take offence.