The investigation has moved on, Icabodcrane, since the op was written, so any challenge to Blacksmith's subjective ruminations are irrelevant now.
In fact, given that Scotland Yard have stated that they are investigating an abduction, and in light of their statement above, there is little more that can be said about this matter, from either side of the divide.
I absolutely agree that is where SY say they are at the moment but of course i am sure you accept that the course and focus of investigations change over time. They should move with the evidence.
After all it was only a month or so before the McCann's were made arguidos that the PJ said they weren't suspects.
Equally i recall one of Redwood's statements which said they analysed i think it was two thirds of the documentation, so clearly the review of already gathered evidence is not complete let alone the gathering of new evidence.
I can see why the Yard appear to be pursuing the abduction scenario and my logic for that is probably best saved for another post.
However it must be said that if they pursue abduction and bring in a suspect or indeed take one to trial they will need more evidence than is in the files, and short of a confession, a defence lawyer worth his salt will have a field day.
Imagine the questioning in Court:
Prosecution: Can you tell us how you entered the apartment
Defendant: I did not enter the apartment and there is no evidence i did
Prosecution: Can you tell us how you sedated the child
Defendant: I did not sedate the child and there is no evidence i did
Prosecution: Can you tell us how you removed the child from PDL
Defendant: I did not remove the child from PDL and there is no evidence i did
And so on and so forth.
