Looking at all your posts, you appear to be very much against the sedation hypothesis and against any weight being put behind the dog alerts. As these are 2 major elements in the suspicions against the McCanns, logically that would mean you believe the McCanns were not involved.
I am not against the sedation hypothesis. I am against Amaral's hypothesis of sedation by Paracetamol. I can think of many other ways that the McCanns or abductors could have sedated the children- it is part of my professional knowledge. I have never stated that the children were not sedated, merely that Paracetamol is not a sedative.
I am not against dog alerts- I think they are velauble indicators. I do however think they need to be understood in terms of the science around them including false alerts (positive or negative) or unconscious cuing- all of which have scientific backing (which believers in 100% accurate dogs do not have!)