Billy's Comments don't make sense. Therefor it isn't possible to answer them because they don't hang together.
The Gaspar Statements? The Gaspars didn't even agree, so what was the point of throwing that one in? Other than to mislead.
And I am certainly not going to try to dissect this mess of potage. And I don't really care anyway.
My job is to make sure that this Forum isn't disrupted any more than necessary. And I will be Deleting any further Add On Insults.
Your comments about Billy's posts and motives are opinions and should be identified as such. How do you describe 'disruption'? Posting on-topic without insulting other members is not disruption in my opinion.
I think Billy summarised the reasons for the suspicions the first investigation developed very well;
"There is from the Tapas group an evolving inconsistent description of their movements on the night; a changing description on how people enter the flat and by which route; different descriptions of how the flat was found; an insistence by the parents of an abduction by paedophiles from nigh on the start; a cadaver dog alert; a blood dog alert and samples tested (which show a possible yet inconclusive match to the victim); and later before the book but after Amaral is removed from the investigation UK Police release testimony from the Gaspar's that everyone here is familiar with. Amaral is also told by a witness that he thinks the man he saw carrying a child in a direction away from the apartment was probably Gerry McCann, in his opinion. We can add to this evidence that children in 5a were heard to cry for over an hour and a half as they had been left alone unsupervised on another night before the disappearance. Amaral also knew the victim was known to wake and wander at night."
As opposed to the evidence supporting the theory of stranger abduction;
"apart from one witness talking about an open window into the child's bedroom, and some reports of burglaries and people being seen lurking outside there is no other concrete evidence to support the theory."
Speculation and invention has been utilised to support the abduction theory, rather than evidence imo. The conclusions the first investigation reached may be wrong, but the evidence used is there for all to see.