The fact is that the initial police investigation did not find any evidence for the abduction by a stranger who broke into the apartment while Maddie slept theory.
The investigation found some evidence that there had been a dead body in the apartment. And they considered that the abduction theory had been made up to cover up an accident. One can logically see why, if there had been an accident in the apartment, or if a parent had lost their temper and committed a violent act on the spur of the moment, they would want to cover that up. There is logic in that theory, even if you do not accept it. And there is some evidence to support the theory that Maddie died in the apartment as the sniffer dogs found evidence. You can argue that it is flawed, but it is less flawed than the McCann theory which rests on two sightings of a man carrying a child that evening. That is simply not evidence. It could have been anyone. Jane Tanner's sighting has been ruled out (and the Portugese police had no confidence in it at all). What about the other sighting?
Whether or not you believed the initial police investigation was flawed, that was the conclusion they came to, based on what they saw PLUS the behaviour of the parents and the conflicting accounts of that fateful evening from their friends. The Portugese police thought it was strange that the parents did not join in the search. If the McCann's truly believed a stranger had broken in to the apartment and stolen Maddie then why did Kate leave the twins alone while she raised the alarm?
The portugese police didn't find evidence of a break in. They didn't find any DNA from a stranger or any sign of a stranger entering the apartment and carrying away Maddie. If the parents so strongly believed that the children had been drugged by a stranger, then why did they not insist on toxicology tests on the twins? That would have been very concrete evidence for their theory - if the twins had been drugged by a stranger then that would have provided much more sound evidence for the abduction theory - it would imply that the stranger had drugged Maddie, too, in order to facilitate an abduction.
So, if they believed in their own theory, why did they allow the crime scene to be contaminated? Why did they not insist on toxicolgy tests? Why did they not wake the twins up, to check they were okay, to check that they had not been molested by the paedophile abductor that they insisted had stolen Maddie?
Surely the safety and well being of their two other children would be paramount as well?
Of course, it does not explain one of the dozens if not hundreds of inconsistencies in the McCann's story - such
The only 'evidence' is the sightings of a man carrying a sleeping child. But that is circumstantial - you would expect to find adults carrying sleeping children in the resort - picking them up from the creche, for instance, or perhaps from a friend's apartment where they were being babysat.
Why did the McCann's not enlist the help of experts in cases of missing children? Why did they go against advice that getting intensive media coverage and putting up photos in the critical period just after Maddie went missing might be counter-productive? Surely if they really believed that Maddie had been abducted by a wicked paedophile, there would be a huge risk that so much media coverage would cause the abductor to panic and cause even more harm to Maddie?
The Portugese police were given a pretty rough ride by the media in the UK. But the fact is that their investigation reached a conclusion that did not support the theory that had been advanced by Maddie's parents. And the Portugese police were there - they saw how the parents behaved. They did not find the abduction theory credible. And neither do I.
Poll