The problem with you, Victor, is that you are a bit slow in understanding.

My last post just was making fun of the way you used the word "hope" in tow very different senses in one sentence.
The post before that linked to an opinion article not dealing with facts in any way (except being open minded about them), but with our, the public's, reaction to what we read. Try to understand the difference between facts and opinion. I dearly hope you do but I have little hope you do.

...selective media reports ... to support what we believed happened
Yes that's your way, most others here don't play the guessing game with little real information. I don't. But those few who do like you fit each bit of information they read into one scenario:
The McCanns don't search all over Europe like they did initially? Well, that only shows they know that the kid cannot be found. The McCann's restart searching? Well that only shows they try to detract the attention of those suspecting them.

It is not your opinion that makes you (and not others with similar opinions) a target here, Victor, it is the stupid way you argue. Like asking a stupid question as whether someone feels totally convinced the parents are innocent. I know I should only answer for myself but none here will answer unconditionally yes. It is one possible scenario, nothing else.

Are you happy with all the answers...?, is a similarly stupid question with only one possible answer. Start debating in a meaningful way and no one will jump on you for an opinion even if they tend to disagree with that opinion.

Try to realise that those who are not as convinced as you are that the parents are guilty do not try to select facts in support of one particular scenario like you do, but only try to support a particular way of debating by linking to articles about the debate and rather not (or rarely) to articles about facts.

Wolfgang