In chapter three of his book (translated by Anna Esse) he makes no secret to his opinions and immediate rush to premature judgement ... in which the magic word appears to be "inconsistency" and plural of.
If what he has written about his thoughts and actions on 4th May as detailed in this chapter, it is my opinion that the thread title is well on its way to being proven.
On the morning of 4th he says;
There is no evidence sufficiently convincing to tip the investigation in one direction rather than another. Then the interviews begin and yes, there are questions arising. If Jane saw an abductor and Kate found an open window and shutters then Matthew should have noticed them too.
Between 8pm and 10pm Amaral is in Luz. He notices the lack of people on the streets and the difficulty Jane Tanner would have had to see what she says she saw given the dim lighting.
Returning to Portimao there's a discussion in the Incident room. "The original hypotheses are still valid; voluntary disappearance, abduction or death.
We are now 24 hours since Madeleine disappeared and Amaral definitely hasn't decided which crime has been committed, so the answer to the thread title is 'No' in my opinion.