I'm asking for an opinion. Many supporters say Amaral suspected the McCanns from the 4th of May so do you believe it was bias on his part or simply what the intitial evidence suggested? And if bias where did that bias originate?
It may have originated from when Amaral was made an Arguido himself on 4th May.
Perhaps being made an Arguido because of claims made by the mother in his last missing child case influenced his decision on what would be the best outcome from his own POV in this latest case of a missing child - in relation to his own impending trial.
Although Amaral has carefully never mentioned that on 4th May he was elsewhere being made an arguido - or given his reaction to it - I find it impossible to believe that it had no affect on him. To begin with - the blow to his much vaunted 'honour' on that day must have been immense.
IMO it's reasonable to believe that being made an Arguido and knowing the possible disastrous implications of that to himself and his future career was something that was always at the forefront of his mind and may well have influenced his 'thinking' re the McCann case right from the beginning.
He should never have been put in charge of this case.