There is no circumstantial evidence (at least against the McCanns) -- still less, hard evidence.
All we have are two dogs incompetently deployed and solid evidence placing Gerry in the Tapas restaurant at the time of Kate's alert and the Smith sighting.
That's why the judge at the libel trial against Amaral commented that the McCanns are innocent -- also (part of the reason) why the McCanns won the libel trial ....
The fast watch timeline will be blown to pieces and there's many alerts. The judge told Gerry to zip it about the dogs.
GMC says that he wants to make a comment about the dogs; he wants to make it clear that it is not a fact that they detected blood...
The judge interrupts him – The issue here isn't not to elucidate what actually happened. The perspective, in this trial, is to determine whether the book and the documentary affected the plaintiffs.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.
The judge – The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue. We want to know whether we are in the juridical remit of offence to persons. For this it's not necessary to know what the truth is. As a judge I'm not supposed to stand in for a criminal investigation. (Source Anne Guedes)
