First you have to prove they didnt up until GA was removed, then ask the question, and then move on, logically, in your quest
Do you really think all those hundreds of thousands of PJ files were all detailing efforts designed to frame the Mccanns or sabotage any lead? Then youre not as aufait as I thought you might be.
depends who you mean by
they doesn't it?
Mark Harrison certainly didn't.
Martin Grime (after a fashion) toed the correct line and said that no incriminating inference should be drawn from the reactions of the dogs (without corroborating evidence).
Joao Carlos, at one point, entertained the notion of parental guilt, but atoned with a genuinely fine final PJ report.
We can confidently predict that Stuart Prior never thought the McCanns guilty.
Who else?
It's an interesting point whether Amaral can get away with recording the point of the investigation when he left it without the (more complete) picture that emerged.
Amaral says that the prosecutors 'changed their minds', and that is actually conceivable, in a way not remotely pejorative of them.
They are human, and are likely to have been influenced by the lurid reports in the early days, as much as the rest of us.
But, exercising the proper judicial caution expected of them by dint of the positions they occupied, they waited until they had read the
entirety of the files before reaching a final, and definitive, conclusion.
