Oh you mean like they are building up a case against CB....three years on and still counting.
How do you reckon then they could have built a case against the mccs ....if there was no evidence.
The 'evidence' Amaral used to build a case was the dog alerts, the Calpol and DNA.
He didn't understand the forensic results and jumped on what he believed the forensic results meant.
As soon as he heard the dog results he built a case around them.
Kate admitted she had Calpol for the children incase of illness, millions of parents take Calpol with them when they go on holiday. He took what Kate's father said the wrong way. Kate's father said the only medicine he had ever seen the McCann's giving their children was Calpol. He didn't mean they had given the children Calpol on the holiday in Portugal but this was taken as proof.
So Amaral devised a theory. Kate give Madeleine Calpol which made her sleepy [not true]. She woke at night hearing her Dad talking outside. This wasn't proven and I don't think Gerry's voice would have carried around to the front of the apartment where Madeleine was sleeping. Madeleine then climbed onto the settee to see through the window and fell onto the tiles. Unproven, if Madeleine had climbed onto the settee and leaned towards the window how would she fall?
Then the McCann's found her, when this was he didn't really say. It couldn't have been when Gerry came back to the apartment as that would rule out the bit that Madeleine heard her Dad's voice. So was it when Kate did her check. Unlikely as she couldn't have hidden Madeliene's body where no one could find her in the short time she was in 5a before she alerted that Madeleine was missing.
So you explain to me how it is possible that Amaral could have a case against the McCann's? Nothing was proven and nothing was possible.