Bet they dont,lack of evidence,it would have been done by now else.Is it the proper way to run an investigation? letting the press have him guilty before finding evidence.
Time will tell...
But I think they know much more than they’re letting on. They’re not going to show all their cards in one go, and what they’ve shown already is extremely damning.
No-one knows what he told his mate when they were drinking in a bar and Madeleine’s photo came on the news. Drink loosens the tongue, and he may have said something about Maddie’s abduction that only the abductor could know. The police definitely believe she’s dead, and even know how she was killed. So how do they know that when they haven’t found her body?
It’s also strange that the little German girl who went missing five years ago from a holiday complex in woodland in Germany, and who’s never been found either, dogs never traced her scent either. The abductor obviously carried a case or large backpack coated with some kind of substance to prevent/disguise aromas from seeping out for digs to pick up. He sounds far more sophisticated than Bamber in his evil doings, but almost ALL murderers come unstuck somewhere because nothing is predictable.
I’d say in this evil psychopath’s case, where he was thick (in his panic) was reregistering his car the day after Maddie disappeared.
And despite having lived in Portugal almost 12 years he suddenly went back to Germany just a month or so after Maddie vanished. That’s not coincidence...
