On you go then. If his opinions were also shared by his colleagues they're not his, remember, they are the investigation's opinions. If his colleagues testified that they all agreed with him he was simply reporting the thoughts of the investigation, based on the clues and facts available to the investigators.
He was reporting the thoughts of the investigation with added sly comments and accusations of his own. If you read his book [which I presume you have] you will acknowledge that he sneaks in his accusations such as Gerry knowing the informant was lying, well how would Gerry know that? well according to Amaral he wasn't one bit bothered waiting for a call from the person who said he knew where Madeleine was, he was sucking a lolly and joking. So, what do you gather from that? Gerry didn't care, Gerry knew it was lies, Gerry knew where Madeleine was. Now take the Calpol, Amaral says they give Calpol to the children for them to sleep, so what do you take from that? They were uncaring parents only caring about themselves and the fact that they wanted to go out and so they were prepared to drug their children in order to do so, so they would also hide the body of Madeleine as they didn't want anyone to find out they had done that. Then the dog dying, 'oh Amaral it is too dangerous for you to carry on, please leave the case' in other words, the McCann's are on to you they killed our dog, it's a warning. The burglary, 'makes me wonder if they had the wrong house' oh so the McCann's had arranged a burglary to steal Amaral's papers to find out how the investigation was going, they really are ruthless aren't they. Add in the swinging, the coldness etc. etc. and you have the readers thinking that actually these McCann's sound as though they are guilty.
You can see where all the 'nasty cold evil McCann's' come from can't you, where the 'McCann's have help they know people in high places' comes from.
Amaral wrote a book on the case, yes he did, but he also added his own take on the whole thing.
