Perhaps Amaral was responding to the suggestion by Madeleine's parents that an abductor chose to ignore the unlocked door and decided to raise some shutters on the off chance that the window behind it was also unlocked? It was also achieved without leaving any evidence behind; except that seen by the two of them.
Perhaps he was, but as a police investigator, it's his job to consider that maybe the window wasn't used to enter (or exit). Not just work off the parents theory, even though it was understandable why they might have initially thought that was the entry point when faced with that scenario.
Once inside the apartment, an intruder could have left through either door, or the window without leaving traces of having done so. It is also possible to enter through the window provided it wasn't fully slid across on the latch without leaving traces. Possible to enter through the sliding patio door without leaving a trace. And if someone had access to the keys that were allegedly stolen from the OC, entry through the front door would have been easy too.
My point is, Amaral chooses to ignore all these other options and instead focusses on what the parents initially thought "might" have happened. And then discredits it by saying they found nobody else's fingerprints. The argument is a fallacy. He knows damn well that any person breaking and entering would be likely to use gloves and that there were plenty of ways to get in and out without leaving a trace.
Below is a summary of his theory using extracts from an interview he did. The holes in his argument are so glaring and easy to rip to pieces, that it's hard to take the man seriously as a police investigator. He can concoct a theory as fantastical as this but not accept that it is possible to enter and leave an unlocked apartment without leaving a trace? I think even the interviewer was left scratching her head at what they were listening to, with Amaral completely dodging every question that called the credibility of his theory into question.
The mother said that the window of the room was open when she saw that the girl was not there. That is not correct, the window was closed and is impossible that the girl left that way.
And there are other things. The mother says that she entered in the room and that the windows were open and the shutters were raised. No one else saw that. They simulated a kidnapping.
There were no unknown fingerprints in the apartment, of course they could have used gloves, that is true, but that could not have been the case.
The child could have fallen from a sofa, could have had an accident with Calpol
The father was talking to a friend just outside that window for a while. The girl did not have a a heavy sleep, that's what the parents said. Perhaps she heard her father and climbed to the sofa bellow the window. But the parents, for the girl not to go out, moved it away from the wall. Madeleine could have fallen.
It is the mother who finds the girl dead.
I want to recall that there is an Irish man who claimed to have seen Gerry McCann with a girl in his arms, on his way towards the beach that same night. That testimony has been hidden.
To me, Gerry hid Madeleine's body on the beach. And after a few days he moved her with his car. We work following this lead.
For there to be vestiges in the boot of the car rented 23 days later, they must have preserved (frozen) the corpse in some way. I believe that when they put it in the boot, with the heat of those days in the Algarve, happened a similar situation with that of the shopping bags, which melt and then the water is transferred to the car.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/goncalo-amaral-in-el-mundo-gerry-mccann-hid-m-08-0-t4122.html
