Why do you assume there was a conspiracy? Had there been they would all have claimed to see the open window imo but not one of the did.
Conspiracy - a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.And I don't "assume" there was a conspiracy, but all the sceptic theories I've seen (including Amaral's) rely upon collusion within the group to conceal the "truth" or provide a false account of what happened.
For example, their collective accounts don't allow for the parents to have had time to dispose of the body and stage an abduction if an "accident" occured to Madeleine during dinner. Their accounts support the notion that everything was normal, nothing was untoward or suspicious about the parents behaviour prior to the alert if you're assuming something had happened prior to dinner. The account of Matthew Oldfield supports Gerry's account of the moving door. The account of Jane Tanner supports the prospect of an abductor. The account of David Payne supports that Madeleine was alive and well that evening etc etc. All of these are things that sceptics point to as evidence of a collaborative deception.
If you have a specific theory that implicates the parent's involvement but does not rely upon anyone else in the group lying, please share it. Because every option I've seen proposed relies on other members of the group being deliberately dishonest in some way or other.
You are doing everything you can to deflect from addressing the uncomfortable questions being posed. Resorting instead to whataboutery or picking on a trivial semantics you think you can contest.
