. Perhaps you eould like to explain how my scenario “moves the goalposts”? It is exactly the same as the Madeleine case, only difference is what was taken.
I'm not interested in that, it's the "what ifs" I was referring to. Originally you declared that the open window/shutters would be used in court in the trial of an abductor.
Let's begin at the beginning. No-one will ever be arrested because of that evidence because there's nothing to link anyone to the apartment. No sighting, no fingerprints and no DNA.
The only way an arrest can be made is by connecting the suspect to the child or her remains. Anyone found with her would be arrested but if they denied taking her from the apartment it would be difficult to prove they did. The evidence you mention wouldn't help at all because it doesn't place then there.
If DNA evidence was found on remains and a match was found that person would be arrested. If they denied taking her from the apartment the evidence you mention wouldn't place them there either.
In both cases evidence placing the suspect in or near the apartment is needed, not evidence which suggests how they might have entered.
The open window/shutters were useful in suggesting what happened to the child but no use in showing who did it.