I think if you list the indications that Maddie, wad, abducted and the evidence.... They will be the same
I don't think there is any evidence of what actually happened to her. It's not as if someone filmed her being taken from the flat and shoved in the boot of a car, preferably with license plates visible - as that would have pushed the button, via a magistrate, for an abduction alert. Hopefully.
IMO, an indication is Kate's assertion that she found the shutter raised and the window open. Evidence, IMO, would have been a video camera recording someone lifting it. Proof, IMO, would be that the video evidence hadn't been tampered with and that it was indeed that shutter and that any other explanation was impossible.
If it had ever come to court, her assertion would be her evidence as to what she saw, but whether that was deemed to be evidence as to the actual state of the shutters/ window could be open to question.
Gerry had also stated that he'd seen it open when he arrived, but again, that's not evidence of who lifted it.
On the other hand, there is evidence that the dogs alerted in the form of the video recordings. There is no evidence, however, as to what the dogs actually alerted to. Therefore, IMO, the alerts themselves were an indication, but despite the forensic lot hunting for evidence, none was found warranting any "meaningful interpretation".
In a court case, Mrs Fenn's statement could have been used as evidence that the McCanns didn't check as frequently as they'd said. However, her statement wasn't corroborated, and IMO, there are other potential explanations that make more sense to me. In any event, she didn't even see Madeleine crying, she just heard a child crying, who she believed to have been the same child, and that the noise came from below. It's not evidence that it was actually Madeleine crying.
The DNA results are evidence that could have beenn presented in court, circa Cipriano time, but not worthy of any "meaningful interpretation", or as the prosecutor put it "innocuous". Not even an indication, IMO. There never was any "blood spatter" or "100% DNA result" which is a long-enduring and much-cherished myth for some.
There were indications that Murat might have been involved, which is why the PJ checked out that possibility, but there is no evidence that he was.
As the prosecutor said, although the PJ felt that they had grounds for suspicion (I could quibble as to whether they were actually confronted with the text of the Lowe email or not... which I doubt), it all fizzled into nothingness.