It wasn't the first time a burglar got in via a window at the resort!

[Eleanor]

Those 3 'reasons' are speculation without ONE bit of evidence to back them up.

Please, please, Stephen, could you produce some evidence for your insistence?

[Brietta]

Kate could have touched it when looking out when she found Madeleine missing,   if you fake an abduction,  you are normally intelligent enough to wipe finger prints off anything that might incriminate you.

There would be nothing at all extraordinary or incriminating about fingerprints from the occupants of Apartment 5a being all over the interior of the window.  What is extraordinary is that so few fingerprints belonging to any one were found.

Probably worth noting that the handle would have been used to open the window, an attempt to do so by placing the fingers of one hand on the glass and pushing probably would not have done it and it would have resulted in smearing the prints.

The report states "The fingerprint inspection was only carried out on the inside of the window because it was night time,".
There is no record of the outside of the window or the cill being checked forensically nor does the report mention how many inadequate prints were found. 
The report states, "Outside of the external blinds to the children's bedroom: three inadequate prints were recovered."  We know that Madeleine's father and others interfered with the "blinds" because they thought they could not be opened from outside, only to discover that they did.

Fingerprints were sent to other countries, "Several prints were unusable for comparison purposes; all others were compared with no results."

Later one was eliminated, "These were compared to the finger print which was identified as being that of Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa of the Lagos GNR."

So it appears that there are fingerprints lifted from the McCann apartment which remain unidentified ... they are not the fingerprints of anyone who had legitimate access to the apartment and until they are identified it leaves the probability that one may belong to a burglar or an abductor.

I believe there are also unidentified hairs lifted from within the apartment;

unknown hairs + unknown fingerprints = unknown person; 

so until that unknown person is identified no-one can state that there is no evidence to support Madeleine's abduction.

Quotes from:   http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm

[stephen25000]

Please, please, Stephen, could you produce some evidence for your insistence?

Perhaps you haven't got the point Eleanor.

With the mccann supporters or the mccanns themselves, trying to link a burglary to an 'abduction', it isn't me who requires the evidence to do so.

Is it ?

All that is visible on many threads on this forum, is a desperation from mccann supporters to link events which have no proof or evidence, to  prove they ever took place.

[pathfinder73]

Kate could have touched it when looking out when she found Madeleine missing,   if you fake an abduction,  you are normally intelligent enough to wipe finger prints off anything that might incriminate you.

She didn't mention that fact in her statement and intelligent people lock their apartment.

[Eleanor]

Perhaps you haven't got the point Eleanor.

With the mccann supporters or the mccanns themselves, trying to link a burglary to an 'abduction', it isn't me who requires the evidence to do so.

Is it ?

All that is visible on many threads on this forum, is a desperation from mccann supporters to link events which have no proof or evidence, to  prove they ever took place.

But a Court would require this evidence.  And since The McCanns have never been charged, one can only assume that there is none.

[stephen25000]

But a Court would require this evidence.  And since The McCanns have never been charged, one can only assume that there is none.

and where are the mccanns with no evidence of an abduction ?

[Anna]

There would be nothing at all extraordinary or incriminating about fingerprints from the occupants of Apartment 5a being all over the interior of the window.  What is extraordinary is that so few fingerprints belonging to any one were found.

Probably worth noting that the handle would have been used to open the window, an attempt to do so by placing the fingers of one hand on the glass and pushing probably would not have done it and it would have resulted in smearing the prints.

The report states "The fingerprint inspection was only carried out on the inside of the window because it was night time,".
There is no record of the outside of the window or the cill being checked forensically nor does the report mention how many inadequate prints were found. 
The report states, "Outside of the external blinds to the children's bedroom: three inadequate prints were recovered."  We know that Madeleine's father and others interfered with the "blinds" because they thought they could not be opened from outside, only to discover that they did.

Fingerprints were sent to other countries, "Several prints were unusable for comparison purposes; all others were compared with no results."

Later one was eliminated, "These were compared to the finger print which was identified as being that of Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa of the Lagos GNR."

So it appears that there are fingerprints lifted from the McCann apartment which remain unidentified ... they are not the fingerprints of anyone who had legitimate access to the apartment and until they are identified it leaves the probability that one may belong to a burglar or an abductor.

I believe there are also unidentified hairs lifted from within the apartment;

unknown hairs + unknown fingerprints = unknown person; 

so until that unknown person is identified no-one can state that there is no evidence to support Madeleine's abduction.

Quotes from:   http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FINGERPRINTS.htm

Very well covered, Brietta

[Eleanor]

and where are the mccanns with no evidence of an abduction ?

The McCanns don't have to produce anything.  I thought you understood that.

[Mr Gray]

So where is the evidence ?

the evidence is...Maddie is missing....her parents have been ruled out....unlikely to have left apartment on her own and closed all doors behind her...that only leaves abduction or death at the hands of a stranger who then removed the body.....simple

[Angelo222]

the evidence is...Maddie is missing....her parents have been ruled out....unlikely to have left apartment on her own and closed all doors behind her...that only leaves abduction or death at the hands of a stranger who then removed the body.....simple

Wrong wrong wrong!!

Nobody has been ruled out yet and that's gospel.  There is every possibility Maddie got up and finding no parents in the apartment yet again she opened the front door and walked out just as she did every morning.  This time however she met with an accident.

[Eleanor]

Wrong wrong wrong!!

Nobody has been ruled out yet and that's gospel.  There is every possibility Maddie got up and finding no parents in the apartment yet again she opened the front door and walked out just as she did every morning.  This time however she met with an accident.

So what happened to her after that.  S'il vous plait?

[Mr Gray]

Wrong wrong wrong!!

Nobody has been ruled out yet and that's gospel.  There is every possibility Maddie got up and finding no parents in the apartment yet again she opened the front door and walked out just as she did every morning.  This time however she met with an accident.

Redwood has said the parents are not suspects and has said he is looking for an abductor...that fits perfectly with what I have said

[Angelo222]

So what happened to her after that.  S'il vous plait?

That's the $50 million question?

[Angelo222]

Redwood has said the parents are not suspects and has said he is looking for an abductor...that fits perfectly with what I have said

Redwood has gone or hadn't you noticed?

[Lace]

Those 3 'reasons' are speculation without ONE bit of evidence to back them up.

Of course it's speculation,  I wasn't there!!    but so is what Amaral said speculation.   We can only speculate as we weren't there.

You asked me why did I think the window was open when I said the abductor could have entered with a key through the front door.   I give you three reasons.