According to some, there is certainly circumstantial evidence of abduction.

[Robittybob1]

Agreed

And that either rubber/plastic gloves were worn, or somone clleaning off all the places where their fingerprints might have been.

I believe the front door was unlocked and opened, then closed, using the key alone.  No finger prints would be there then

IMO

I have not seen any evidence to support that Sadie, but if you can give me a clue I'll look into it again.

[Robittybob1]

It was pointless checking for Madeleine's fingerprints on the doors as she occupied the apartment. Finding her fingerprints on the front door or the patio door was not significant.

I'm trying to think how they would have got a reference sample of Madeleine's fingerprints in the first place.  If small fingerprints were found they could be attributed to a child but who?

[Vertigo Swirl]

So in answer to the questions who, when and why, your answer is that it might have been an abductor. My answer to you is it might not have been an abductor. Therefore it isn't evidence that it was an abductor. The only forensic evidence found belonged to Kate McCann.

If it turns out that there was indeed an abductor who actually did open the window (something even you must concede is a possibility) then obviously the open window would turn out to have been evidence of an abductor. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

So we have two police forces who can see no evidence pointing to parental involvement. Both say they don't know what happened on 3rd May. One of the forces has used the abduction word, the other hasn't. What on earth are they hoping to achieve?

I believe they’re hoping to solve the case.

[Miss Taken Identity]

It does, and as I see it, if there are politics involved, in the case as long as the case remains "active" it serves as a reminder to Portugal to do a better job on the cases where UK tourists are involved.  No more keeping them quiet just so they don't affect the tourist trade IMO.

Who was keeping who quiet? perhaps a reminder we don't know what happened to MBM, the parents may or may not be involved so how would that affect tourist trade, and another thing if Tourist was to go out drinking and eating they should take their children with them or stay at their apartments.  No point in blaming anyone else ...

[Robittybob1]

Who was keeping who quiet? perhaps a reminder we don't know what happened to MBM, the parents may or may not be involved so how would that affect tourist trade, and another thing if Tourist was to go out drinking and eating they should take their children with them or stay at their apartments.  No point in blaming anyone else ...

I have seen discussion where the tourist operators kept incidences quiet as it would affect their business.  Had the McCanns been made aware that PdL was not as safe as they believed the whole matter may have been different.

[sadie]

I have not seen any evidence to support that Sadie, but if you can give me a clue I'll look into it again.

Common sense, Rob.  If rubber/plastic type gloves were used no fimgerprints would show.

Also doors can be opened and closed JUST using a key.  Takes practice.  Why not try it yourself?

Facts, not opinion.

[sadie]

I'm trying to think how they would have got a reference sample of Madeleine's fingerprints in the first place.  If small fingerprints were found they could be attributed to a child but who?

If they checked the twins finger prints ... and then in places that Madeleine would have touched if exiting the apartment, all they had to do was ignore eliminate prints belonging to the twins.

I dont think that there was much socializing with other children in 5A.  In fact I cant remember reading of any.  Can you?

[G-Unit]

Common sense, Rob.  If rubber/plastic type gloves were used no fimgerprints would show.

Also doors can be opened and closed JUST using a key.  Takes practice.  Why not try it yourself?

Facts, not opinion.

It's a fact that rubber gloves stop fingerprints from being left. It's possibly a fact that doors can be opened and closed with just a key. What is lacing is any evidence that those things happened. Therefore they're not evidence of abduction, circumstantial or otherwise. What they are are attempts to explain how no evidence of an abductor's presence was found.

[Robittybob1]

It's a fact that rubber gloves stop fingerprints from being left. It's possibly a fact that doors can be opened and closed with just a key. What is lacing is any evidence that those things happened. Therefore they're not evidence of abduction, circumstantial or otherwise. What they are are attempts to explain how no evidence of an abductor's presence was found.

OK it might be possible to open and close the front door with just holding the key.  I agree.

[Lace]

It's a fact that rubber gloves stop fingerprints from being left. It's possibly a fact that doors can be opened and closed with just a key. What is lacing is any evidence that those things happened. Therefore they're not evidence of abduction, circumstantial or otherwise. What they are are attempts to explain how no evidence of an abductor's presence was found.

I remember reading that there was no sign of gloves being used,   that baffled me as how can they tell if gloves had been worn or not?

[Innominate]

I remember reading that there was no sign of gloves being used,   that baffled me as how can they tell if gloves had been worn or not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glove_prints

[G-Unit]

OK it might be possible to open and close the front door with just holding the key.  I agree.

Just because something might be possible doesn't mean it happened. I thought we were looking for evidence that an abduction took place, not speculating about how it might have been accomplished.

[Eleanor]

Just because something might be possible doesn't mean it happened. I thought we were looking for evidence that an abduction took place, not speculating about how it might have been accomplished.

What else is there to do?  You are not able to prove that an abduction didn't happen, so why be so scathing about the possibility?

[jassi]

What else is there to do? You are not able to prove that an abduction didn't happen, so why be so scathing about the possibility?

That's not how it works. The trick is to prove that the abduction did happen, not that it didn't.