Sorry Stephen but you are completely wrong in that logic.
You forgot to add someone suspiciously holding a child in their arms walking away from an apartment from which some minutes later a child was found to have disappeared is indeed evidence and evidence of an abduction. Evidence which you continually refuse to accept for some bizarre reason.
John.
Now on that precept, how do you know the child sighted was not a parent taking the child home ?
The two sightings are not in accordance.
There is no forensic proof Madeleine was taken from the apartment. Note on that, you dispute the dogs indications, so you can't have your cake and eat it on that score.
As regards what may or may not have happened in the apartment, the absence of confirming D.N.A. evidence does not mean the dogs were wrong, now as you claim you are an ex-policeman, you should know that, should you not ?
Remember the old saying, absence of evidence does not mean a crime did not take place.
So if you want to have the abduction theory, you cannot discount the other, can you ?
Meanwhile, why do you think there has been no trace of Madeleine in over 6 years, given all the publicity to the case and of course the reward on offer ?