What my full post, reproduced in partial and misleading form by Slarti above, said:
Presented in my (original) post in a way that emphasises the Prosecutors concluded Madeleine was abducted.
You will never convince anyone that you are right because everyone can read the report and see what you've done.
You have chosen one passage from a report and are insisting that represents the view of those who wrote the report. Anyone reading the whole report is aware that it concluded that the crime was unknown.
If you want to convince, you need to stop cutting and pasting the bit you like over and over and explain the bit you don't like; the conclusion. Conclusions, by the way, contain the FINAL position of the writers after all the information has been discussed and assessed.
it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience,
to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction),http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htmPlease explain the above passage, which is the final conclusion of the Prosecutors.
