’You have 3/1 that the only couple not locking their door get their child abducted, going on to 200/1 that a dog that had never given a false positive alert, going on to 11/1 because there were twelve of them, all going on to 2/1 that it was the one child not confined to a cot that done the vanishing act.’
1. Four families go on holiday Rob and Jimmy decides to abduct one of their children, the odds of him abducting one of their children from the one unlocked apartment are 3/1 and you do the same with all the other figures. The dogs 200/1 because they had never given a false positive alert in 200 case searches. 11/1 because the dogs gave 12 separate alerts. 2/1 because the one child of the three who was not confined to a cot got abducted in the statistical odds. Then put all those odds together to calculate the odds. There is nothing mishmashed about those statistical odds., that’s how it works.
If you ever go to Vegas Rob, please play with small chips. I fear the odds may be against you.
Did Jimmy know the room numbers of the Tapas 9? How did he get to know that?
OK each of the lower level rooms had two doors per apartment but the Payne's apartment had just the one door.
so over the 4 apartments there were 7 doors potentially unlocked. To randomly select an unlocked door was 1 in 7.
If he randomly selected an apartment (1 in 4) and checked if it was unlocked for 3 out of the 4 apartments he'd have to walk around the building to check both doors.
IMO the abductor might do some surveillance and predetermine which apartment had an unlocked door.
But that too only applies if they had no particular desire to select a specific child. What is the driving motivation? Was it looks or an age range? Or was it a vendetta against a specific person/family?
