Statistically...what are the chances that Maddie was abducted..

[Benice]

Yes, I totally believe the Needham family. It is very sweet of them to support the McCanns. However, the Needhams did not hire dodgy detectives, phone Sky News, hire reputation managers, extradition lawyers and mediia spin doctors plus set up a limited company to fund their legal fees within a few weeks of their son going missing.

The McCanns did not phone Sky News.
They hired PIs in good faith - they do not have the ability to see into the future.
They did not hire a 'reputation manager'or spin doctors.
The public by their own volition wanted to contribute money - the McCanns had to deal with that - and instead of having the money going into their own accounts they set up a fund which the law said could not be registered as a charity.
They employed lawers because they were in a foreign country and need legal advice over several matters.
The original legal costs were mainly associated with setting up the Fund etc.

If the Needhams had had the same support and media /public  interest in their case  - I have no doubt they would have done the same.   And if the Internet had been as prolifically used then as it is now - the Needhams would also have been subjected to exactly the same vile treatment from some people as the McCanns have been IMO.

ETA - And the Needhams don't support the McCanns because they are 'sweet' people - they do it because they believe the parents.

[Benice]

It is nowhere near as simple as that.

I'm not much of a mathematician, but if the vast majority of those 86% of completed child abductions involve custody battles and other family disputes, and most of the rest involve cases of abuse, then the percentage chance of the McCanns being involved is much, much lower.

We know for a fact that there was no custody battle going on between the McCanns; nor was there any evidence of abuse.

Therefore we return to the important fact that statistics do not apply in the individual case, a point I am not going to elaborate on here as it has already been well established and is also a matter of common sense.

If we knew absolutely nothing about the Madeleine McCann case; if the words Gerry and Kate McCann were just names on a piece of paper to us, then we would cite statistical chance.

Knowing more, however, we are able to narrow matters down and form a (slightly) clearer view.

I agree.   Some  people talk as if the word 'rare' means the same as  'never'.     Sandy Davidson was abducted in Scotland over 30 years ago.    Ben Needham was abducted over 20 years ago.     Madeleine was abducted over 6 years ago.     That is what is meant by 'rare' IMO.

I also agree that we would have to know nothing about the background/history of the McCanns as parents to include them in 'general' statistics. 

[Redblossom]

Clarence Mitchell dealt with the press on their behalf.    Do you really think the McCanns could have coped with hundreds of reporters waiting to pounce on them every day.     They would have no knowledge at all on how to deal with the media - and their lives would have been a misery.  I believe his fee was paid for by a benefactor?

CMis a professional spin doctor and you would have to be as an adult living in naivety ignorance or cloud cuckoo land to not know so..,.and they also hired reputation managers as per my  previous post, in repy to yours, this post of yours means nothing, as you are backtracking onfacts, nite benice sleep  tite lolol

[j.rob]

The McCanns did not phone Sky News.
They hired PIs in good faith - they do not have the ability to see into the future.
They did not hire a 'reputation manager'or spin doctors.
The public by their own volition wanted to contribute money - the McCanns had to deal with that - and instead of having the money going into their own accounts they set up a fund which the law said could not be registered as a charity.
They employed lawers because they were in a foreign country and need legal advice over several matters.
The original legal costs were mainly associated with setting up the Fund etc.

If the Needhams had had the same support and media /public  interest in their case  - I have no doubt they would have done the same.   And if the Internet had been as prolifically used then as it is now - the Needhams would also have been subjected to exactly the same vile treatment from some people as the McCanns have been IMO.

ETA - And the Needhams don't support the McCanns because they are 'sweet' people - they do it because they believe the parents.

Yes they are sweet people because they believe the McCircus/McMess/McMoneyspinning........

I believed the McMucks for quite a long time. But I don't any more.

Of course the Needhams wouldn't have done the same - what a stupid suggestion. So they would surround themselves with people with links to organised crime?

Yeah, right.

[Benice]

Yes they are sweet people because they believe the McCircus/McMess/McMoneyspinning........

I believed the McMucks for quite a long time. But I don't any more.

Of course the Needhams wouldn't have done the same - what a stupid suggestion. So they would surround themselves with people with links to organised crime?

Yeah, right.

The McCanns did not knowingly employ people with links to organised crime - that's a preposterous suggestion.

They became just one of several victims of a conman.

Once again - you use hindsight - which the McCanns did not have.   Why do you keep insisting they can see into the future.

[sadie]

Shall we compare the behaviour of the mccanns who on several successive nights went to booze and eat, with the Needhams behaviour?
-snipped-

So the Mccanns went into the garden for dinner and drank less than 4 bottles of wine between them over their dinner

I seem to remember that the Needhams were eating in their garden abroad.  Do YOU KNOW how much, or how little, they drank?  Do YOU know how close they kept Ben to them? 

I am sure that being a loving family, like The Mccanns, the Needhams were confident that their eye was sufficiently on Ben that no harm could come to him, but was he always within 50 metres?  Was he always in full view?


It has been some time since I read the Ben Needham reports and maybe i am wrong.  Please correct me if you are sure that they had nothing to drink and you are sure that Ben was always close and always watched.  I dont think he can have been, cos he was abducted. 
I am thankful that you  <<< inappropriate comment edited out >>>  do not have it in for the Needhams as you seem to have it in for The Mccanns.

Both were loving, caring, families, in what seemed safe circumstances, to have been targetted by some monster.

[stephen25000]

Even though Ben was abducted when he was unsupervised and no evidence of an abduction was found - and we only have the family's word for what happened - I totally believe them - and for the same reasons why I believe Madeleine's parents. 

They are two ordinary families who both had a child abducted in a foreign country, neither of whom have been found, and both families are still looking for them.

IIRC the Needhams have shown their support for the McCanns - so maybe you would like to sneer at them too.

So Benice, evidence of abduction ?

davel couldn't  provide any.

Why do you need to try and hide behind the skirts of the Needhams ?

Does it make you feel better ?

Most people believe the Needhams, but don't believe the Mccanns.

[Mr Gray]

So Benice, evidence of abduction ?

davel couldn't  provide any.

Why do you need to try and hide behind the skirts of the Needhams ?

Does it make you feel better ?

Most people believe the Needhams, but don't believe the Mccanns.

Who says most people don't believe the McCCanns...posting opinion as fact again

[Mr Gray]

So Benice, evidence of abduction ?

davel couldn't  provide any.

Why do you need to try and hide behind the skirts of the Needhams ?

Does it make you feel better ?

Most people believe the Needhams, but don't believe the Mccanns.

Couldn't reply last night..had to look after my young children


Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

So you see...what you mean Stephen is that there is no proof of abduction...there certainly is evidence although it is weak and satisfies the definition in red

[stephen25000]

Who says most people don't believe the McCCanns...posting opinion as fact again

Oh dear davel.

I was awaiting your response to that. Doesn't take much to prime you.

So how many people believe the mccanns made up abduction ?

[stephen25000]

Couldn't reply last night..had to look after my young children


Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

So you see...what you mean Stephen is that there is no proof of abduction...there certainly is evidence although it is weak and satisfies the definition in red

You really need to stop googling.

Now where is evidence of abduction ?

Others asked  the same question.

P.S. A brief reminder, yet again. A child being carried is not evidence of abduction.

[stephen25000]

So the Mccanns went into the garden for dinner and drank less than 4 bottles of wine between them over their dinner

I seem to remember that the Needhams were eating in their garden abroad.  Do YOU KNOW how much, or how little, they drank?  Do YOU know how close they kept Ben to them? 

I am sure that being a loving family, like The Mccanns, the Needhams were confident that their eye was sufficiently on Ben that no harm could come to him, but was he always within 50 metres?  Was he always in full view?


It has been some time since I read the Ben Needham reports and maybe i am wrong.  Please correct me if you are sure that they had nothing to drink and you are sure that Ben was always close and always watched.  I dont think he can have been, cos he was abducted. 
I am thankful that you and your ilk do not have it in for the Needhams as you seem to have it in for The Mccanns.

Both were loving, caring, families, in what seemed safe circumstances, to have been targetted by some monster.

No garden sadie.

They were at the Tapas , but you know that.

[Mr Gray]

You really need to stop googling.

Now where is evidence of abduction ?

Others asked  the same question.

P.S. A brief reminder, yet again. A child being carried is not evidence of abduction.

you don't understand what evidence is...not surprising...you are confusing evidence with proof

[stephen25000]

you don't understand what evidence is...not surprising...you are confusing evidence with proof

Where's the evidence davel ?

That's all you have to do.

[Wonderfulspam]

You really need to stop googling.

Now where is evidence of abduction ?

Others asked  the same question.

P.S. A brief reminder, yet again. A child being carried is not evidence of abduction.

Look here Stephen, Kate say's she was abducted, so does Gerry. If that is evidence enough for the 'support group' then it should be evidence enough for you too.