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

[Sherlock Holmes]

The trouble is, there is not one iota of evidence, let alone forensic backup, to indicate abduction.

As to the background of the mccanns, we only 'know' what has been fed to the pres

That's true. But if there was a history of child abuse, mental problems, a difficult relationship between the parents that may have led to a custody issue, then something would have come out by now. This would be catnip to the press. CM may be feeding the press, but there are plenty media reports which do not come from him and do not present the case in a good light for the McCanns.

This type of information would also be vital for anyone investigating. Several investigators, here and in Portugal, have discussed the case with press and public, and not one of them has suggested any of the above problems.

Look at the recent Kular case. Very little has been leaked from official sources, yet the press have still managed to get their hands on all sorts of information regarding Mikaeel being in care, drug problems, etc. Neighbours have spoken to the press. These things come out.

If the McCanns were a problem family, we would know about it by now.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sorry to be pedantic too but the whole discussion was not about parental custodial abductions (alive children) but  all and any parental or familial and friends involvement in  both live and dead children, and the statistics do show this figures in the majority..have to go,check back later

That's right, and there is nothing pointing to any of those things either. The McCanns and their family have no history of anything which would place them, statistically, as being likely to be involved in a child's disappearance.

[slartibartfast]

That's right, and there is nothing pointing to any of those things either. The McCanns and their family have no history of anything which would place them, statistically, as being likely to be involved in a child's disappearance.

Hmmmm. I don't think any information as to their previous history is in the public domain?

[AnneGuedes]

That's right, and there is nothing pointing to any of those things either. The McCanns and their family have no history of anything which would place them, statistically, as being likely to be involved in a child's disappearance.

In a child abduction by one of them or by a person close to them, no. But you hardly can infer from that an abduction by stranger !
Don't forget that one in 5 children between 1 and 4 dies from a daily life misadventure, That's what happened to Casey Anthony's daughter. Justice would likely have let her in peace, had she called the police immediately. But she didn't.

In Portugal statistically Madeleine had no chance to be abducted (from bed, home, garden) and almost none to be abducted from the public space.

[icabodcrane]

Just to re-cap then

We have accepted   (  by virtue of the Home Office statistics referenced by Kate McCann  )  that where  abduction has been established  (  and proven  )   there is an 84% likelihood of family involvement   

This statistic is not all surprising,  but,  in this case,  we are jumping the gun here

Abduction has    not  been established  (  proven )  so the statistic we should be concerned with is the one that addresses the question of  children who are reported  'missing'  by their parents   ...  and what  percentage of them turn out to have been abducted by strangers

Anyone have those stats  ? 

[Mr Gray]

That's right, and there is nothing pointing to any of those things either. The McCanns and their family have no history of anything which would place them, statistically, as being likely to be involved in a child's disappearance.

This posts justs about sums up the reason I started this thread. Some posters are under the false impression that statistically it is highly likely that the McCanns were involved in Maddies disappaerance..they are just plain wrong...


another myth used to point guilt at the McCannns bites the dust.

[Mr Gray]

Just to re-cap then

We have accepted   (  by virtue of the Home Office statistics referenced by Kate McCann  )  that where  abduction has been established  (  and proven  )  there is an 84% likelihood of family involvement   

This statistic is not all surprising,  but,  in this case,  we are jumping the gun here

Abduction has    not  been established  (  proven )  so the statistic we should be concerned with is the one that addresses the question of  children who are reported  'missing'  by their parents   ...  and what  percentage of them turn out to have been abducted by strangers

Anyone have those stats  ?

absolute load of rubbish...no wonder you have got everything wrong

[Cariad]

That's true. But if there was a history of child abuse, mental problems, a difficult relationship between the parents that may have led to a custody issue, then something would have come out by now. This would be catnip to the press. CM may be feeding the press, but there are plenty media reports which do not come from him and do not present the case in a good light for the McCanns.

This type of information would also be vital for anyone investigating. Several investigators, here and in Portugal, have discussed the case with press and public, and not one of them has suggested any of the above problems.

Look at the recent Kular case. Very little has been leaked from official sources, yet the press have still managed to get their hands on all sorts of information regarding Mikaeel being in care, drug problems, etc. Neighbours have spoken to the press. These things come out.

If the McCanns were a problem family, we would know about it by now.

I don't agree. Things go on behind closed doors that no one ever finds out about, or not for a very long time anyway. This is especially true of middle class families who may feel ashamed about such things.

an anecdotal example : A and B where married for over forty years. When they were both retired and the children had left home and had families of their own, A leaves B and finally admits that she's been a victim of domestic violence for all of her married life. She finally left when she was convinced he was actually going to kill her.  The children didn't even know!

A and B's job were comparable to the Mccanns, though they weren't actually Dr's. Same kind of pay scale though. Oh and they were very religious! Church every Sunday.

[AnneGuedes]

I don't agree. Things go on behind closed doors that no one ever finds out about, or not for a very long time anyway.

Skeletons in the closet are bound to be uncovered sooner or later. Nothing to be found here.

[Estuarine]

I don't agree. Things go on behind closed doors that no one ever finds out about, or not for a very long time anyway. This is especially true of middle class families who may feel ashamed about such things.

an anecdotal example : A and B where married for over forty years. When they were both retired and the children had left home and had families of their own, A leaves B and finally admits that she's been a victim of domestic violence for all of her married life. She finally left when she was convinced he was actually going to kill her.  The children didn't even know!

A and B's job were comparable to the Mccanns, though they weren't actually Dr's. Same kind of pay scale though. Oh and they were very religious! Church every Sunday.

It is surprising just how much "secret" information is held that even the press will never get at. I agree with the "behind closed doors" bit too. But why does there have to be "previous". I can think of at least three murders in localities in which I have lived that were "one offs" and caused shock among neighbours and none of the guilty parties had any kind of "previous". Nor do I buy that statistics are a good "go by" except in the McCann case.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I don't agree. Things go on behind closed doors that no one ever finds out about, or not for a very long time anyway. This is especially true of middle class families who may feel ashamed about such things.

an anecdotal example : A and B where married for over forty years. When they were both retired and the children had left home and had families of their own, A leaves B and finally admits that she's been a victim of domestic violence for all of her married life. She finally left when she was convinced he was actually going to kill her.  The children didn't even know!

A and B's job were comparable to the Mccanns, though they weren't actually Dr's. Same kind of pay scale though. Oh and they were very religious! Church every Sunday.

But if A and B were in the spotlight of world media, and had had dozens of detectives working on a matter connected with one of their children for years and years, something might have been learned about the marriage.

Domestic violence victims are often notoriously secretive (when they're not in denial ) - the McCanns are not.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hmmmm. I don't think any information as to their previous history is in the public domain?

See my previous post (778), Slartibart.

Surely there would be by now...

No-one at all has come up with a single damaging fact about the McCanns as a couple or anyone in their families.  Almost whiter than white.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It is surprising just how much "secret" information is held that even the press will never get at. I agree with the "behind closed doors" bit too. But why does there have to be "previous". I can think of at least three murders in localities in which I have lived that were "one offs" and caused shock among neighbours and none of the guilty parties had any kind of "previous". Nor do I buy that statistics are a good "go by" except in the McCann case.

Maybe there was no obvious 'previous'. But a 'previous' always exists. We're just not party to the relevant information at the time. An expert or someone intimately involved in the situation would see or know of information or observe red flags.

[AnneGuedes]

No-one at all has come up with a single damaging fact about the McCanns as a couple or anyone in their families.  Almost whiter than white.

There's no evidence of their whitehood ! Perhaps, perhaps not.
As Icabodcrane has underlined above, abduction hasn't been established.
Therefore, among children reported missing, as  it is Madeleine's case, what are the chances to be abducted by parent/friend, by stranger, by adopting parents, to have been sold, to have been killed by predator, to  be in a sex ring, to have died in a domestic accident, to be the victim of an homicide by neglect, etc.

[Sherlock Holmes]

There's no evidence of their whitehood ! Perhaps, perhaps not.
As Icabodcrane has underlined above, abduction hasn't been established.
Therefore, among children reported missing, as  it is Madeleine's case, what are the chances to be abducted by parent/friend, by stranger, by adopting parents, to have been sold, to have been killed by predator, to  be in a sex ring, to have died in a domestic accident, to be the victim of an homicide by neglect, etc.

Well, you've just answered your own question. There are many reasons why Madeleine could have gone missing, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with her parents. That is the reality in this case. Those are the statistics that would be applicable - if it helps to do that after the fact.

If we learn something about the McCanns' lives that would make it more likely that they were guilty of something, such as a history of child abuse, then we would adjust the balance of probabilities accordingly.