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

[Jean-Pierre]

What were the statistics at May 2 2007 about a little girl being deliberately  smacked in the flat G5A of Praia da Luz ?

????

Unless you have other information, I would suggest 0

[Sherlock Holmes]

And neither do other aspects of their story. The entire edifice is based on a single assumption. Which is that the McCanns are telling the truth. Why would it be that the McCanns and their friends are the sole purveys of this commodity? They have certainly been very quick to challenge and sue those who do not believe their version of events.

The only truthful explanation for Madeleine's disappearance, if the McCanns and their friends had no prior knowledge or were completely innocent of anything to do with it, would be that they did not know what happened to Madeleine. But that is not what they said. They cannot 'know' what happened to Madeleine unless they were there when it happened or unless they had something to do with it.

That's relatively amateur detective work, don't you think?

How one interprets this kind of thing says as much about the interpreter as the person or people whose actions are being interpreted, as Sadie and others are mentioning.

A cynic is going to say that the McCanns have been quick to sue and attempt to silence people because they are concerned about certain truths coming out, or that they have manipulative and controlling characters.

A different kind of person could interpret the  decision to sue as an indication that the McCanns and others have very good reason to believe that their 'version of events' is correct.

So assuming a negative reason for the McCanns' actions is a personal view, nothing more.

Isn't it this type of so-called analysis, almost entirely subjective in nature as it is , that is amateurish?

No attachment to statistics, facts, or anything proven whatsoever.

[Jean-Pierre]

How one interprets this kind of thing says as much about the interpreter as the person or people whose actions are being interpreted, as Sadie and others are mentioning.

A cynic is going to say that the McCanns have been quick to sue and attempt to silence people because they are concerned about certain truths coming out, or that they have manipulative and controlling characters.

A different kind of person could interpret the  decision to sue as an indication that the McCanns and others have very good reason to believe that their 'version of events' is correct.

So assuming a negative reason for the McCanns' actions is a personal view, nothing more.

Isn't it this type of so-called analysis, almost entirely subjective in nature as it is , that is amateurish?

No attachment to statistics, facts, or anything proven whatsoever.

Well put Sherlock.

If one considers, as a practical example, their actions against Anthony Bennett.  He was conducting a very peronal campaign against them, straying far into defamation territory, as well as leafletting neighbours etc. 

Eventually they threatened action, and settled for an undertaking not to continue his campaign.  It was only when he contunually and deliberately broke that undertaking that they took further action in the high court.  And that was pitched at the minimum level required to "encourage" him to desist. 

So far from being "very quick to challenge and sue those who do not believe their version of events" they have been very measured in their response.

[Sherlock Holmes]

What were the statistics at May 2 2007 about a little girl being deliberately  smacked in the flat G5A of Praia da Luz ?

That's precisely the point, my dear Anne.

As Jean-Pierre says, the matter is binary:  either she was smacked in the flat or she wasn't.

To say there was an 86% chance - or whatever figure you want to quote - is meaningless. Equally, saying there was a zero per cent chance of a very specific thing happening is meaningless also. Obviously we're not going to have figures for these things.

The bottom line is, once again, that in any  given case, either something was or it wasn't.

Heriberto speaks on this at length - and gives a far more scientific explanation than me - as you will recall.

[AnneGuedes]

That's precisely the point, my dear Anne.

As Jean-Pierre says, the matter is binary:  either she was smacked in the flat or she wasn't.

To say there was an 86% chance - or whatever figure you want to quote - is meaningless. Equally, saying there was a zero per cent chance of a very specific thing happening is meaningless also. Obviously we're not going to have figures for these things.

The bottom line is, once again, that in a given particular case, either something was or it wasn't.

Heriberto speaks on this at length - and gives a far more scientific explanation than me - as you will recall.

I was obviously kidding..
Stats are a very useful ploy for who knows how to interpret them. It is quite a tough task and requests knowledge in many areas.
I don't recall any scientific explanation by Heriberto, sorry !

[Sherlock Holmes]

I was obviously kidding..
Stats are a very useful ploy for who knows how to interpret them. It is quite a tough task and requests knowledge in many areas.
I don't recall any scientific explanation by Heriberto, sorry !

I know you were kidding, Anne!

One of your intelligence would have to be.

Heriberto writes about it on his site, I think. And I believe it's a well-discussed point in academia that the individual case is the individual case, whatever else could be said about it in global terms.

[AnneGuedes]

I know you were kidding, Anne!

One of your intelligence would have to be.

Heriberto writes about it on his site, I think. And I believe it's a well-discussed point in academia that the individual case is the individual case, whatever else could be said about it in global terms.

Stats are better left to statisticians who are the only ones capable to take them with the  due pinch of salt they require.

[slartibartfast]

Stats are better left to statisticians who are the only ones capable to take them with the  due pinch of salt they require.

Agreed, speaking as a statistician.

[Jean-Pierre]

Stats are better left to statisticians who are the only ones capable to take them with the  due pinch of salt they require.

Even then, sometimes.

If you have your feet in the fridge and your head in the oven then, statistically, you are perfectly comfortable.   

[Carana]

Even then, sometimes.

If you have your feet in the fridge and your head in the oven then, statistically, you are perfectly comfortable.

LOL!!!

[slartibartfast]

Even then, sometimes.

If you have your feet in the fridge and your head in the oven then, statistically, you are perfectly comfortable.

LOL but wrong statistically.

[Jean-Pierre]

LOL but wrong statistically.

Of course.  I should have been more precise "on average"

I trust we are not going to start on actuarial jokes....

[sadie]

LOL but wrong statistically.

I love the occasional banter !

ETA:  Sorry J-P

[Mr Gray]

Of course.  I should have been more precise "on average"

I trust we are not going to start on actuarial jokes....

 I like the fact that half the population are below average intelligence

[slartibartfast]

Of course.  I should have been more precise "on average"

I trust we are not going to start on actuarial jokes....

I would have to get son-in-law for those.