On Human Behaviour, Morality and Criminality

[pathfinder73]

Which has exactly zero value in determining the explanation for a single case. That js why it cannot be introduced as probative evidence in court.

Statistical probability does not provide a method of finding the truth in a single case.

It clearly tells me who can't be eliminated from cases like these without proof where there's potential evidence of death. Family or friends are involved in 96% of cases. A staggering statistic.

[OxfordBloo]

It clearly tells me who can't be eliminated from cases like these without proof where there's potential evidence of death. Family or friends are involved in 96% of cases. A staggering statistic.

And which has no probative value legally or scientifically because each new case will have a possibility of four in a hundred of being a case of stranger involvement and without further evidence it is not possible to decide whether each new case is one section or another.

The rule is that statistical prediction is useful for multiple cases but has nothing to say about a single case.

It is true to say that the next hundred cases of child abduction, only about four will be stranger abduction.

But it has nothing at all to say about the next single case because it has only one truth value and that might be either way.

[stephen25000]

And which has no probative value legally or scientifically because each new case will have a possibility of four in a hundred of being a case of stranger involvement and without further evidence it is not possible to decide whether each new case is one section or another.

The rule is that statistical prediction is useful for multiple cases but has nothing to say about a single case.

It is true to say that the next hundred cases of child abduction, only about four will be stranger abduction.

But it has nothing at all to say about the next single case because it has only one truth value and that might be either way.

So what qualitative or quantitative evidence exists of abduction exists in this case ?

[pathfinder73]

And which has no probative value legally or scientifically because each new case will have a possibility of four in a hundred of being a case of stranger involvement and without further evidence it is not possible to decide whether each new case is one section or another.

The rule is that statistical prediction is useful for multiple cases but has nothing to say about a single case.

It is true to say that the next hundred cases of child abduction, only about four will be stranger abduction.

But it has nothing at all to say about the next single case because it has only one truth value and that might be either way.

What stranger? There is no evidence of a stranger. The open window had no stranger fingerprints or glove marks. Dogs alerted not to strangers but clothes worn by occupants of that apartment and inside and out and their car was the only vehicle alerted. These were alerts by the best English crime dogs not evil Amaral/PJ.

The only other credible lead is of the man seen by the Smiths heading towards the sea carrying a Maddy lookalike. He has still not been identified so a very credible lead.

[OxfordBloo]

The problem is that for an investigation to be successful, elimination is not enough, proof of inclusion is necessary.

There is no proof statistically or otherwise.

[Brietta]

What aspect of being outed by the media totally destroyed her then?  We've seen other McCann trolls outed who seem quite proud of their antics and of their infamy, why not Brenda?

One in particular who was convicted of defrauding her elderly parents to live the high life in Spain for a bit leaving them living in filth, apparently feels no shame as she twitters on against the McCanns in the same vein she has for eight years. No shame there.

[John]

Everyone has a right to a presumption of innocence under the Law regardless of the jurisdiction.  That is the case even if someone is caught red-handed carrying out a crime.  So in reality the perpetrator of a crime prior to being judged by a Court will be technically innocent but in truth guilty all at the same time.

[sadie]

There is NO evidence that I know of !

No evidence at all.  Just speculation and twisted thoughts expressed.

[G-Unit]

There is NO evidence that I know of !

No evidence at all.  Just speculation and twisted thoughts expressed.

If there is no evidence at all, then all opinions are valid, surely?

[Admin]

There is NO evidence that I know of !

No evidence at all.  Just speculation and twisted thoughts expressed.

I believe you are confusing evidence with proof.

[OxfordBloo]

There is NO evidence that I know of !

No evidence at all.  Just speculation and twisted thoughts expressed.

There is plenty of evidence. Evidence is the sum of all facts about the case. The McCanns were there. They were the last recorded people to see Madeleine. They had the opportunity. All of that is evidence. It proves nothing.

[Admin]

There is plenty of evidence. Evidence is the sum of all facts about the case. The McCanns were there. They were the last recorded people to see Madeleine. They had the opportunity. All of that is evidence. It proves nothing.

Evidence can be both supportive or dismissive of guilt or innocence.  What is not in doubt in this case is that there is a lot of it, unfortunately however, proof is something else and there is precious little of that even now. 

[Mr Gray]

I would say there is enough evidence to prove...on the balance of probabilities... that maddie was abducted..

When we talk about proof we should define what level of proof we expect..

[Mr Gray]

It clearly tells me who can't be eliminated from cases like these without proof where there's potential evidence of death. Family or friends are involved in 96% of cases. A staggering statistic.

you will find that there is some sort of dysfunctionality in the families where children are deliberately harmed...family can include moms new drug addict boyfriend. It would be interesting to know the figure where parents are involved how many of the parents are both the biological parents

[Admin]

I would say there is enough evidence to prove...on the balance of probabilities... that maddie was abducted..

When we talk about proof we should define what level of proof we expect..

What evidence points to an abduction?