Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?

[Alice Purjorick]

I haven't heard a theory which involves the parents and /or their holiday companions which is either likely or workable.

Some of them are so convoluted and bizarre one wonders what universe their proponents have come from.

The huge movement against the abduction theory arose initially because of a total misunderstanding of the operation of the shutters.

Everyone from the PJ to passing bloggers insisted they could not be opened from outside.  Therefore the 'badly told story' of jemmied shutters became common currency.
Until two prominent sceptics demonstrated the shutter of 5A could be raised from outside and Heri demonstrated exactly how simple it was to raise the shutter from outside and ensure it remained raised the impossibility became possible.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-janosch.html

I would have loved to have been standing next to the pair of them when they made their videos. Then I would have been able to see the interesting bits which are inexplicably missing on the videos that have been posted.
Does anyone have a drawing of the shutter mechanism?

[ShiningInLuz]

If you place parental involvement at 1%
The abduction and woke and wandered have to add up to 99%
That makes anduction odds on

My total quite clearly maxxed out at 40%.

You have now invented some random figures, not covered each possibility, and claim to make the total 100%.

[Mr Gray]

My total quite clearly maxxed out at 40%.

You have now invented some random figures, not covered each possibility, and claim to make the total 100%.

Then you don't understand probability
It has to add up to one.... yours do not because you have assigned the variable the wrong values

[slartibartfast]

Then you don't understand probability
It has to add up to one.... yours do not because you have assigned the variable the wrong values

Only if every possible cause is identified and every contributing factor identified to improve the estimated probability. Using you method we would go 25% for each of the four causes identified.

[Mr Gray]

Only if every possible cause is identified and every contributing factor identified to improve the estimated probability. Using you method we would go 25% for each of the four causes identified.

I would say we have identified every possible cause that has any significant value
Your ref to 25% is plainly wrong

[slartibartfast]

I would say we have identified every possible cause that has any significant value
Your ref to 25% is plainly wrong

Why?

[Mr Gray]

Why?

Because all the variables do not have equal probability .... Like tossing a coin

[slartibartfast]

Because all the variables do not have equal probability .... Like tossing a coin

...and how have you calculated their probabilities?

[Mr Gray]

...and how have you calculated their probabilities?

Based on what I have read about the case... Same as everyone else
The point is that the major possibilities need to add up to near 1..
If sil only gets to 0.4 ... Then she has assigned the wrong values to the major possibilities

[ShiningInLuz]

Lie detectors are unreliable....you apparent desire to see them used casts doubt on your credibility. If they were of any use they would have been used.

I have said for along time that if the McCanns are telling the truth and the shutters were open then Maddie was almost certainly abducted...it really is that simple...

To be blunt, I do not care about your opinion of my credibility.


I will leave it to the forum participants to make up their own minds on both points.  Just as I will leave it to them to place faith in, or not, the sole witness to a crucial piece of evidence.

If Kate really wishes no unturned stones, she has the opportunity of turning one unturned stone I doubt the lady is for turning.

[Mr Gray]

To be blunt, I do not care about your opinion of my credibility.


I will leave it to the forum participants to make up their own minds on both points.  Just as I will leave it to them to place faith in, or not, the sole witness to a crucial piece of evidence.

If Kate really wishes no unturned stones, she has the opportunity of turning one unturned stone I doubt the lady is for turning.

Anyone who places value on a lie detect should not be taken seriously and gives you little credibility
Did you say you had offered the McCanns your services and been rejected...you seem to have an inflated opinion of yourself.....

Quite simply... The major possibilities have to add up to near one... If they don't... As you have said is the case in your model.... Then your  model is flawed

[ShiningInLuz]

Based on what I have read about the case... Same as everyone else
The point is that the major possibilities need to add up to near 1..
If sil only gets to 0.4 ... Then she has assigned the wrong values to the major possibilities

You don't appear to understand probability theory.

Under your scheme of things, if the only possibility I considered was the McCanns dun it, then instead of it being unlikely, I would have to expand this to make it 100%.  Just as well for the McCanns that probability theory does not work your way round, as that logic would see them banged up in no time.

Your position that it is 1% for the McCanns and 99% for abduction is simply untenable.

[ShiningInLuz]

Anyone who places value on a lie detect should not be taken seriously and gives you little credibility
Did you say you had offered the McCanns your services and been rejected...you seem to have an inflated opinion of yourself.....

Quite simply... The major possibilities have to add up to near one... If they don't... As you have said is the case in your model.... Then your  model is flawed

Here we go again with your evaluation of me.  I am aware of your opinion of me.  I have heard it many a time.

Did I say I had offered the McCanns my services and the offer had been rejected?  No I didn't, so even on this you have the wrong end of the stick.  What I said was that I had sent an offer, by a standard channel used to funnel information to McCann supporters.  That my offer was, should another PI team be set up, to take them on tour in Luz, as a method of getting them up to speed quickly and saving cash.

Have the Mccanns appointed new PIs?  I don't know for certain, but I don't think so.  It would be difficult for a non-appointed team to take up the offer of a tour round Luz.

Have the McCanns, or those working the communication channel responded in any form.  No.  I have not had acceptance or rejection, and not even acknowledgement that the McCanns have been made aware of my offer.

Personally, I would not expect anything, other perhaps than the civility of an acknowledgement of receipt of the communication.  I would not expect the McCanns to reveal their intentions to a total stranger.  Further, if a new team is appointed, I would expect them to have a significant say in whether they took a tour or not.  After all, the conduct of such a tour places in my hands considerable knowledge of the team and what is of interest to them.  AKA a valuable news story.

Should this offer come to be relevant, I would expect some form of vetting and quite possibly a non-disclosure agreement.

Here is my offer to you.  Stop banging on about your opinion of me, and I will be happy to stop responding about what I think of your opinion.  I would think other forum members would be quite appreciative of this.

Now lets get back to probability theory, shall we?

I explained right at the start that if the model was to be credible that the total probability of all alternatives should add to 1 or 100%.  I further explained, right at the start, that my model probably comes to about 40%.  And that as a result of this, my model cannot possibly be accurate.  All of that came out in my first post re probabilities.

You then took the incorrect step of saying that either I did not understand probability theory (which I clearly do) or that to make the figures add up to 100%, there should be manipulation of my probability estimates (which clearly demonstrates a lack of what one can and cannot do in probability theory).

Probability theory prohibits me from manipulation, such as taking every figure and multiplying it by 2.5 to increase from 40% to 100%, and then claiming a good model.  It insists that I point out there must be stuff going on here that I am not aware of.  And that fact is as clear to me as the nose on my face.  And that fact came out in my first post.

You, on the other hand, assert you have a good model, that it is 1% McCann and 99% abduction, and provide absolutely zero to support this.   This is as bad as asserting it is 99% McCann and 1% abduction, with absolutely zero to support this.  Two models, both supposedly good based on them adding up to 100%, and each almost completely the opposite of the other.  Pure nonsense.

[Alice Purjorick]

If you place parental involvement at 1%
The abduction and woke and wandered have to add up to 99%
That makes anduction odds on

So what do you conclude from that statement?. Working, for the sake of argument for the time being, on the presumption that the statement is correct.

[ferryman]

Statistics are (largely) meaningless.

You just have to be sure that an event all the evidence points to could happen.

It is certainly possible that Madeleine could have been abducted.

All the evidence points to that as the most likely explanation (of the conundrum of what happened to Madeleine) ....