"Charity collectors" data

[Alice Purjorick]

In the case you quoted there seems to be no real reason for believing that the object was ever to burgle.

Now a similar UK or Portuguese case ?

We ought to compile a list of all the unlikely events that must converge to make the abduction theory work  &%+((£

[Alice Purjorick]

But.....but.....but G he wasn't your honest British burglar but foreign and strange.

With sincerest apologies to Bret Harte:

Which I wish to remark,
And my language is plain,
That for ways that are dark
And for tricks that are vain,
The heathen Chinee  Johnny Foreigner is peculiar,
Which the same I would rise to explain. 
 

[Heriberto Janosch]

Forget statistics of past unrelated cases. Consider this case as unique. So, which are the physical, time and space possibilities of this person who opens a window to steal money or phones to abduct a child if he interprets the task as easy?

The motivation? Nobody can understand all the aspects of the human mind. Maybe he was scared to be recognized later, maybe he was also a paedo, maybe she shouted and he put his hand on her face asphyxiating her ...


But why losing time guessing about the thoughts of a person that is almost unknown to us? A human being could be able to think, feel and act in many ways unthinkable to us.

But you can say why thinking it was a burglary that went wrong? Because we have past and maybe RELATED cases: the thefts / attempt to theft in 5L, 5G, Casa Maria ... Plus "charity collectors" (also a type of crime which could be associated to burglary) at Casa da Aventura, Ashton, Cooper ...

So, my questions are: was Madeleine exposed to be snatched? It was physically possible? Forget the motivations of a dark human mind for a moment ...

I can assure you the motivations is the less important aspect of crime investigation ... Many times it is a mislead.

[stephen25000]

Forget statistics of past unrelated cases. Consider this case as unique. So, which are the physical, time and space possibilities of this person who opens a window to steal money or phones to abduct a child if he interprets the task as easy?

The motivation? Nobody can understand all the aspects of the human mind. Maybe he was scared to be recognized later, maybe he was also a paedo, maybe ...


But why losing time guessing about the thoughts of a person that is almost unknown to us?

We have past and maybe RELATED cases: the thefts / attempt to theft in 5L, 5G, Casa Maria ... Plus "charity collectors" (also a type of crime which could be associated to burglary) at Casa da Aventura, Ashton, Cooper ...

So, my questions are: was Madeleine exposed to be snatched? It was physically possible? Forget the motivations of a dark human mind for a moment ...

I can assure you the motivations is the less important aspect of crime investigation ... Many times it is a mislead.

 Have you conducted a systematic analysis of the other scenarios for Madeleine's disappearance  ?

Or as with OG have you simply considered only one ?

[pegasus]

If a burglar opened the shutters and the window and was confronted with a child the burglar would simply go away.

Yes GUnit that is precisely what happened IMO.

[Heriberto Janosch]

 Have you conducted a systematic analysis of the other scenarios for Madeleine's disappearance  ?

Or as with OG have you simply considered only one ?

Yes, and I used the same methodology. My first theory was that the McCann did it. No trying to guess motivations. They found her dead (or they killed her) and then hid her body, it was physically possible? If you read the first three volumes of PJ files, and know about eyewitness testimony dynamics, your unique conclusion should be: physically impossible.

That is why I discard the McCann. Not for their "motivations".

[pegasus]

Yes, and I used the same methodology. My first theory was that the McCann did it. No trying to guess motivations. They found her dead (or they killed her) and then hid her body, it was physically possible? If you read the first three volumes of PJ files, and know about eyewitness testimony dynamics, your unique conclusion should be: physically impossible.

That is why I discard the McCann. Not for their "motivations".

I think it is a mistake to even think of starting off with any theory.
The essential way to start is to accurately define the problem, with spatial and especially temporal precision.
Something neither the PJ nor SY did.

[Heriberto Janosch]

I think it is a mistake to even think of starting off with any theory.
The essential way to start is to accurately define the problem, with spatial and especially temporal precision.
Something neither the PJ nor SY did.

This is philosophical empiricism, pegasus, the belief that the analysis of raw data would end in the right theory. To the contrary, science proceeds in this way: choose a theory, look the data from the point of view of the  theory, provisionally accept or discard this theory, get additional data and/or modify the theory, look again the data from the point of view of the theory ... etc. Do this cycle for all competing theories in parallel  ...

If you gather data without a theory, you will not understand the output.

Shining has something to say about blindly putting data in a database ...

[Mr Gray]

This is philosophical empiricism, pegasus, the believe that the raw data would suggest the theory. To the contrary, science proceeds otherwise: choose a theory, look the data from the point of view of the  theory, provisional accept or discard this theory, get additional data and/or modify the theory, look again the data from the point of view of the theory ... etc. Do this cycle for all competing theories in parallel  ...

If you gather data without a theory, you will not understand the output.

Shining has something to say about blindly putting data in a database ...

sorry Heri, I disagree.  Quite often science finds that data suggests a theory. This theory is then investigated by collecting more data

[Heriberto Janosch]

sorry Heri, I disagree.  Quite often science finds that data suggests a theory. This theory is then investigated by collecting more data

If raw data seems to suggest you a theory is because you analyzed the data with a theory in your mind, consciously or unconsciously. See modern philosophers of science like Popper, Bunge, etc. or read scientific papers of any science. It is not possible to analyze naively data with an innocent or empty mind.

[jassi]

sorry Heri, I disagree.  Quite often science finds that data suggests a theory. This theory is then investigated by collecting more data

And of course, if you only select data to fit your theory, you always get the answer you want. 

[Heriberto Janosch]

Popper for example began some of his lectures asking the public to look with attention all the things they can perceive in the room, during 5 minutes. Then he asked "which is your conclusion?". Nobody answered, and Popper said "you see, empiricism is false".

I try to analyze scientifically, not interested in other methodologies.

[Heriberto Janosch]

And of course, if you only select data to fit your theory, you always get the answer you want. 

Yes, but that is not scientific. You must select all data which fits the theory AND all data which refutes the theory. And forget data irrelevant to the theory.

Always is a selection.

[G-Unit]

sorry Heri, I disagree.  Quite often science finds that data suggests a theory. This theory is then investigated by collecting more data

So where did the data come from? Who is out there aimlessly collecting data for scientists to examine?

[Mr Gray]

So where did the data come from? Who is out there aimlessly collecting data for scientists to examine?

Scientists are collecting data all the time. The daily average temperature is a good example....it was recorderd way before anyone even thought of global warming

infant mortality rates are recorded as are many others...if these deviate from accepted norms an investigation is launched