UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Mr Gray on June 14, 2019, 08:01:27 PM
-
what do you think the odds are of abduction in this case
-
I have answered you. Hows about we use this figure instead. The number of children who went abroad between Ben Needham going missing and Madeleine McCann being REPORTED missing/1.
could you clarify... i havent seen aclear answer...the odds of abduction must be quite high
-
Ben Needham goes missing/stranger abduction abroad, 1989, Madeleine McCann next goes missing/stranger abduction abroad mid May 2007 = almost 19 years. Lets say conservatively speaking that 3,000,000 children go abroad each year.
Gives us the sum total odds of 3,000,000 x 19 years = 57,000,000/1 that Madeleine was abducted abroad using those statistics, bearing in mind I have been much more conservative about the 3,000,000 children who go abroad each year than professor McCann's own statistics have.
And you wonder why they haven't tracked downed Jimmy. It's easy if you do the maths! 8(0(*
Thanks fir clarifying I can see the mistake you are, making.
You are quoting odds for the risk off any child BEING abducted... As to the odds that Maddie WAS abducted... There, a massive difference
-
If I buy a lottery ticket... The odds of me being the winner are 14 million to one... The odds of their being a winner... Are 10 to one on.... That's the difference
-
Those are the odds for a UK child being abducted abroad UNLESS!
There any inaccuracies in the dates of the disappearances? Were any other UK children REPORTED missing abroad believed abducted by a stranger in between those dates?
I don't quite know how to break this to you, but Madeleine WAS a child of British nationality.
The odds if Maddie being abducted must be quite high by my logic.... At least 80 %....woke and wandered... 19.999%..
Parental involvement... 0.001%.
All based on the evidence
-
45,057,474/1 for the lottery. Using professor McCann's statistics, you can buy TWO winning lottery tickets.
I believe the lottery is around 14 million... I can tell you how to work it out for yourself if you want... Buying two doesn't halve the odds
-
The odds if Maddie being abducted must be quite high by my logic.... At least 80 %....woke and wandered... 19.999%..
Parental involvement... 0.001%.
All based on the evidence
IMO, woke and wandered and then abducted must feature extremely high.
-
Evidence? Then lets factor the evidence in.
57,000,000/1 x 3/1 that it would be the one family of the four who were not locking their door (allegedly) who had their child abducted giving us the sum total of 228,000,000/1.
8(0(*
when maddie was left in the aprtment the chances of her being bducted were extremely remote...im sure you will agree...now she is missing the chances that her disappearance is due to abduction is not remote
-
We're talking about calculating odds here, I don't suppose you could show us your calculation that allowed you to conclude 'at least 80%, 19.999% and you 0.001% could you, please?
you are calcularting the odds of a child being abducted...not that maddie was abducted..
afaiac...the parents are not suspects and based on the ebvidence and are highly unlikely to be involved...the archiving despatch said woke and wandere was highly unlikely....if there are 3 options and two are highly unlikely the third must be highly likely
-
when maddie was left in the aprtment the chances of her being bducted were extremely remote...im sure you will agree...now she is missing the chances that her disappearance is due to abduction is not remote
I disagree. There is no evidence of any abduction from the bedroom, there isn't even any evidence the shutter or window were ever opened.
-
you are calcularting the odds of a child being abducted...not that maddie was abducted..
afaiac...the parents are not suspects and based on the ebvidence and are highly unlikely to be involved...the archiving despatch said woke and wandere was highly unlikely....if there are 3 options and two are highly unlikely the third must be highly likely
The archiving despatch is 12 years out of date now.
-
The odds if Maddie being abducted must be quite high by my logic.... At least 80 %....woke and wandered... 19.999%..
Parental involvement... 0.001%.
All based on the evidence
Please explain.
-
I believe the lottery is around 14 million... I can tell you how to work it out for yourself if you want... Buying two doesn't halve the odds
Are you sure? If there were 14 million different combinations, then if you covered all 14 million combinations you would win. That is why they do not like some people buying thousands of tickets to improve their chances of winning.
-
Are you sure?
True, but you double your chances of winning.
-
True, but you double your chances of winning.
That is right, and what I was saying. Each ticket has the same odds, but you've bought two tickets.
-
Are you sure? If there were 14 million different combinations, then if you covered all 14 million combinations you would win. That is why they do not like some people buying thousands of tickets to improve their chances of winning.
I'm absolutely sure
-
True, but you double your chances of winning.
No you don't... Shall we see who understands statistics
-
I'm absolutely sure
absolutely sure of what?
No you don't... Shall we see who understands statistics
Explain it to us then.
-
No you don't... Shall we see who understands statistics
You have now proved twice that it's not you.
-
I am equally absolutely certain that your 14,000,000 figure is mathematically impossible in a lottery containing 59 balls.
If you purchased 14,000,000 tickets, there is still more chanced you will lose.
isnt it 49 balls...so its 49 factorial
-
isnt it 49 balls...so its 49 factorial
And what is that number?
-
And what is that number?
work it out
-
There's a thought ... we could start a lottery and statistic topic and get syndicate going ... maybe then we would have a chance of keeping at least one thread On Topic.
-
Perhaps the mistake you are making, is that you are forgetting they added another TEN balls to the lottery some years ago, making the odds of winning 45,057,474/1.
sorry monkey...I do apologise...you are absolutely correct....I havent bought aticket in years
-
There's a thought ... we could start a lottery and statistic topic and get syndicate going ... maybe then we would have a chance of keeping at least one thread On Topic.
....and by making this post, ironically, you are not on topic either.
And neither am I.
That Mark Sokonokonkoknko, those podcasts eh, what about that?
-
It's about calculating odds on stranger abduction abroad and comparing those odds with the UK lottery. All perfectly on topic IMO.
The trouble is that no one has convinced me that they know how to do it.
-
Ben Needham goes missing/stranger abduction abroad, 1989, Madeleine McCann next goes missing/stranger abduction abroad mid May 2007 = almost 19 years. Lets say conservatively speaking that 3,000,000 children go abroad each year.
Gives us the sum total odds of 3,000,000 x 19 years = 57,000,000/1 that Madeleine was abducted abroad using those statistics, bearing in mind I have been much more conservative about the 3,000,000 children who go abroad each year than professor McCann's own statistics have.
What inaccuracies do you see in that calculation?
Well I think at least you are making more sense than the others. For one thing I can understand if there are a certain number of numbered balls to chose from there is a statistical chance of being selected.
I'm struggling to think there is the same sort of system operating abducting British kids travelling abroad. Is there going to be a constant rate?
-
Look did you think of looking up how to calculate the odds? Everyone here has been taking guesses and getting nowhere. Brietta has told you all it is off topic. OK I let it go as we were trying to calculate the odds of an abduction.
I've had enough of Davel thinking he is always right. How can he be right when he didn't know how many balls in the draw.
I know mate, but just sit back for a few seconds and consider how important this really is.
It's not important.
-
Well I think at least you are making more sense than the others. For one thing I can understand if there are a certain number of numbered balls to chose from there is a statistical chance of being selected.
I'm struggling to think there is the same sort of system operating abducting British kids travelling abroad. Is there going to be a constant rate?
By the way, the odds are incalculable as there are many, unquantifiable factors.
-
you said 49 factorial but didn't calculate that as a number.
thats how mathematicians talk...is that your definition of being difficult...49 factorial is a number ...we refer to pi as 22/7...that isnt exact of course...we dont calculate it
-
well ive given my odds on the whole case...the 3 scenarios......Im the only poster to have done taht ...perhaps others could give their intepretations
-
thats how mathematicians talk...is that your definition of being difficult
Well was it more than the 49 million figure already being discussed?
Looking it up it is truly an enormous number "factorial of 49 = 608281864034 267560872252 163321295376 887552831379 210240000000 000."
well ive given my odds on the whole case...the 3 scenarios......Im the only poster to have done taht ...perhaps you and others could give your intepretations
Now you are changing the topic.
-
Well was it more than the 49 million figure already being discussed?
Looking it up it is truly an enormous number "factorial of 49 = 608281864034 267560872252 163321295376 887552831379 210240000000 000."
Now you are changing the topic.
isnt the topic re maddies disappearance
-
isnt the topic re maddies disappearance
See what 49 factorial is.
-
isnt the topic re maddies disappearance
The Board is about Maddie's disappearance but each thread has a unique topic which we will tend to follow.
-
well ive given my odds on the whole case...the 3 scenarios......Im the only poster to have done taht ...perhaps others could give their intepretations
I remember doing that, at your request, before I became a moderator.
Today is not your finest day.
-
I remember doing that, at your request, before I became a moderator.
Today is not your finest day.
I remember it to... You didn't realise the three scenarios had to add up to 100%.
-
I remember it to... You didn't realise the three scenarios had to add up to 100%.
No they don't. That is how science works. Please feel free to get it wrong again.
(&^&
-
No they don't. That is how science works. Please feel free to get it wrong again.
(&^&
Thanks for the post confirming you don't understand... This is statistics and when working out the probability of an event the sum off all possible events have to add up to 100%..
That is a fact... I'm astonished you don't understand it
-
Thanks for the post confirming you don't understand... This is statistics and when working out the probability of an event the sum off all possible events have to add up to 100%..
That is a fact... I'm astonished you don't understand it
Thank you for the trifle.
(&^&
-
The 19 year rate is definitely a variable figure, not a constant one, but the difference between one UK child being abducted abroad by a stranger (Ben Needham) and the next one (Madeleine McCann), gives us as far as I am aware, the figure of 19 years x the number of children who have been abroad by a stranger during that time. To one.
I stand to be corrected if anyone feels those statistics are wrong? Was another British child abducted during that time that I am not aware of for instance? If not, then the odds of 57,000,000/1 that Madeleine McCann was abducted seem pretty damn accurate to me, excluding all the other factors.
I would agree with you that the odds of a child being abducted are tiny....but the odds that Maddie WAS abducted are high
-
But Madeleine was a child which means you agree the odds that she was abducted are "tiny". Tiny is just one way of putting it.
no the odds that she would be abducted are tiny...the odds taht she was abducted are high.
my dirt poor neighbours buy a lottery ticket ...the odds of them winning are 45 million to one..tiny
next week they have several luxuray cars outside ...are thinking of buying a mansion...its highly likely they won the lottery
-
What are the odds you talk about? And how did you calculate them mathematically?
odds are not always calculated mathematically...they can be calculated based on evidence and opinion
-
Is that supposed to be an answer to my question? What are the odds you talk about and what formula did you employ using evidence and opinion to reach your conclusion. That way we can test those odds out, can't we?
I have expalined it...briefly..parents not suspects or being investigated so parental involvement ...very low prob
woke and wandered highly unlikely according to the archiving report...low probability
that leves abduction only...therefore high probability
-
You're forgetting rather conveniently IMO, the parents are former suspects who have never been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance and their child is still missing. Those KNOWN facts can hardly be factored in to lessen the odds that Madeleine McCann was abducted.
Nothing there that decreases the odds, if there is, let's see it's workings?
all the evidence used to make the parents suspects was declared not confirmed...almeida tells us the main evidence wa sthe dogs...which arent evidence. I dont see the parents being involved at all..
-
The ONE FACT I have to concede about odds, is that there's always the one.
But when that one turns out to be the most controversial abduction in human history, I think that's where The General's incalculable odds come in. Know what I mean. 8(0(*
ive given you my verdict on your odds...nothings changed..nothing personal ..but bonkers
-
Fair doos, I know, you know what I mean. 8(0(*
See ya later buddy!
cheers ...no offence...some of the best poeple i know are bonkers
-
No they don't. That is how science works. Please feel free to get it wrong again.
(&^&
Please tell us why they the options don’t have to add up to 100% in terms that a simpleton like me can understand.
-
The odds of being struck by lightning are one in 700, 000. What are the odds of a corpse being found at the 18th hole in the middle of a thunderstorm , clutching a golf club and with singed hair and smoke coming out of their shoes having been struck by lightning? 1 in 700, 000 if you follow Monkey logic.
-
I have had to concede, in the odds, there is always the one, and in this case you think it's the Madeleine McCann one.
Fair doos. 8(0(*
I have no idea what that means. You clearly didn’t understand my post either.
-
I have expalined it...briefly..parents not suspects or being investigated so parental involvement ...very low prob
woke and wandered highly unlikely according to the archiving report...low probability
that leves abduction only...therefore high probability
You seem stuck in your opinions. The archiving report is just a guess, and now you make it Gospel.
-
You seem stuck in your opinions. The archiving report is just a guess, and now you make it Gospel.
the archiving report is just a guess...isnt that just your opinion again...I would say its based on evidence.....
-
I did understand it, it appears to be you who doesn't know what it means. That's hardly my fault but your money is on the ONE stranger abduction and my odds are ALL the others.
Good luck, I hope you win!
I thought this would happen. Everyone rating their opinion highly and giving a low probability to events they don't favour. I'm not sure there is a way past this.
the archiving report is just a guess...isnt that just your opinion again...I would say its based on evidence.....
The bit I'm talking about was their low probability of woke and wandered. Thery give it a rating but don't explain why they rated it low. So to me that is a guess due to lack of evidence.
-
You seem stuck in your opinions. The archiving report is just a guess, and now you make it Gospel.
As some accept all that is in the files as Gospel
-
I thought this would happen. Everyone rating their opinion highly and giving a low probability to events they don't favour. I'm not sure there is a way past this.
The bit I'm talking about was their low probability of woke and wandered. Thery give it a rating but don't explain why they rated it low. So to me that is a guess due to lack of evidence.
perhaps it is...we dont know..or perhaps they have more vidence than we do...im happy to acceot woke and wandered but think she would have been seen by someone if she was wandering about
-
As some accept all that is in the files as Gospel
but is the Gospel Gospel
-
Let's just give thanks to god we have it.
each to his own Monkey
-
perhaps it is...we dont know..or perhaps they have more vidence than we do...im happy to acceot woke and wandered but think she would have been seen by someone if she was wandering about
Seen by someone who abducted her at least. In my current thinking she may have been seen but that person doesn't want to admit it.
-
Let's just give thanks to god we have i t.
As it's nearly Sunday, God should have a capital G.
And a very late acknowledgment to barrier who when rebuked by me for using the name of Jesus as an expletive, apologised when I expected to be told I was being over sensitive and possibly a boring and old fashioned ???
-
each to his own Monkey
Is that each to his own monkey or each to his own Monkey?
-
Seen by someone who abducted her at least. In my current thinking she may have been seen but that person doesn't want to admit it.
ill put that down for 3% if thas ok
-
ill put that down for 3% if thas ok
A 3% chance see was seen by someone who doesn't feel honest enough to admit it. That is more than enough thanks.
-
Is that each to his own monkey or each to his own Monkey?
it could be either ...I like the Tripitaka monkey...each to his own God or no God...religion is wonderful if it results in a force for Good...unfortunately that isnt alaways the case
-
it could be either ...I like the Tripitaka monkey...each to his own god or no god...religion is wonderful if it results in a force for good...unfortunately that isn't always the case
I tend to consider myself a Christian, but I don't go to a church.
-
I tend to consider myself a Christian, but I don't go to a church.
just be agood Christian and a good person. Spread a little kindness and it will come back to you.
-
just be agood Christian and a good person. Spread a little kindness and it will come back to you.
"Tell no lies" has been my challenge. Not even a little fib. Maybe I have failed once in 30 years yet when I watch a UK drama like "Coronation Street" lying seems like a normal event in the UK.
-
it could be either ...I like the Tripitaka monkey...each to his own God or no God...religion is wonderful if it results in a force for Good...unfortunately that isnt alaways the case
It's not always the case.
But it should be.
I don't believe you have to be religious to work for the.good for humanity.
But many who are religious do so, who harm humanity in the name of God are warped.
-
"Tell no lies" has been my challenge. Not even a little fib. Maybe I have failed once in 30 years yet when I watch a UK drama like "Coronation Street" lying seems like a normal event in the UK.
I think you have to sometimes Rob...but I agree it cant be for your own gain
-
"Tell no lies" has been my challenge. Not even a little fib. Maybe I have failed once in 30 years yet when I watch a UK drama like "Coronation Street" lying seems like a normal event in the UK.
I lie frequently.
-
It's not always the case.
But it should be.
I don't believe you have to be religious to work for the.good for humanity.
But many who are religious do so, who harm humanity in the name of God are warped.
it certainly could be a nd should be...
-
I lie frequently.
sometimes its the right thing to do
-
I think you have to sometimes Rob...but I agree it cant be for your own gain
You justify it then but I'm saying that I've vowed not to lie. Whether I can do it, just wait and see.
-
You justify it then but I'm saying that I've vowed not to lie. Whether I can do it, just wait and see.
I can justify it easily....
-
sometimes its the right thing to do
Especially when you're at a friends for dinner and dinner has not been very good and you say that was lovely!
Or when someone is showing you their new outfit and you say it's lovely.
-
I did understand it, it appears to be you who doesn't know what it means. That's hardly my fault but your money is on the ONE stranger abduction and my odds are ALL the others.
Good luck, I hope you win!
If you truly understood my post then you would have to concede that there is a massive difference in odds between the likelihood of any child being abducted and the liklihood of Madeleine McCann having been abducted.
-
i dont lie to you because I dont need to...it serves no purpose.....
Now should I believe that? I accept people make mistakes, jokes, statements in jest, typos, I don't call them lies.
I have a habit of forgetting to write "NOT" in a sentence, giving my sentence the wrong meaning. I don't count that as a lie.
Like 49 factorial - not a lie just a dumb mistake. I know now what it is, in NZ at least they drawn 6 balls to select the winning numbers, not all the balls, but just 6. 49*48*47*46*45*44 = 10,068,347,520 even that is too high.
On your card you choose 6 numbers so there must be a division somewhere to.
-
Now should I believe that? I accept people make mistakes, jokes, statements in jest, typos, I don't call them lies.
I have a habit of forgetting to write "NOT" in a sentence, giving my sentence the wrong meaning. I don't count that as a lie.
Like 49 factorial - not a lie just a dumb mistake. I know now what it is, in NZ at least they drawn 6 balls to select the winning numbers, not all the balls, but just 6. 49*48*47*46*45*44 = 10,068,347,520 even that is too high.
On your card you choose 6 numbers so there must be a division somewhere to.
it was amistake ...not a lie .. it should have beeen 49 factorial to 6 places as there are six lottery balls
-
it was amistake ...not a lie .. it should have beeen 49 factorial to 6 places as there are six lottery balls
Even that is too high IMO.
-
Ignoring the evidence in favour of probabilities is hardly constructive.
-
Ignoring the evidence in favour of probabilities is hardly constructive.
the evidence is used to calculate the probablities
-
Even that is too high IMO.
perhaps it is..perhaps im wrong... i havent really given it my full attention
-
Could you be more specific? What exactly is the statistical difference between a child being abducted and Madeleine being abducted that would affect the odds?
Something happened to Madeleine to make her disappear. This means the likelihood that she was abducted is vastly increased - it is one of only three explanations for her disappearance. You stand a one in 700, 000 chance of being struck by lightning in any one year. If your body is found on a golf course after an electrical storm with third degree burns the likelihood that the explanation for your death is you were struck by lightning is not one in 700,000 is it?
-
She was still the ONLY child to be abducted by a stranger abroad between October 1989 and May 3rd 2007.
If Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, you can't alter the fact she was the only ONE.
of course she was...as you understand... there has to be one..maddie was the one in the 45 million
-
She was still the ONLY child to be abducted by a stranger abroad between October 1989 and May 3rd 2007.
If Madeleine was abducted by a stranger abroad, you can't alter the fact she was the only ONE.
odds and statistics are funny things...if I play roulette...black has come up 19 time in a row...the odds of black coming up 20 times in a row is about 250000 to one...so on that 20th spin...what are the odds of black coming up again... on a perfectly true roulette wheel
-
I don't know but I do know your money is on the ONE.
Good luck!
its 50/50...my money is in my pocket.
-
She was still the ONLY child to be abducted by a stranger abroad between October 1989 and May 3rd 2007.
If Madeleine was abducted by a stranger abroad, you can't alter the fact she was the only ONE.
And your point is....?
-
Unless you can show how you came up with 50/50, it's all just pie in the sky. Your money is on the ONE.
Not bad odds either, IF they come up.
its red or black...for simplicity im ignoring zero and double zero
-
Your money is on the ONE. That's all!
Can you please stop referring to my money being on the one, I have not placed a bet, I have simply looked at all the information available in this case and come to a conclusion regarding what I think happened. That’s all!
-
Your making another fatal error in your estimations. There is red, black AND GREEN on a roulette wheel.
Zero is green, remember to factor that in.
as i said there is double zero too...
-
You believe in ONE. Those odds sound any better?
I believe in ONE what? If I believe in ONE what do you believe in? TWO?
-
The ONE child to be abducted by a stranger abroad since Ben Needham's abduction is Madeleine.
So you keep saying, yes, and...? So what?
-
It was you who was the first to ask The General about the incredible odds. At least now I hope you understand them. That's all!
I believe this was my question to the General
“Actually the chances of a child being abducted by a stranger is put at 300,000 to one. It is extremely rare. But the fact is, it does happen. Just as winning the lottery happens with almost weekly regularity. Given how rare it is, why would anyone expect their child to be taken from an unlocked apartment, or lock the door to make sure it didn’t happen?”
Sceptics lament the carelessness of the McCanns for not only leaving their kids alone but also, even worse, leaving them alone in an unlocked apartment. These same sceptics also ridicule the idea that anyone would have entered the unlocked apartment to harm or take a child because of the huge odds against it happening. So there is a disconnect there, do you see what I’m saying? Nothing to do with believing in the ONE or whatever mantra you wish to keep repeating today.
-
Sorry, my mistake. "What incredible odds? Have you calculated them?" Reply #4773
Yawn.
-
odds and statistics are funny things...if I play roulette...black has come up 19 time in a row...the odds of black coming up 20 times in a row is about 250000 to one...so on that 20th spin...what are the odds of black coming up again... on a perfectly true roulette wheel
Just less than 50:50
"The house average or house edge or house advantage (also called the expected value) is the amount the player loses relative for any bet made, on average. If a player bets on a single number in the American game there is a probability of 1⁄38 that the player wins 35 times the bet, and a 37⁄38 chance that the player loses his bet. The expected value is:
−1 × 37⁄38 + 35 × 1⁄38 = −0.0526 (5.26% house edge)
For European roulette, a single number wins 1⁄37 and loses 36⁄37:
−1 × 36⁄37 + 35 × 1⁄37 = −0.0270 (2.70% house edge)"
Between 2 - 5% on average will go to the house.
-
perhaps it is...we dont know..or perhaps they have more vidence than we do...im happy to acceot woke and wandered but think she would have been seen by someone if she was wandering about
In normal circumstances one would have thought so but apparently Jane Tanner walked right past Gerry and Jez and neither saw her...go figure? 🤔
-
In normal circumstances one would have thought so but apparently Jane Tanner walked right past Gerry and Jez and neither saw her...go figure? 🤔
If both were facing down the road engrossed in conversation, how would they see Jane?
-
In any abduction it is a known fact that it is far more likely to be a parent or a family member, stranger abduction is extremely rare and that is why it gets so much publicity when it does happen.
-
its 50/50...my money is in my pocket.
Not quite.
-
Not quite.
im well aware of zero and double zero...the point I was making is taht if red comes up 19 times in a row...on a perfectly true wheel ...although the odds of 20 reds in arow are around 250,000 to one ...the chances of red coming in a twentieth time on this occasion are 50/50 approx....some find that hard to beleive...and lose a lot of money
-
Strictly speaking you cannot abduct a deceased person so if a child was run over and killed and the carried off then the charge would not be abduction.
-
Strictly speaking you cannot abduct a deceased person so if a child was run over and killed and the carried off then the charge would not be abduction.
This has got me thinking about the evidence again and especially the Smith's sighting down beside the medical centre. IMO that was Maddie they saw being carried by an as yet unidentified man that night and most probably was on his way to that centre but unfortunately it was closed. He must have had a vehicle nearby which he most likely returned to. What happened next is anyone's guess.
-
Not quite. It can never be 50/50 as long as green is on the wheel.
Take my advice, stick to head and tails for 50/50.
Catcha you out again later. 8(0(*
I said 50/50 approx...i know what im talking about...someone i know won 3 million in one night at roulette...thats quite unusual
-
Now should I believe that? I accept people make mistakes, jokes, statements in jest, typos, I don't call them lies.
I have a habit of forgetting to write "NOT" in a sentence, giving my sentence the wrong meaning. I don't count that as a lie.
Like 49 factorial - not a lie just a dumb mistake. I know now what it is, in NZ at least they drawn 6 balls to select the winning numbers, not all the balls, but just 6. 49*48*47*46*45*44 = 10,068,347,520 even that is too high.
On your card you choose 6 numbers so there must be a division somewhere to.
Presumably in NZ you select 6 numbers on your ticket?
If so you clearly have 6 chances of getting the first number correct. So that's 49/6, not 49/1.
You then have 48 balls in the pot, and 5 remaining numbers on your slip. So that's 48/5, not 48/1.
Then continue the (boring) iteration a further 4 cycles.
Do we care? The only thing I'm learning here is which posters don't understand probabilities and statistics.
-
The best way to use probability and statistics in this case IMO, are to judge innocent reasons for the anomalies and assign a probability. The probability of an innocent reason for all anomalies is the product of the individual probabilities.
-
Presumably in NZ you select 6 numbers on your ticket?
If so you clearly have 6 chances of getting the first number correct. So that's 49/6, not 49/1.
You then have 48 balls in the pot, and 5 remaining numbers on your slip. So that's 48/5, not 48/1.
Then continue the (boring) iteration a further 4 cycles.
Do we care? The only thing I'm learning here is which posters don't understand probabilities and statistics.
I think it's clear who understands based on the replies to the other thread
-
Good point IMO, which raises the question, is there an innocent explanation for the abducted child's father's failure to look for Smithman and the possibly abducted child he was carrying?
Items to evaluate
Dog Alerts
Wiped Cell Phone records
Inconsistent Statements
Deep Sleeping Twins
Refusing to Answer Questions
Refusing to do reconstruction
Leaving PDL quickly after saying would never leave
Excessive use of Litigation
Body Language
Unrestricted Fund
Smith Sighting
Crying in the Night
Leaving Twins for extended periods (plus to raise alarm)
-
The best way to use probability and statistics in this case IMO, are to judge innocent reasons for the anomalies and assign a probability. The probability of an innocent reason for all anomalies is the product of the individual probabilities.
statistics are intelligence not evidence..the statistics tell the police where they should look.....at family and friends first. The problem in this case is that the statements were taken in such a way thtat their accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Further statenets were given to control risks and apssed to the Pj.
SY will have had the chance to see these and re interview the mccanns which Im sure they will have done. They will then have the chance to decide on the significance of the anomolies...and it appears they dont find them significant
-
Items to evaluate
Dog Alerts
Wiped Cell Phone records
Inconsistent Statements
Deep Sleeping Twins
Refusing to Answer Questions
Refusing to do reconstruction
Leaving PDL quickly after saying would never leave
Excessive use of Litigation
Body Language
Unrestricted Fund
Smith Sighting
Crying in the Night
Leaving Twins for extended periods (plus to raise alarm)
things to consider...and Im sure they have been. Nothing there that cannot be easily explained...and nothing to build a case on
-
Is there an innocent explanation for the abducted child's father's failure to look for Smithman and the possibly abducted child he was carrying?
there obviously is
-
im well aware of zero and double zero...the point I was making is taht if red comes up 19 times in a row...on a perfectly true wheel ...although the odds of 20 reds in arow are around 250,000 to one ...the chances of red coming in a twentieth time on this occasion are 50/50 approx....some find that hard to beleive...and lose a lot of money
The thing I remind myself when playing roulette is that the past has no influence on the future. Each throw has exactly the same odds.
-
This has got me thinking about the evidence again and especially the Smith's sighting down beside the medical centre. IMO that was Maddie they saw being carried by an as yet unidentified man that night and most probably was on his way to that centre but unfortunately it was closed. He must have had a vehicle nearby which he most likely returned to. What happened next is anyone's guess.
That is what I've been saying for years. It was a bonus to see you are finally thinking along the same lines. If she needed medical help who would be the next best to help?
-
Is there an innocent explanation for the abducted child's father's failure to look for Smithman and the possibly abducted child he was carrying?
When were you expecting Gerry to be looking for Smithman exactly?
-
Presumably in NZ you select 6 numbers on your ticket?
If so you clearly have 6 chances of getting the first number correct. So that's 49/6, not 49/1.
You then have 48 balls in the pot, and 5 remaining numbers on your slip. So that's 48/5, not 48/1.
Then continue the (boring) iteration a further 4 cycles.
Do we care? The only thing I'm learning here is which posters don't understand probabilities and statistics.
You might be right there. That gave an answer of 13,983,816 or approx 14 million:1 of picking the right numbers. I have often wondered how to calculate that. Thank you.
-
You might be right there. That gave an answer of 13,983,816 or approx 14 million:1 of picking the right numbers. I have often wondered how to calculate that. Thank you.
I explained that to you yesterday.. 49 factorial to six places
-
Well? Go for it?
I've better things to do as you obviously wouldnt accept my explanation... I'm sure Grange have already discounted all these points... As it seems have the pj
-
The thing I remind myself when playing roulette is that the past has no influence on the future. Each throw has exactly the same odds.
These are called independent events in statistics.
The lottery events were not independent, because they depended on the outcome of the previous round.
-
What's the odds that this one father would fail to look for this one man while he was conducting his search for his abducted daughter? See what I mean.
The odds simply do not favour the abducted child in this case, but there is always the ONE.
We are all on our own - each of us are the ONE, for you think differently to me and to others. We are all individuals.
Had Mr Smith reported the sighting the very next day, once he heard people were looking for a 3 year old, I would give him better odds, but to me, IMO, it is the Smiths who are the suspects.
-
Presumably in NZ you select 6 numbers on your ticket?
If so you clearly have 6 chances of getting the first number correct. So that's 49/6, not 49/1.
You then have 48 balls in the pot, and 5 remaining numbers on your slip. So that's 48/5, not 48/1.
Then continue the (boring) iteration a further 4 cycles.
Do we care? The only thing I'm learning here is which posters don't understand probabilities and statistics.
If you're allowed to state other posters don't understand statistics then it's OK for me to say it's clear some posters don't understand the evidence
-
I explained that to you yesterday.. 49 factorial to six places
Wrong. *%87
-
Wrong. *%87
No right...
-
it was amistake ...not a lie .. it should have beeen 49 factorial to 6 places as there are six lottery balls
Right
-
I explained that to you yesterday.. 49 factorial to six places
But that was still wrong. 49 factorial to six places divided by 6 factorial was my answer. In NZ we have only 40 balls.
In other words 40 factorial to six places divided by 6 factorial is my best answer at the moment and I wonder if I can confirm that.
-
Is that your attempt at an innocent explanation for Gerry's failure to look for Smithman who was carrying his possibly abducted daughter during the time he was alleging he was looking for abductor?
No, I'm simply trying to understand your complaint. You seem to be suggesting that Gerry is guilty of knowing of Smithman's existence and whereabouts prior to the alarm being raised and of not going looking for him. It's a bit like an episode of the Twilight Zone on here sometimes.
-
Not true, I believe in the possibility of EVERY other odd with the exception of the ONE stranger abduction.
That is a very odd statement. I don't have a clue what it means TBH.
-
If you're allowed to state other posters don't understand statistics then it's OK for me to say it's clear some posters don't understand the evidence
You frequently do. &%%6
The difference with the statistics approach is you have got the statistics wrong on 2 or 3 occasions, depending on how you count them.
It's not 49 factorial.
It's not 49 factorial 6 iterations.
The answer has been provided. Your assertions were wrong. Kindly retreat to fight another day.
-
You frequently do. &%%6
The difference with the statistics approach is you have got the statistics wrong on 2 or 3 occasions, depending on how you count them.
It's not 49 factorial.
It's not 49 factorial 6 iterations.
The answer has been provided. Your assertions were wrong. Kindly retreat to fight another day.
My post above says to six places... You have made the massive error that the probabilities in this case don't add up to 100%...you can keep making your pathetic little sniping remarks but if the mods want to keep the thread on topic I would suggest anymore of your sniping remarks are removed
-
My post above says to six places... You have made the massive error that the probabilities in this case don't add up to 100%...you can keep making your pathetic little sniping remarks but if the mods want to keep the thread on topic I would suggest anymore of your sniping remarks are removed
Davel - can you provide your method and a figure for the odds and then we will determine who is right. Just saying "My post above says to six places" is IMO not good enough.
-
Since when did a question become a complaint? If you don't have an innocent explanation for Gerry's failure to look for Smithman despite KNOWING he was seen carrying a child matching his abducted daughter's description in his possession, that's fine. You'd be better saying nothing at all if that's the case IMO.
The McCanns private detectives did set out to find Smithman. It was them who procured the E-fits of Smithman.
When would Gerry have first known about Smithman sightings?
-
Items to evaluate
Dog Alerts
Wiped Cell Phone records
Inconsistent Statements
Deep Sleeping Twins
Refusing to Answer Questions
Refusing to do reconstruction
Leaving PDL quickly after saying would never leave
Excessive use of Litigation
Body Language
Unrestricted Fund
Smith Sighting
Crying in the Night
Leaving Twins for extended periods (plus to raise alarm)
Many of those are subjective and /or not relevant or plain wrong to the issue of whether or not Gerry McCann hid Madeleine's body. The ones that may point to involvement have been thoroughly investigated by the police and no evidence of wrong doing found. What are the chances of that, eh?
-
Since when did a question become a complaint? If you don't have an innocent explanation for Gerry's failure to look for Smithman despite KNOWING he was seen carrying a child matching his abducted daughter's description in his possession, that's fine. You'd be better saying nothing at all if that's the case IMO.
When did Gerry find out about Smithman?
-
You might be right there. That gave an answer of 13,983,816 or approx 14 million:1 of picking the right numbers. I have often wondered how to calculate that. Thank you.
Simple 6 from 49 combination.
-
When we are discussing the odds of Madeleine being abducted, what do you find odd about it?
You would have to go back to the statement that I can't understand and reword it, and see if I can get it. At the moment I still can't fathom it.
Let's say Madeleine was the one, she was the abducted one. How did the odds begin to stack up against her? That analysis will be the 55 million:1 part.
-
Simple 6 from 49 combination.
I've never heard that expression before.
-
IMO Five years before SY released the e-fits for him. He didn't seem too interested in all those golden hours.
They are not the "Golden hours".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7898.msg378650;topicseen#msg378650
"44.1.9 The golden hour
The ‘golden hour’ is not restricted to 60 minutes. It is the initial period following the incident
occurring when the best opportunities exist to take decisive action."
-
Davel - can you provide your method and a figure for the odds and then we will determine who is right. Just saying "My post above says to six places" is IMO not good enough.
certainly rob...it really is the most basic statistics taht many children would understand.
Picking the first ball from 49 means you have a one in 49 chance of being correct....that leaves 48 balls so the odds are 1 in 48 of choosing the right one...now thers 47...so its a one in 47...then 46..45 and 44
so the odds of chosing 6 from 49 is
49x48x47x46x45x44...or 49 factorial to 6 places
what some dont realise is that your chose 6 numbers have as much chance of being correct as 1,2,3,4,5,6,
some people actually select these 6 numbers
-
My post above says to six places... You have made the massive error that the probabilities in this case don't add up to 100%...you can keep making your pathetic little sniping remarks but if the mods want to keep the thread on topic I would suggest anymore of your sniping remarks are removed
Oh dear.
Here is a clue for you. Think about it.
Your knowledge of statistics is woeful. Whereas I had to use statistics at university for years.
In fact, the very first book on a long list of books I was obliged to read before entry was on statistics. It was most engrossing.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that I know more about statistics than any moderator on this forum.
Perhaps that is why my posts are allowed to stand?
There is a big difference between sniping and the truth.
-
I've never heard that expression before.
Permutations and Combinations.
-
Oh dear.
Here is a clue for you. Think about it.
Your knowledge of statistics is woeful. Whereas I had to use statistics at university for years.
In fact, the very first book on a long list of books I was obliged to read before entry was on statistics. It was most engrossing.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that I know more about statistics than any moderator on this forum.
Perhaps that is why my posts are allowed to stand?
There is a big difference between sniping and the truth.
Without a doubt I can tell you do know a lot about statistics. I think what Davel has described is the odds of picking the 6 Lotto numbers in the right order.
-
certainly rob...it really is the most basic statistics taht many children would understand.
Picking the first ball from 49 means you have a one in 49 chance of being correct....that leaves 48 balls so the odds are 1 in 48 of choosing the right one...now thers 47...so its a one in 47...then 46..45 and 44
so the odds of chosing 6 from 49 is
49x48x47x46x45x44...or 49 factorial to 6 places
... snip ....
I think you are about 50% correct.
-
Without a doubt I can tell you do know a lot about statistics. I think what Davel has described is the odds of picking the 6 Lotto numbers in the right order.
sorry rob you are wrong..ive described picking 6 from 49...in any order...you dont need to know alot about statistics to understand that
-
I think you are about 50% correct.
im 100% correct...i can provide acite if you wish
-
im 100% correct...i can provide acite if you wish
well do it.
-
well do it.
you are absolutely correct rob...my formula is for the correct order
-
as you dont realise that the sum of the probabilities deed to add up to 100% it would appear you dont know as much as you think. I think you over estimate your abilities in many areas
Don't worry.
As a scientist I had to have a razor-sharp understanding of how probabilities add up.
Hitch Hikers Guide to the Universe. Douglas Adams. Rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
As per the MBM case.
-
IMO Five years before SY released the e-fits for him. He didn't seem too interested in all those golden hours.
Can you be a bit more specific? Did he know about Smithman and his location on the night of Madeleine’s abduction? Because if he didn’t then what use is going looking for a man carrying a child in Pdl, days, weeks , months or years later? *%87
-
sorry rob you are wrong..ive described picking 6 from 49...in any order...you dont need to know alot about statistics to understand that
Well look, tell me how you would calculate the odds of selecting the six numbers in the right order then? 49 balls to choose from. And each ball is not used again.
you are absolutely correct rob...my formula is for the correct order
I thought so. You have to divide that number by 6 factorial as I understand.
-
Don't worry.
As a scientist I had to have a razor-sharp understanding of how probabilities add up.
Hitch Hikers Guide to the Universe. Douglas Adams. Rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
As per the MBM case.
you think you do....but you dont understand that all probabilities have to add up to one.....you think humans have as good a sense of smell as dogs....and other points wher eyou have been totally wrong...so imo...you are not as smart as you think you are.
In my experience there are some intelligent posters on here,,...but I wouldnt put you in the top 6. If you wish to crow about your mind...expext some criticism
-
Don't worry.
As a scientist I had to have a razor-sharp understanding of how probabilities add up.
Hitch Hikers Guide to the Universe. Douglas Adams. Rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
As per the MBM case.
Can you please explain to those of us who are not statistical genii like yourself what part of what Davel wrote is wrong and why?
-
Well look, tell me how you would calculate the odds of selecting the six numbers in the right order then? 49 balls to choose from. And each ball is not used again.
I thought so. You have to divide that number by 6 factorial as I understand.
perhaps I should have googled it first like i suspect someone else did
-
Don't worry.
As a scientist I had to have a razor-sharp understanding of how probabilities add up.
Hitch Hikers Guide to the Universe. Douglas Adams. Rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
As per the MBM case.
Well do you agree that the sum of all the probabilities of the possible events (expressed as a percentage) must add up to 100%.
Can you please explain to those of us who are not statistical genii like yourself what part of what Davel wrote is wrong and why?
Could you quote the bit in concern?
-
Don't worry.
As a scientist I had to have a razor-sharp understanding of how probabilities add up.
Hitch Hikers Guide to the Universe. Douglas Adams. Rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
As per the MBM case.
Razor sharp mind my *****...its the Hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy...not the universe....LOL
-
Can you be a bit more specific? Did he know about Smithman and his location on the night of Madeleine’s abduction? Because if he didn’t then what use is going looking for a man carrying a child in Pdl, days, weeks , months or years later? *%87
I think there is a way to progress the Smithman sighting.
Should I give up this aspiration and simply leave MBM to her fate?'
-
Razor sharp mind my *****...its the Hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy...not the universe....LOL
Remember your 'sniping complaint'?
-
Remember your 'sniping complaint'?
remember your truth comment
-
I think there is a way to progress the Smithman sighting.
Should I give up this aspiration and simply leave MBM to her fate?'
It will get harder as we get older. Some have already passed on e.g Alice Purjoric and others having time out e.g Sadie. Keep your mind active.
Don't give up.
-
I think there is a way to progress the Smithman sighting.
Should I give up this aspiration and simply leave MBM to her fate?'
I dont think anything you do will make any difference...so yes ..stop wasting your time
-
Since when did a question become a complaint? If you don't have an innocent explanation for Gerry's failure to look for Smithman despite KNOWING he was seen carrying a child matching his abducted daughter's description in his possession, that's fine. You'd be better saying nothing at all if that's the case IMO.
When do you imagine the Smiths remembered their encounter and reported it to the police?
-
I dont think anything you do will make any difference...so yes ..stop wasting your time
OK, that tells me 100% about your care re MBM. &^&*%
-
OK, that tells me 100% about your care re MBM. &^&*%
another thing your razor sharp mind has got wrong
-
I think there is a way to progress the Smithman sighting.
Such as?
-
Can you please explain to those of us who are not statistical genii like yourself what part of what Davel wrote is wrong and why?
I already have. Are you asking for round 2?
-
Well do you agree that the sum of all the probabilities of the possible events (expressed as a percentage) must add up to 100%.
Could you quote the bit in concern?
No.
Go to the moderators thread, and read where I explained why stats don't need to add up to 100%.
Scientists use stats to understand when they they know they don't know enough.
Rigidly defined areas of doubts and uncertainty.
-
No.
Go to the moderators thread, and read where I explained why stats don't need to add up to 100%.
Scientists use stats to understand when they they know they don't know enough.
Rigidly defined areas of doubts and uncertainty.
you havent explained anything.....we are talking about the sum of all the possible outcomes...they have to add up to 100%...you dont seem to understand such a basic fact
-
I think there is a way to progress the Smithman sighting.
Should I give up this aspiration and simply leave MBM to her fate?'
I did give you a suggestion which may have given the forum some insight. TWo men were seen with a child madeleines age at around 9 till 10 pm...is taht a common or unusual occurrence in Luz. Simply have a wander round Luz...early june may be amore representative time now...and count how many men with a child you see...that would be interesting
-
you havent explained anything.....we are talking about the sum of all the possible outcomes...they have to add up to 100%...you dont seem to understand such a basic fact
Whereas I would call that a basic fail. Your post makes that crystal clear.
-
Whereas I would call that a basic fail. Your post makes that crystal clear.
you would call it a fail because you are wrong and cant bear to admit it..is what I would say...
perhaps you could expalin the fault in the post
-
I'll be as specific as you like. He had the knowledge and two e-fits in his possession of one man seen carrying a child, a few hundred yards from the apartment his daughter had been abducted from,matching her description and never decided to publish those details to the public during the YEARS he was conducting his own private investigation and public awareness campaign. He could hardly make the public aware if he was withholding this information, could he?
I'm still waiting on an innocent explanation for this delay?
15 pages about statistics? &%%6
So about the dogs...
-
you would call it a fail because you are wrong and cant bear to admit it..is what I would say...
perhaps you could expalin the fault in the post
You got it wrong?
-
False alerts are 200/1 according to the dog handler's report! Those are part of the incalculable odds.
&%54% No no more about the dogs p l e a s e no more.
-
You got it wrong?
An empty false claim when you cannot offer any explanation.
Don't say you have because you havent
-
False alerts are 200/1 according to the dog handler's report! Those are part of the incalculable odds.
He never said that... 200 to 1 referred to false, alerts to foodstuff
-
Cite for where he said the dog had EVER alerted falsely? I can give you one for him saying it had 'NOT'.
He doesn't know if the dog has ever alerted falsely... No one does... It's impossible to prove... He simply doesn't know
-
An empty false claim when you cannot offer any explanation.
Don't say you have because you havent
49 factorial. WRONG!
49 - 6 factorial. WRONG!
-
49 factorial. WRONG!
49 - 6 factorial. WRONG!
Doesn't have to add up to 100 ..WRONG
Hitch hikers guide to the universe ...wrong
Dogs sense of smell... Wrong
-
Well do you agree that the sum of all the probabilities of the possible events (expressed as a percentage) must add up to 100%.
Could you quote the bit in concern?
SIL has just said Davel is WRONG but not told us why.
-
I think there is a way to progress the Smithman sighting.
Should I give up this aspiration and simply leave MBM to her fate?'
A Non-sequitur, answering a question I did not ask and and which was directed at another.
-
No.
Go to the moderators thread, and read where I explained why stats don't need to add up to 100%.
Scientists use stats to understand when they they know they don't know enough.
Rigidly defined areas of doubts and uncertainty.
Rob, do us a favour, go to the moderators thread and read SILs explanation and then tell us why the three possibilities don’t need to add up to a 100%. Ta.
-
Rob, do us a favour, go to the moderators thread and read SILs explanation and then tell us why the three possibilities don’t need to add up to a 100%. Ta.
If you don't understand basic science or basic statistics, is it Rob's job to explain these to you?
Thanks!
(&^&
-
If you don't understand basic science or basic statistics, is it Rob's job to explain these to you?
Thanks!
(&^&
Robs already explained he thinks I'm right and you are wrong
I tend to agree with Davel on this one: "This is statistics and when working out the probability of an event the sum off all possible events have to add up to 100%".
-
Robs already explained he thinks I'm right and you are wrong
I tend to agree with Davel on this one: "This is statistics and when working out the probability of an event the sum off all possible events have to add up to 100%".
What he actually explained was that you got it wrong, not just once but twice.
-
If you don't understand basic science or basic statistics, is it Rob's job to explain these to you?
Thanks!
(&^&
You felt it was your job to explain to the moderators and I have asked him politely to pass the benefit of your wisdom on to the rest of us. What’s the problem?
-
IMO, woke and wandered and then abducted must feature extremely high.
I agree. I purchased Kate's book yesterday and find myself increasingly annoyed when she keeps referring to abductor and abduction and refuses to accept the possibility MM woke and wandered.
-
What he actually explained was that you got it wrong, not just once but twice.
You must be blind
I tend to agree with Davel on this one: "This is statistics and when working out the probability of an event the sum off all possible events have to add up to 100%".
-
You must be blind
I tend to agree with Davel on this one: "This is statistics and when working out the probability of an event the sum off all possible events have to add up to 100%".
I wonder if anyone else supports SIL’s views that that sum of all possibilities does not have to add up to a 100% . In fact doesn’t SIL have woke and wandered, abduction and parental involvement adding up to 30%? *%87
-
You felt it was your job to explain to the moderators and I have asked him politely to pass the benefit of your wisdom on to the rest of us. What’s the problem?
You have tasked Rob with informing the moderators. Quite a different option.
Punch the 'report to moderator' button if you have an issue.
-
I agree. I purchased Kate's book yesterday and find myself increasingly annoyed when she keeps referring to abductor and abduction and refuses to accept the possibility MM woke and wandered.
The door slammed, the curtains went 'swish', the window & shutters were found open.
It has to be an abduction. There's no other possible scenario.
-
I wonder if anyone else supports SIL’s views that that sum of all possibilities does not have to add up to a 100% . In fact doesn’t SIL have woke and wandered, abduction and parental involvement adding up to 30%? *%87
As I remember yes... And he's never been able to explain his, glaring error
-
You have tasked Rob with informing the moderators. Quite a different option.
Punch the 'report to moderator' button if you have an issue.
What??! *%87. Have you got a cataract?
-
The door slammed, the curtains went 'swish', the window & shutters were found open.
It has to be an abduction. There's no other possible scenario.
At last, the penny has dropped.
-
I wonder if anyone else supports SIL’s views that that sum of all possibilities does not have to add up to a 100% . In fact doesn’t SIL have woke and wandered, abduction and parental involvement adding up to 30%? *%87
I believe in the absence of evidence, I actually made it around 40%,
After Corrie McKeague, it might be up to 45%
That's how life and death goes.
-
What??! *%87. Have you got a cataract?
You might like to cut the insults and try thinking more.
-
As Davel is grouping all possible scenarios the total probability will be 100%.
SiL appears to be building up scenarios which will be less than 100% though when added together with unknown scenarios will be 100%.
I don’t think there is an issue just 2 views on the same thing.
-
You might like to cut the insults and try thinking more.
Perhaps you would like to follow your own advice and tell me where you believe I asked Rob to inform the moderators of anything ?
-
As Davel is grouping all possible scenarios the total probability will be 100%.
SiL appears to be building up scenarios which will be less than 100% though when added together with unknown scenarios will be 100%.
I don’t think there is an issue just 2 views on the same thing.
There are no other scenarios. Madeleine was either abducted, woke and wandered or her parents were directly involved in making her disappear. There are no other scenarios.
-
15 pages about statistics? &%%6
So about the dogs...
Who’d have thought we would ever see those as a welcome interlude.
-
Perhaps you would like to follow your own advice and tell me where you believe I asked Rob to inform the moderators of anything ?
Do I really need to trawl through your posts for this poo? &%%6
-
As Davel is grouping all possible scenarios the total probability will be 100%.
SiL appears to be building up scenarios which will be less than 100% though when added together with unknown scenarios will be 100%.
I don’t think there is an issue just 2 views on the same thing.
There is an issue because as far as anyone else can see there aren't any other major scenarios.... Sil hasn't built up anything and has made no suggestion as to what these, scenarios might be... As Jassi pointed out and you agreed it's basically three buckets... And these buckets must add up to 100....so sil is wrong
-
I believe in the absence of evidence, I actually made it around 40%,
After Corrie McKeague, it might be up to 45%
That's how life and death goes.
Thank you... So it's 40%
So according to you... Friends and family... Stranger abduction... Woke and wandered accounts fir only 40 % of the possibilities... So what's the other, 60 %....
What has your razor sharp mind come up with
-
Do I really need to trawl through your posts for this poo? &%%6
Yes you really do. You made a claim that has no basis in fact. Once again you refuse point blank to accept your mistake and apologise. I expected nothing more or less.
-
Thank you... So it's 40%
So according to you... Friends and family... Stranger abduction... Woke and wandered accounts fir only 40 % of the possibilities... So what's the other, 60 %....
What has your razor sharp mind come up with
Well I can come up with one
Vaporized by a freak weather occurrence within the room.
And then I got stuck, as even beamed up by the Starship Enterprise would fall under the category of abduction.
-
As Davel is grouping all possible scenarios the total probability will be 100%.
SiL appears to be building up scenarios which will be less than 100% though when added together with unknown scenarios will be 100%.
I don’t think there is an issue just 2 views on the same thing.
Could you explain what these unknown scenarios are... How can sil know about scenarios that are unknown ...and how can sil allocate 60% to these unknown scenarios... Doesn't sound very scientific to me
-
Could you explain what these unknown scenarios are... How can sil know about scenarios that are unknown ...and how can sil allocate 60% to these unknown scenarios... Doesn't sound very scientific to me
That's how science works.
-
You felt it was your job to explain to the moderators and I have asked him politely to pass the benefit of your wisdom on to the rest of us. What’s the problem?
I have been asleep the last 6 hours so I'm coming into the conversation late. Look I might look for it but it isn't well defined where it is.
-
You must be blind
I tend to agree with Davel on this one: "This is statistics and when working out the probability of an event the sum off all possible events have to add up to 100%".
I do recall writing something like that.
-
That's how science works.
*%87
-
The door slammed, the curtains went 'swish', the window & shutters were found open.
It has to be an abduction. There's no other possible scenario.
In your opinion.
I have a theory that accounts for all those and still there is no abduction from the apartment.
-
That's how science works.
you dont seem to have aclue how science works...there are 3 basic options we know....yet you have assigned a 60% probablity to something you dont know exists..have no evidence it exists...and dont know what it is...that sounds more like religion than science.
-
There is an issue because as far as anyone else can see there aren't any other major scenarios.... Sil hasn't built up anything and has made no suggestion as to what these, scenarios might be... As Jassi pointed out and you agreed it's basically three buckets... And these buckets must add up to 100....so sil is wrong
The ADMIN came on and said if Madeleine was dead and removed as a corpse it wasn't an abduction. Maybe we need a bucket that includes that type of scenario as well.
Can you recall the 3 buckets again? Do we need a fourth bucket?
-
The ADMIN came on and said if Madeleine was dead and removed as a corpse it wasn't an abduction. Maybe we need a bucket that includes that type of scenario as well.
Can you recall the 3 buckets again? Do we need a fourth bucket?
no....murder by a stranger is include in an act by a stranger...
family or friends....woke and wandered...removed by a stranger...its quite clear..
jassi suggested..
1 She was removed by a stranger
2 She was removed by someone who was not a stranger
3 She removed herself and disappeared
thats fine...yet sil makes the bizarre claim that only represents 40 % of the possibilities
-
no....murder by a stranger is include in an act by a stranger...
family or friends....woke and wandered...removed by a stranger...its quite clear..
jassi suggested..
1 She was removed by a stranger
2 She was removed by someone who was not a stranger
3 She removed herself and disappeared
thats fine...yet sil makes the bizarre claim that only represents 40 % of the possibilities
Not quite as SIL uses different words to describe the subgroups. If he was to reply to your post then we might all agree on the descriptions of the 3 buckets, as we call them, to cover 100% of all likely eventualities.
-
Not quite as SIL uses different words to describe the subgroups. If he was to reply to your post then we might all agree on the descriptions of the 3 buckets, as we call them, to cover 100% of all likely eventualities.
could you show where sil has described the subgroups...sil has replied and confirmed he is giving 60% probbability to something he dosnt know about...that is plain daft
-
You omitted to included alien abduction as a forth possibility so those three can't be 100%.
I havernt omitted anything...alien abduction is abduction
-
could you show where sil has described the subgroups...sil has replied and confirmed he is giving 60% probbability to something he dosnt know about...that is plain daft
Well until I see it in his own words I can't be sure but VS gave a partial description here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10798.msg536825#msg536825
-
Well until I see it in his own words I can't be sure but VS gave a partial description here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10798.msg536825#msg536825
You wont see it in his own words ..hes had 6 hours to provide an expalnation...his support of his claim is
thats how science works
hes seen it on police tv programmes
he has arazor sharp scientific mind
all ludicrous...hes been caught out and he knows it
-
Quote from: Vertigo Swirl on Today at 06:26:27 PM
I wonder if anyone else supports SIL’s views that that sum of all possibilities does not have to add up to a 100% . In fact doesn’t SIL have woke and wandered, abduction and parental involvement adding up to 30%? *%87
sil replied
I believe in the absence of evidence, I actually made it around 40%,
confirmation that sil claims.... w and w ...abduction...parental involvement.....equalls 40%
-
Quote from: Vertigo Swirl on Today at 06:26:27 PM
I wonder if anyone else supports SIL’s views that that sum of all possibilities does not have to add up to a 100% . In fact doesn’t SIL have woke and wandered, abduction and parental involvement adding up to 30%? *%87
sil replied
I believe in the absence of evidence, I actually made it around 40%,
confirmation that sil claims.... w and w ...abduction...parental involvement.....equalls 40%
Don't apply to Edinburgh University. 3 C's wont cut it.
You have to know what you don't know.
In your case, if you are so sure, inform OG. It will cut a long story short, and save the taxpayers millions.
-
Don't apply to Edinburgh University. 3 C's wont cut it.
You have to know what you don't know.
In your case, if you are so sure, inform OG. It will cut a long story short, and save the taxpayers millions.
I am looking forward to the day you make a post that actually makes sense and addresses the point in the post replied to. Will I have to wait long do you think?
-
Don't apply to Edinburgh University. 3 C's wont cut it.
You have to know what you don't know.
In your case, if you are so sure, inform OG. It will cut a long story short, and save the taxpayers millions.
I actually took 4 a levels physics chemistry double maths and two s levels in physics and maths......I did far better tahtn 3 C's even thogh i took my A's and S's a yera ahead of schedule. This was so a small group of us could apply to Oxbridge having already gained our grades.....
dont assume others on this forum have not had a decent education
-
I am looking forward to the day you make a post that actually makes sense and addresses the point in the post replied to. Will I have to wait long do you think?
As I do it every time, when will you be less impertinent?
-
As I do it every time, when will you be less impertinent?
you raised the hitch hikers guide today...did you know 42 is a special number...if you add the inverse of its prime factors to the inverse of itself...the result is one
-
As I do it every time, when will you be less impertinent?
Another false statement. You do not address posts, you do not supply cites, you do not explain yourself, you do post nonsense which you expect us to swallow unquestioningly, and you deliberately try to goad me with every post you make. If thats not impertinent tell me what is!
-
As I do it every time, when will you be less impertinent?
you have failed to provide any suport to your 40% claim
-
I actually took 4 a levels physics chemistry double maths and two s levels in physics and maths......I did far better tahtn 3 C's even thogh i took my A's and S's a yera ahead of schedule. This was so a small group of us could apply to Oxbridge having already gained our grades.....
dont assume others on this forum have not had a decent education
Don't worry about it.
True colours are beautiful. Like a rainbow.
-
Don't apply to Edinburgh University. 3 C's wont cut it.
You have to know what you don't know.
In your case, if you are so sure, inform OG. It will cut a long story short, and save the taxpayers millions.
why will informinf SY of abasic statistical fact save millions...explain if you can...Im sure you cannot
-
Don't worry about it.
True colours are beautiful. Like a rainbow.
Oh man, it’s Cyndi Lauper.
-
Can we move on please?
-
Moving on despite the deletions.
-
Here's another known fact we can factor into the odds because it did occur.
4/1 that the one night of the five that they'd almost think about cancelling their reservation at the tapas would be the ONE night Madeleine that was abducted.
4x 285,000,000 = 1,140,000,000/1 + 285,000,000/1 = 1,425,000,000/1.
The odds do not favour stranger abduction, BUT there's always the ONE.
And that is why I think it is all a fiction
-
Here's another known fact we can factor into the odds because it did occur.
4/1 that the one night of the five that they'd almost think about cancelling their reservation at the tapas would be the ONE night Madeleine that was abducted.
4x 285,000,000 = 1,140,000,000/1 + 285,000,000/1 = 1,425,000,000/1.
The odds do not favour stranger abduction, BUT there's always the ONE.
What are the odds that the one night they almost cancelled their reservation coincided with the one night Madeleine had an accident and died and her body had to be disposed of?
-
What are the odds that the one night they almost cancelled their reservation coincided with the one night Madeleine had an accident and died and her body had to be disposed of?
5/1
-
5/1
OK and what about the rest of Monkey’s odds calculation? We’re up to 1.425 billion against abduction. Do you concur?
-
OK and what about the rest of Monkey’s odds calculation? We’re up to 1.425 billion against abduction. Do you concur?
Hang on, let me just check with Paddy Power*
*other bookmakers are available.
-
Hang on, let me just check with Paddy Power*
*other bookmakers are available.
Let me know if they give those odds - I quite fancy being a billionaire.
-
Here's another known fact we can factor into the odds because it did occur.
4/1 that the one night of the five that they'd almost think about cancelling their reservation at the tapas would be the ONE night Madeleine that was abducted.
4x 285,000,000 = 1,140,000,000/1 + 285,000,000/1 = 1,425,000,000/1.
The odds do not favour stranger abduction, BUT there's always the ONE.
Now this has to stop for you have got that completely wrong. You are leading us down the garden path.
As has been pointed out the fact that there had been a discussion about not going to the Tapas on Thursday and that on Friday there was a special dinner for the tennis group, this would increase the chances of the abduction occurring sooner than later.
Yet you have taken it and made it even less likely.
-
And that is why I think it is all a fiction
Cheeky Monkey is leading members astray with his calculations IMO. see my previous post for my reasoning.
-
Cheeky Monkey is leading members astray with his calculations IMO. see my previous post for my reasoning.
I think there's a tongue firmly planted in cheek with Monkey's whole calculation of odds, Rob.
-
5/1
An accident with the odds of 5:1. You're maths needs an urgent reset!
I think there's a tongue firmly planted in cheek with Monkey's whole calculation of odds, Rob.
I don't think so not when you try and change his mind. He's like a tank driving through the enemy.
-
Let me know if they give those odds - I quite fancy being a billionaire.
You'll never get a payout though.
-
I think there's a tongue firmly planted in cheek with Monkey's whole calculation of odds, Rob.
Let’s hope, but I wouldn’t bet on it!
-
An accident with the odds of 5:1. You're maths needs an urgent reset!
I don't think so not when you try and change his mind. He's like a tank driving through the enemy.
5/1 referred to the available days I believe....
And it's poor battle drill to drive 'through' the enemy with a tank. Keep moving on open terrain. Slow or stop, quickly aim and fire, then continue to take up a better position against the enemy while reloading. If you drive straight towards, you'll be easy prey for enemy tanks and artillery.
-
5/1 referred to the available days I believe....
And it's poor battle drill to drive 'through' the enemy with a tank. Keep moving on open terrain. Slow or stop, quickly aim and fire, then continue to take up a better position against the enemy while reloading. If you drive straight towards, you'll be easy prey for enemy tanks and artillery.
That's why we are going to blow him out of the water.
-
Cite please as per forum rules? Thank you!
From http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4.msg16880#msg16880
Forum Rules
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum."
I have judged your calculations as being false and inaccurate. So from the reading of the rules they are both No nos.
As a moderator I don't think it is my role to prove the calculations are false and inaccurate I just need to judge it as such.
"Note that it is impossible for the staff or the owners of this forum to confirm the validity of posts."
-
They only went to the tapas five nights and chose the ONE night the child was abducted to allege they ALMOST thought about not going. That's a known fact that you cannot alter. Giving you odds that they would pick the ONE night Madeleine was abducted of 4/1. FACT!
They allege they picked the ONE night Madeleine was abducted and ignored the other four, that's a fact. Stop falsely accusing people of misleading people when it is clear you don't know what you're talking about.
I'll give you a choice either rewrite the above post with names inserted where you use the pronouns "they".
Explain who chose? As in: "and chose the ONE night the child was abducted".
Or it will be reported.
-
They only went to the tapas five nights and chose the ONE night the child was abducted to allege they ALMOST thought about not going. That's a known fact that you cannot alter. Giving you odds that they would pick the ONE night Madeleine was abducted of 4/1. FACT!
They allege they picked the ONE night Madeleine was abducted and ignored the other four, that's a fact. Stop falsely accusing people of misleading people when it is clear you don't know what you're talking about.
Shall I have a go?
The Tapas 9 only went to the tapas five nights and chose the ONE night the child was abducted to allege the Tapas 9 ALMOST thought about not going. That's a known fact that you cannot alter. Giving you odds that they would pick the ONE night Madeleine was abducted of 4/1. FACT!
The McCanns allege they picked the ONE night Madeleine was abducted and ignored the other four, that's a fact. Stop falsely accusing people of misleading people when it is clear you don't know what you're talking about."
How can it be 4/1 ? Four nights had already past and she wasn't abducted on those nights, that is making the past have an influence on the present or the future. Each throw on the roulette wheel was independent of the past throws, we had already agreed on that.
-
Monkey, do you believe in the odds you have calculated or are hey to gue-in-cheek as has been suggested?
-
Unless you can show me statistical problems in the calculations (which are there) then there's no need to put my tongue in my cheek. Those are the odds. Only a fool would ignore them.
Five apartments and what do you know, the cadaver dog picks the ONE apartment of the McCanns. The odds aren't lying on this occasion but the old bill still have a chance to factor your ONE in.
Good luck!
Yeah, I thought you weren’t being tongue-in-cheek, thanks for the clarification. 8((()*/
-
What you have to remember about the odds, if there's no abductor there is no ONE to factor in. You have real problems with that, nothing tongue in cheek about
I'm getting pissed of with the warnings now and losing my will to live on here. You'll find the odds are very seldom wrong. Take my advice and bear them in mind.
Cathcha next week.
Thanks for calculating the odds. I think the Met should be told though don’t you? They seem to be under the impression that abduction is a real possibility. Your odds show that it is all but completely impossible and therefore should be ruled out once and for all. I think this forum should be commended for this highly significant discovery. What say the rest of you?
-
I'll give you a choice either rewrite the above post with names inserted where you use the pronouns "they".
Explain who chose? As in: "and chose the ONE night the child was abducted".
Or it will be reported.
Simply report it Rob.... I think John will tell you to stop nitpicking and let the discussion flow
-
The police are the only ones daft enough to tell us they could maybe factor the one in.
Let's see if they do it.
I'm defo off this time but it's only fools who ignore the odds. That's the second thing I've warned you about but you don't seem to be one for listening.
Good luck!
I think my post shows that I am listening and that I believe you have made an important advancement in understanding of the case. Hats off to you. Currently the odds that Madeleine was abducted stand at 4.25billion to one, but are likely to get even bigger the longer you think about it. Marvellous work. 8@??)(
-
You still don't get it I see. It's not the 4.25 billion that count in the odds, it's ONLY the ONE that you beleive SY will factor in that counts. That's where you'll need luck. For the third and final time:
I wish you all the luck in the world, you and SY are going to need it!
And like a rubber ball, monkey keeps on bouncing back to me!
-
I think my post shows that I am listening and that I believe you have made an important advancement in understanding of the case. Hats off to you. Currently the odds that Madeleine was abducted stand at 4.25billion to one, but are likely to get even bigger the longer you think about it. Marvellous work. 8@??)(
Well done you for being so magnanimous. It's a rare commodity around here.
-
Well done you for being so magnanimous. It's a rare commodity around here.
Thanks, I agree and I'm sure you'll take the opportunity to thank Monkey for his valuable contribution to the forum and to the case generally with his odd calculation.
-
It's doesn't matter if they had already past, that's the point about odds they DID happen without any mention of almost cancelling. Therefore making it impossible the factor them out.
Sometimes if you don't know what you're talking about, you're better saying nothing at all IMO.
You should take your own advice then.
-
Unless you can show me statistical problems in the calculations (which are there) then there's no need to put my tongue in my cheek. Those are the odds. Only a fool would ignore them.
Five apartments and what do you know, the cadaver dog picks the ONE apartment of the McCanns. The odds aren't lying on this occasion but the old bill still have a chance to factor your ONE in.
Good luck!
I have been showing you the problems with the calculations all along but you just ignore them. You are ignoring my comments.
-
could you clarify... i havent seen aclear answer...the odds of abduction must be quite high
The definition for odds pertaining to this discussion:
"the chances or likelihood of something happening or being the case.
plural noun: the odds
"the odds are that he is no longer alive"
synonyms: likelihood, probability, chances, chance, balance
"the odds are that he is no longer alive"
So which is the higher odds 10/1 or 100/1 is the larger number the likelihood of it happening? And the smaller number the likelihood of it not happening?
Davel when you say "the odds of abduction must be quite high" what sort of odds were you expecting?
1/1 ?
-
It seems Erngath can't calculate odds to save herself either and is only too eager to prove it. Fair doos!
The problems with the calculations are your own problems. What you are trying to do is factor the five nights into one. You simply cannot do that IF you are calculating accurate odds. Your calculation EXCLUDES the other four nights that DID happen. You should take my advice, it's clear you're out of your depth and drop the tough guy routine while you're at it.
We DO know they DIDN'T mention thinking about canceling Sun, Mon, Tues or Wednesday evening that they DID spend in the tapas. They only claim to have thought about it on the ONE night the child was abducted.
That's 4/1 pal in anyone's book. Other than someone who doesn't know how to calculate odds.
The odds I calculated are there now for future reference should SY manage to factor stranger abduction in and all the others out. They are only harmless odds after all. ain't they? We'll see how harmless they are once the investigation is finished, won't we?
What you seem to be calculating is the odds Maddie would disappear from 5a that evening... I agree they are remote..
But it's now 100% she has disappeared
-
It seems Erngath can't calculate odds to save herself either and is only too eager to prove it. Fair doos!
The problems with the calculations are your own problems. What you are trying to do is factor the five nights into one. You simply cannot do that IF you are calculating accurate odds. Your calculation EXCLUDES the other four nights that DID happen. You should take my advice, it's clear you're out of your depth and drop the tough guy routine while you're at it.
We DO know they DIDN'T mention thinking about canceling Sun, Mon, Tues or Wednesday evening that they DID spend in the tapas. They only claim to have thought about it on the ONE night the child was abducted.
That's 4/1 pal in anyone's book. Other than someone who doesn't know how to calculate odds.
The odds I calculated are there now for future reference should SY manage to factor stranger abduction in and all the others out. They are only harmless odds after all. ain't they? We'll see how harmless they are once the investigation is finished, won't we?
Why bring my name into this bizarre( IMO) discussion.
I will have to check back to see my contribution to this thread.
Back to page 12 and cannot see a post by me.
Have I missed it?
Was it a like to a post which brought about your reference to me?
-
Unless you can show me statistical problems in the calculations (which are there) then there's no need to put my tongue in my cheek. Those are the odds. Only a fool would ignore them.
Five apartments and what do you know, the cadaver dog picks the ONE apartment of the McCanns. The odds aren't lying on this occasion but the old bill still have a chance to factor your ONE in.
Good luck!
Davel had a good point http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10798.msg536202#msg536202
-
Your forgetting the ONE kid. As long as the ONE is still there, it can never be 100%.
What do you mean by that?
-
Your forgetting the ONE kid. As long as the ONE is still there, it can never be 100%.
Not sure what you mean... I think it's certain she has disappeared
-
@)(++(*
What's the statistical difference between Madeleine and every other UK child who has went abroad since Ben Needham's abduction in Oct 1989. 19 years x 3,000,000 kids going abroad per year was the figure I gave that.
Those are the odds that Madeleine would be the one UK child to be abducted while on holiday since 1989. Facts, eh!
What I picking up from what you are saying is that since the rate of abduction of British kids whilst on holiday is so low, parents need not factor in that risk. 1 chance in 58 million is next to nothing.
-
But she needs to be the first ONE abducted by a stranger since Ben Needham.
That's the ONE you were forgetting.
OK, she's the first ONE abducted by a stranger since Ben Needham (who apparently was not abducted at all). Now what?
-
But she needs to be the first ONE abducted by a stranger since Ben Needham.
That's the ONE you were forgetting.
And the chances she has been abducted are relatively high
-
But she needs to be the first ONE abducted by a stranger since Ben Needham.
That's the ONE you were forgetting.
OK, she's the first ONE abducted by a stranger since Ben Needham (who apparently was not abducted at all). Now what?
-
And the chances she has been abducted are relatively high
What sort of odds are you expecting?
-
Then you have to multiple that figure by the four because there was a 4/1 chance that the dog would pick the ONE apartment that it DID. It's known facts we're using here, speculation cannot be factored in.
OK ONE x 4 =4
Now what?
-
ONE is not a high number if that's what you are trying to pretend.
Yes it is... At least more than 20 %
-
And btw you forgot to add the 1, it's actually 5. Five apartments, not four. @)(++(*
this is where you are going wrong..
when you go to sleep tonight the chances of yoe being murdered in your bed by a burglar are....10,000,000 to one.
If you are found in bed in the morning with a knife through your chest teh odds of you being murdered by a burglar are NOT 10.000,000 to one
-
If there are five choices of anything and only ONE to pick. That's 4/1 whether me, you or anyone else likes the sounds of it or not. And when you apply the odds of the known facts, you'r all in on the ONE.
Good luck!
if there are 4 equal choices then teh odds are 4 to one...none denies taht
-
That's a 3/1. I thought you would have learnt for VS's mistake. There were five apartments, only ONE of a missing child. The other four, had no children missing from them. 5 apartments = 4/1. 4+1 =5. Get it yet?
Im not really taking a lot of notice...your undestanding of the basic principle is wrong so it doesnt matter waht figures you use...you obvioulsy arent reading my posts and listening to my expalantions of why you are wrong....the chances of maddies disappearance being due to an abduction must be at least 20 %...and imo far higher.
remnember there are 3 basic possibilities that must add up to 100% ....so what are your figures for taht
-
deleted
-
And btw you forgot to add the 1, it's actually 5. Five apartments, not four. @)(++(*
Mate, I was following your teachings.
-
And btw you forgot to add the 1, it's actually 5. Five apartments, not four. @)(++(*
Mate, I was following your teachings.
-
Blame the guy that made 4 +1 = 5. Not me!
I blame you for writing nonsense and then going back and changing your post after I commented on it.
-
You've lost me Cheeky, I not nearly as clever as you. What are the odds now then? Are we into the trillions yet?
-
I'm on record calculating the odds as 4.25/1 billion against stranger abduction in PDL.
I've seen nothing to revise them for and await patiently on the results of the current investigation to determine those odds actual veracity. I'm in no rush for Jimmy to turn up, but the sooner he does, the sooner my odds will be proven to be nonsense or not.
I don't think you have explained yourself at all... Maddie disappeared ...there are 3 possibilities... Percentage wise how do you rate them... What percentage abduction..
-
That's a mathematical impossibility because odds don't have three possibilities. Only two.
It's a thread about the odds. I have factored in the 80% chance for the five apartments and I have factored the 80% chance that they would pick the one night of the five to almost think about cancelling. Factor either out if you like, and your back to your 57,000,000/1. Whatever way you look at it, you're ALL in on the one.
That's the way it is.
Describe all the possible reasons for Madeleine's disappearance. As many or as few as you think.
-
That's a mathematical impossibility because odds don't have three possibilities. Only two.
It's a thread about the odds. I have factored in the 80% chance for the five apartments and I have factored the 80% chance that they would pick the one night of the five to almost think about cancelling. Factor either out if you like, and your back to your 57,000,000/1. Whatever way you look at it, you're ALL in on the one.
That's the way it is.
If there are three horses in a race they each have odds... I'm afraid you aren't making any sense, at all
The three possibilities would start at 33% each and then be adjusted depending on the evidence to support each one
-
If there are three horses in a race they each have odds... I'm afraid you aren't making any sense, at all
The three possibilities would start at 33% each and then be adjusted depending on the evidence to support each one
Three times 33 is only 99. What about the other 333333 ad infinitum.
-
He has just opened a forth possibly with that reply. How can there be four possibilities if Davel said there's only three?
The missing 333333 must mean something *%87.
He'd be better sticking to heads and tails IMO.
Nothing you are saying makes any sense.. I'll leave you to it
-
He has just opened a forth possibly with that reply. How can there be four possibilities if Davel said there's only three?
The missing 333333 must mean something *%87.
He'd be better sticking to heads and tails IMO.
So would you. But I don't suppose that there is much chance of that.
-
See ya mate. I'm off anyway.
&^&*%
If only. But I don't suppose there is much chance of that either.
-
It's doesn't seem to have dawned on you that I've been playing heads and tails all along.
The odds are either right or their wrong. But that's two possibilities, not three.
See ya &^&*%
Most of us had worked that out a long time ago.
-
*%87 Really?!
To infinity and beyond!
Odds, probabilities, certainties. Perhaps better expressed in likliehoods of whodunnit! A question with no definitive answer.
-
Chatting to Monkey is a little bit like being at the Madhatters Tea Party, and I mean that affectionately.
-
You said you supposed I should I stick to head and tails. That you just worked that one out?
It's not that long if you're being honest.
Ah well, &^&*% &^&*%
That isn't what I said, so don't play word games with me.
-
https://stats.seandolinar.com/statistics-probability-vs-odds/ (https://stats.seandolinar.com/statistics-probability-vs-odds/)
-
Yes it is... At least more than 20 %
In fact 1 is 5 times more than 20%.
-
And btw you forgot to add the 1, it's actually 5. Five apartments, not four. @)(++(*
Who's was the 5th apartment? Isn't the odds 3/1? Three apartments the dogs didn't alert and in one they did.
-
In fact 1 is 5 times more than 20%.
one what...your post doesnt make sense
-
That's a 3/1. I thought you would have learnt for VS's mistake. There were five apartments, only ONE of a missing child. The other four, had no children missing from them. 5 apartments = 4/1. 4+1 =5. Get it yet?
Are you including Murat's place as well?
-
one what...your post doesnt make sense
1 = 100% of itself.
-
1 = 100% of itself.
if I say abduction is around 20%...whats the significance of 1.....apart from they all have to add up to 100%
100% doesnt always equal 1.....it can equal many things depending on context...in an exam 100% might be 100...depending on the number of questions
-
if I say abduction is around 20%...whats the significance of 1.....apart from they all have to add up to 100%
100% doesnt always equal 1.....it can equal many things depending on context...in an exam 100% might be 100...depending on the number of questions
But each question is then just 1% of the total. Add all the percentages and you'd get 100% .
100 times 1% = 1 or 100/100.
-
I don't know it just says five apartments. 'Five apartments at a complex in Praia Da Luz' that's 4/1 if it only alerted to ONE.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
If you include Murat's and the McCann's villa that's 6/1. That's seven properties in total and the dog only chose ONE (excluding the McCann's soft toy). That's very bad news for those people who are solely invested in the ONE stranger abduction. Those odds alone suggest the opposite considering it was a dead body odour detecting dog BUT there's always the one.
It would be interesting to know who's was the 5th apartment to account for this statement: "CANINE SEARCHES AT FIVE APARTMENTS AT PRIA DA LUZ.
All five apartments were searched using the EVRD. The only alert indications
were at apartment 5a, the reported scene."
Very interesting indeed.
There was one place where rotten meat was found in the fridge was that the 5th apartment?
-
But each question is then just 1% of the total. Add all the percentages and you'd get 100% .
100 times 1% = 1 or 100/100.
i think we all understand such basics...not sure what you are trying to say.....100% attendance might be 150 days...then 100% equals 150....not one
-
i think we all understand such basics...not sure what you are trying to say.....100% attendance might be 150 days...then 100% equals 150....not one
"100% attendance might be 150 days" no "100% attendance is everyday for 150 days, for the whole event is 150 days long.
I was trying to clarify what you meant by "Yes it is... At least more than 20 %", 20% of what?
-
"100% attendance might be 150 days" no "100% attendance is everyday for 150 days, for the whole event is 150 days long.
I was trying to clarify what you meant by "Yes it is... At least more than 20 %", 20% of what?
its pretty obvious.....there are 3 possibilities...each one with a percentage possibility
-
While I agree it may be interesting, just as long as there were five apartments searched, it wouldn't effect the odds. I wonder whose it was?
Gunit, or anyone, any ideas?
There was one place where rotten meat was found in the fridge was that the 5th apartment? 8((()*/ That's the one my money is on?
So you are basically implying the more apartments (without an alert) they searched the higher the odds of it not being an abduction whether or not the apartments checked have any relationship to the case. Because where does the 5th apartment fit into the scenario?
-
its pretty obvious.....there are 3 possibilities...each one with a percentage possibility
Have you gone back to the discussion of the three buckets of possibilities that add up to 100%?
And you've taken at stab in the dark and declared "Yes it is... At least more than 20 %", that is you estimate the probability of an abduction is more than 20%. Did I get it right now?
-
Have you gone back to the three buckets of possibilities that add up to 100%?
And you've taken at stab in the dark and declared "Yes it is... At least more than 20 %", that is you estimate the probability of an abduction is more than 20%. Did I get it right now?
I havent gone back tp anything...its always been 3 main possibilities...and its not a stab in the dark...we have evidence
-
I don't know anything about the apartment other than it was searched. I'm not implying anything. I'm simply applying the mathematical system of apply odds to what we do KNOW happened. Bookmakers don't offer odds on those things that have happened, they offer odds on those things that CAN happen. There's a great value to knowing the odds on what DID happen in this case IMO.
It's all in SY yards hands. My odds say forget them producing an abductor, but SY say there's always the ONE.
Tic-toc, tic-toc!
your odds are all wrong...there is no way that the odds taht maddie WAS abducted is 45 million to one
-
I havent gone back tp anything...its always been 3 main possibilities...and its not a stab in the dark...we have evidence
Less than 12 hours ago you were telling me to stop nitpicking on Cheeky Monkey and his wild odds calculation.
What was that all about? His calculations have nothing to do with the "3 main possibilities".
-
57,000,000 was my conservative figure. Was there another UK child abducted abroad between Madeleine and Ben Needham?
your figure is the odds maddie WOULD BE abducted ,...not that she WAS abducted
-
Less than 12 hours ago you were telling me to stop nitpicking on Cheeky Monkey and his wild odds calculation.
What was that all about? His calculations have nothing to do with the "3 main possibilities".
yes they do....and the odds of abduction is the title of the thrad
-
57,000,000 was my conservative figure. Was there another UK child abducted abroad between Madeleine and Ben Needham?
IMO There have been thousands of kidnappings over that time. Most will be resolved in a day or so and hence we don't hear about them. Don't ask for a cite it is opinion.
-
Of course that's the odds but there is NO PROOF that she WAS abducted by a stranger abroad. If you have PROOF of that, then it's impossible to not factor it in and all the other odds out.
Don't pretend that PROOF that she was abducted exists, in the public domain. Opinion cannot factor anything into the odds. FACT!
ive never said there is proof....odds are all about opinion based on evidence
-
ive never said there is proof....odds are all about opinion based on evidence
And that is a Fact.
-
Not one of British children on holiday abroad there's not. If there is show us it?
That will make a difference to the odds.
You can't factor opinions into the odds, only known facts. That's not my fault.
Think of all the child custody cases that go haywire and one parent abducts the children due to the myriad of reasons they have. You can't tell me that never happens to "British children on holiday abroad".
-
Statistical odds are calculated based on hard statistical facts.
Five apartments, the cadaver dog picked ONE is such a hard statistical fact. 4/1! No opinions involved.
that isnt how statistics work.....
-
Statistical odds are calculated based on hard statistical KNOWN facts.
Five apartments, the cadaver dog picked ONE is such a hard statistical fact. 4/1! No opinions involved.
Yes there is for I believe you are thinking the cadaver dogs alerted to the cadaver odour coming from Madeleine's cadaver. That must be your opinion for it has never been a proven fact.
-
Madeleine and Ben Needham were two UK children abducted by a stranger abroad giving the McCann's the benefit of the doubt. It's that category we are in because that's the accurate category to be in. Kate and Gerry weren't in a custody battle and neither had abducted their child. That's a different category all together.
Stranger abduction abroad we're on here.
Well was it ever established that family situations didn't have a role to play in either case? I think it is too early to say it is a "Stranger abduction abroad we're on here".
-
In the odds the alerts weren't confirmed so can never be factored into the odds. The five apartments and the known fact the dog alerted to whatever it alerted to, is odds of 4/1 it would be the McCanns if it only alerted once and the same for all the the others. It still chose the McCanns, fact!#
It could have returned results of 3/2, 2/3, 1/4 but it never, it returned a result of 4/1 by ONLY alerting to the McCann's apartment.
But we don't know why, so I think your insistence to include them into the odds calculations, as evidence against an abduction, is in error.
-
You think it's too early to say it's a stranger abduction abroad? My odds say that's never going to happen.
We'll see at the end of the investigation. My odds might yet prove to be testable.
We'll all be able to reassess our theories "at the end of the investigation". We could be right or wrong to varying degrees.
-
Did the dog alert in any of the other apartments other than the McCanns? There is a factual answer to that question.
I had a thread on this and I analysed the dog videos as they went through the apartments and the dog Eddie showed unusual behaviour in two of the other apartments IMO.
In the Payne's apartment there was a locked area they never checked.
In Russell's apartment there was something under the bed Eddie wanted to check but it wasn't presented to him.
Lesser memory in Matt's apartment there was something else. But I accepted it was just an object that Eddie showed a mild interest to.
It is such a mission to examine the hour long video. Try it.
-
Did the dog alert in any of the other apartments other than the McCanns? There is a factual answer to that question.
they were not given an equal opportunity to alert in the other apartments
-
I don't do theories, I do, do calculable odds based on hard statistical facts though. I'll let the figures do the talking in this case.
So you say.
But saying it is a "stranger abduction" is a theory.
-
What's a fact?
Opinions come into Odds.
-
Opinions come into Odds.
That's actually incorrect. You backed the wrong horse Eleanor.
-
This isn't a question about what they were alerting to, or the alerts authenticity. It's a simple one, did the dog handler say the dog alerted to property other than that of the McCanns? That's a yes or no question.
when you calculate statistics you have to workout the value of your evidence
-
That's actually incorrect. You backed the wrong horse Eleanor.
In Your Opinion.
-
This isn't a question about what they were alerting to, or the alerts authenticity. It's a simple one, did the dog handler say the dog alerted to property other than that of the McCanns? That's a yes or no question.
Have you ever heard the term "sting operation"?
-
they were not given an equal opportunity to alert in the other apartments
That's mainly due to the rather pertinent fact that ONLY ONE OF THEM WAS WHERE SHE WENT MISSING FROM!
'Let's let the dogs search 5A'
'Nah, let's search the kitchens at the Tapas Bar with the dogs instead.'
-
That's actually incorrect. You backed the wrong horse Eleanor.
of course opinions come into odds...opinions based on evidence but still opinion..
betfred gave odds on the name the new royal baby...what hard evidece were those odds based on
-
In Your Opinion.
Nope. It's fact. Mathematical fact in fact. Davel's area of expertise.
-
That's mainly due to the rather pertinent fact that ONLY ONE OF THEM WAS WHERE SHE WENT MISSING FROM!
'Let's let the dogs search 5A'
'Nah, let's search the kitchens at the Tapas Bar with the dogs instead.'
four posters today suggesting the alerts may be meaningless
-
Nope. It's fact. Mathematical fact in fact. Davel's area of expertise.
What are you talking about now?
-
That's mainly due to the rather pertinent fact that ONLY ONE OF THEM WAS WHERE SHE WENT MISSING FROM!
'Let's let the dogs search 5A'
'Nah, let's search the kitchens at the Tapas Bar with the dogs instead.'
That would be most interesting, and the freezers and chillers at the same time while you are at it.
-
What are you talking about now?
Odds. They can be a simplistic representation of probability. For simple people to digest.
-
Odds. They can be a simplistic representation of probability. For simple people to digest.
But not much Fact.
-
four posters today suggesting the alerts may be meaningless
Yeh, OK. What? What did I sign up to?
-
Odds. They can be a simplistic representation of probability. For simple people to digest.
only when all the facts are known...when they are not....opinions come into play
-
But not much Fact.
Oh no. It's very much a fact. No opinion or bias. Just pure maths.
-
Yeh, OK. What? What did I sign up to?
you didnt...you retained the right to be wrong...your choice
-
Oh no. It's very much a fact. No opinion or bias. Just pure maths.
statistics isnt pure maths...its applied maths
-
only when all the facts are known...when they are not....opinions come into play
That's not what you said.
ive never said there is proof....odds are all about opinion based on evidence
-
statistics isnt pure maths...its applied maths
Whoops.
-
statistics isnt pure maths...its applied maths
pfft....semantics.
I didn't mean in the literal, academic sense, Prof.
-
That's not what you said.
to a certain extent its semantics...I would say there is proof of abduction
-
Not into my odds they don't? Known facts only, in the interest of accuracy.
But the fact is you keep on introducing "facts" that have no relationship to the odds you are calculating.
-
to a certain extent its semantics...I would say there is proof of abduction
OK what proof, and has Cheeky Monkey included that fact in his calculation?
-
They can be more than that. They can be factually exact if they are the odds taken of events that DID happen. That's the one's I'm using but they are turning out to be anything but simplistic for simple people to digest.
you are making several basic mistakes ...statistics give us a guide...is is not an exact science with which you can make predictions
-
Odds are pure maths. It's an odds thread we are on.
basic error...odds are applied maths
-
OK what proof, and has Cheeky Monkey included that fact in his calculation?
proof is not precise word...thats where we need to dtart
-
Pure fact.
5 apartments, one choice.
5 night's one choice
4 doors, one unlocked.
3 children, one NOT in a cot.
All facts.
and ll irrelevant to the odds ...the most relevant point is maddie .being left by her parents
both maddie and ben were unsupervised
-
basic error...odds are applied maths
What about a compromise? "Odds are pure applied maths. It's an odds thread we are on".
-
Not the ones using the odds of what DID happen, your on about the what CAN happen ones.
Big difference!
look at the defn of pure and applied maths
-
pfft....semantics.
I didn't mean in the literal, academic sense, Prof.
What did you mean then?
-
What about a compromise? "Odds are pure applied maths. It's an odds thread we are on".
odds are not pure maths
-
Odds of what DID happen use EXACT figures, not estimates.
preisely...
-
Not the ones using the odds of what DID happen, your on about the what CAN happen ones.
Big difference!
That is what I was wanting to know. If something happened, or did happen, is there any point of analysing the odds?
You already know what happened.
-
Odds of what DID happen use EXACT figures, not estimates.
so you are working out the odds of abduction...but you dont know it happened
-
preisely...
its a 100% certain maddie has disappeared...why has that post been removed by rob
-
its a100% ceratian maddie has disappeared...why has taht post been removed
It wasn't removed it was edited, The whole forum is about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, so it is pointless to point this out again.
-
It wasn't removed it was edited, The whole forum is about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, so it is pointless to point this out again.
its about odds ...it was totally relevant...and your edit changed the meaning of the post
-
We know every one of these things DID happened
5 apartments one choice = 4/1
5 nights, one choice = 4/1
4 doors one unlocked = 3/1
3 children, one not in a cot = 2/1
You can tell me that at the end of the investigation but you have to be capable of understanding the odds to be fair.
Did you understand what I was asking? "If something happened, or did happen, is there any point of analysing the odds?"
-
Did you understand what I was asking? "If something happened, or did happen, is there any point of analysing the odds?"
thats the point i was making...Its 100% certin maddie has disappeared
-
What did you mean then?
Well you're aware of the terms 'pure' and 'applied' maths?
Well I wasn't using either of them. I was referring to the maths being 'pure' as an adjective. No allusion to a branch of maths was intended.
Delete, delete, delete.
-
We know every one of these things DID happened
5 apartments one choice = 4/1
5 nights, one choice = 4/1
4 doors one unlocked = 3/1
3 children, one not in a cot = 2/1
You can tell me that at the end of the investigation but you have to be capable of understanding the odds to be fair.
As I have pointed out there were only 4 apartments involved.
they were staying there 7 nights.
3 of the apartments had 2 doors and one just the single door, with access to a road. (7 door in total)
Does it matter if they were in a cot or not?
-
Is there any point in analysing the things that DID happen? *%87
I would say you cannot simply quote odds on abduction...you must include the odds on the other 2..
so woke and wandered and dissapeared...in the alst 20 yeras ...zero...so odds 20 million to on eagainst
accident in apartmnet covered up by parents in las 2o yeras ..zero..so odds 20 million to on eagainst
so the thre possibilities combined add up to 3 in 20 million...so the odds ahve to be wrong
-
Well you're aware of the terms 'pure' and 'applied' maths?
Well I wasn't using either of them. I was referring to the maths being 'pure' as an adjective. No allusion to a branch of maths was intended.
Delete, delete, delete.
id already worked that out
-
id already worked that out
Your biggest fan hadn't.
-
It wasn't removed it was edited, The whole forum is about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, so it is pointless to point this out again.
if you remove the post you have to justify it but not if you edit it and totally change its meaning
-
Is there any point in analysing the things that DID happen? *%87
That is a very similar question to what I asked but I was asking about the odds of what happened.
I suppose you could say what are the chances that the girl was abducted from the apartment on the Thursday?
Uncertainty about what was happening on the Friday could be a factor to favour the Thursday night.
"Its all go tonight! Let's do it tonight"
-
The odds only have two possibilities Dave, nothing can alter that fact. You're all in the one, end of.
That's the way it is, why not accept the truth because the truth is, there is always the one. You might get lucky, others do.
im afraiid you are wrong in athree horse race ther are three possibilities as to who may win...its applied maths
-
if you remove the post you have to justify it but not if you edit it and totally change its meaning
I reported the post and edited it. It was a shame what was left was rather insignificant and misspelt.
-
Your biggest fan hadn't.
my mathematical credentials have been questioned by those not fit to sharpen my pencil....expect no quarter ....the slightest error will be atacked and punished ...no prisoners... fix bayonets
-
I reported the post and edited it. It was a shame what was left was rather insignificant and misspelt.
who gives a toss about spelling..its the message tahts important ....you have admitted you go back...check and correct your posts...I dont have that much respect for those like you who complain
-
We're talking odds and for the final time:
All the other odds/Davel's ONE stranger abduction. TWO possibilities, not three.
Night Davel!
night
-
my mathematical credentials have been questioned by those not fit to sharpen my pencil....expect no quarter ....the slightest error will be atacked and punished ...no prisoners... fix bayonets
I expect nothing less. As you were.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOz-A29eINA
excellent
-
im afraiid you are wrong in athree horse race ther are three possibilities as to who may win...its applied maths
after the race there was one winner and two losers. 2/1 or is it 1/2 the odds of losing are 2/1 but of winning they are 1/2 ???? Is that correct? how do you express the opposite?
Except for a dead heat, or all horses "Did not finish".
-
Think this discussion is a non-runner so all odds matter zilch. 8((()*/
-
Think this discussion is a non-runner so all odds matter zilch. 8((()*/
Have you been scratched?
-
Have you been scratched?
Aye. an endless to and fro of semantics on odds. Not of the abduction but bloody odds!
-
Welcome Parky, nice to meet you!
You can only say the odds matters zilch if you know what happened. Do you know what happened?
I wonder what the odds would be on me knowing? 8)--))
My manners, nice to meet you too! 8(0(*
-
It's a bloody odds thread among a number of others. My odds and calculations are there. No semantics.
Rather odd! that I missed what the thread was? I take your calculations on board along with the others. BUT the debating to and fro of what odds are in respect of meaning , simply mean nothing.
-
You either do know or you don't. 50/50.
And do you? Know?
NO. Personally I would have given me odds on at , at least 1000,000/1 . Could be higher or lower. That's semantics for you though.
-
These are the statistical facts I have been using, feel free to point out anything that means nothing to you?
5 apartments one choice = 4/1
5 nights, one choice = 4/1
3 PATIO doors, one unlocked and 4 FRONT doors ALL locked = 7/1. (prefer that Rob?)
3 children, one not in a cot = 2/1
What other calculations among the others have you taken on board that you feel makes the odds matter zilch?
I get it, I really do. My point as you would no doubt cotton on to is? The endless debate on what odds are in general. Discussion going off 'track' @)(++(*
My opinion and odds in answer to the thread purpose would be 5/1 Abduction in itself being one of the odds. All has to be taken into consideration as a whole! YES one could go on forever and a day on the maths behind the relevance or not of odds on abduction.
-
But we're not in the world of semantics, we are in the world of statistical odds on this thread. A calculation wouldn't go amiss for your 1,000,000/1? You either know or you don't as far as i'm aware, that's 50/50 unless you got a calculation for 1,000,000/1.
Your odds may well be correct you see but without the workings for how you got there, you're odds are in the pie in the sky club. I agree with you there, they matter zilch, absolutely!
OK. There was me thinking all was lost in statistical debate on the definition of odds. Much obliged.
-
That's what we want figures not semantics. So now's your opportunity to show us how you reached the figure of 5/1 and is the five for stranger abduction or against?
Thanks for that Cheeky Monkey - are the odds expressed for or against. You not only have to say the odds, the ratio, but what the odds are about.
-
You're more than welcome, feel free to add your calculation for your 1,000,000/1 anytime you see fit.
You're 50/50 for me until then I'm afraid!
I would have rated Parky41 odds of 80/20 for not adding a calculation.
-
Thanks for that Cheeky Monkey - are the odds expressed for or against. You not only have to say the odds, the ratio, but what the odds are about.
what do you think the odds are of abduction in this case?
your answer 58 million/1
But that is surely the odds against an abduction, happening to any random UK tourist child then multiplied by the other factors that you consider make the odds of an abduction worse.
5 apartments one choice = 4/1
5 nights, one choice = 4/1
3 PATIO doors, one unlocked and 4 FRONT doors ALL locked = 7/1. (prefer that Rob?)
3 children, one not in a cot = 2/1.
IMO the number of apartments checked by the cadaver dogs makes zilch difference.
IMO the number of nights stayed at PdL makes zilch difference.
IMO the number of doors an intruder could have got through makes zilch difference.
IMO the number of cots that the kids slept in makes zilch difference.
The odds of an abduction are low. So somethings could increase the chances and some will decrease it.
I'm thinking an apartment with easy road access could make it more vulnerable.
I'm thinking leaving the patio door unlock could increase the chance of an abduction.
I'm also thinking the crying and reports of crying by the kids could increase the chance of an abduction.
Whether the facts she was a female child around 4 years of age increased the chances of abduction I'm not certain.
Now there was the figure you estimated based on the number of children that had travelled overseas in the last 19 years. What are the units of that figure. Total number of abductions in 19 years of Tourists of the type in question, that is the data.
but what units are you going to use? I think you might need to think in terms of abductions of children/million tourists/day i.e the chances of being abducted on any particular day.
Now to look at how that figure (which could be in the order of a billion to 1) and how it can decrease to the point of becoming 1/1 or an abduction actually happened.
If each of the following make the chances of an abduction more likely (say by 100 fold), how many reasons would you need to reduce the odds until it makes an abduction inevitable..
I'm thinking an apartment with easy road access could make it more vulnerable.
I'm thinking leaving the patio door unlock could increase the chance of an abduction.
I'm also thinking the crying and reports of crying by the kids could increase the chance of an abduction.
Whether the facts she was a female child around 4 years of age increased the chances of abduction I'm not certain.
A Billion is 10^9 so I would need to show 4 reasons that increase the chances 100 fold to get the odds reduced to 10/1 I've got 4 reasons so far.
A Billion is 10^9 so I would need to show 8 reasons that increase the chances 10 fold to get the odds reduced to 10/1 I've only got 4 reasons so far.
-
Just one thing before you go: Do you really think Madeleine was the abducted One? Definitely abducted and SY will end up proving it?
Look if you do I had you all wrong. - sorry, if that was the case.
-
The odds I have used are the odds Rob, no ifs, no buts, so with opinions like those highlighted above it proves to me that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You can post as much bollocks as you like, but it's still bollocks in terms of calculating the odds at the end of the day in this case. Sorry, but that's the truth.
1. Nothing you can do will EVER alter the fact that Madeleine was the ONE UK child who DID go on holiday and DID get abducted by a stranger abroad after Ben Needham in the odds. 2. Nothing you can do will EVER alter the fact that the cadaver dog had five apartments to search and only DID alert to one. 3. Nothing you can do will EVER alter the fact that they only DID think about cancelling on the one night Madeleine was abducted out of the five they could have chosen. 4. Nothing you can do will EVER alter the fact that the abductor DID abduct the one child from the apartment of four with the ONE unlocked door. 5. Nothing you can do can EVER alter the fact the abductor DID pick the ONE child not confined to a cot, ignoring the other two.
I have always been mindful throughout the thread that there is always the ONE. In my odds, a stranger abducting Madeleine is that ONE. The odds are there and the calculations are correct. If you don't like them that's just too bad. Let's just wait and see if SY factor that one in and all the others out. My odds are saying that ain't going to happen. If it does, then you be sure to remind me, just how bollocks my odds turned out to be.
Those odds are based on what DID happen. A fact you seem incapable of understanding it's true value.
That concludes all I have to say to you on this thread Rob. Enough is enough!
This is a very rude comment, and nothing much that I can do by Editing.
So, any more like this and I shall Delete the Whole Comment.
-
That's what we want figures not semantics. So now's your opportunity to show us how you reached the figure of 5/1 and is the five for stranger abduction or against?
Hi Cheeky Monkey 8)-)))
Is your tagline a direct quote from GM?
It's exactly what I thought when I first heard about it. The only similar case I can recall is that of Ben Needham who was playing outside his grandparent's home on his own at the time he disappeared from rural Greece.
In this case I think there are a set of unique features:
- The McCanns et al had a very prescriptive routine day and night allowing others to quickly identify patterns.
- Unwittingly? they attracted attention low season by being in such a large group 9 adults, 8 children
- According to Bridget O'Donnell (partner to Jez Wilkins) she nicknamed the adults "the Dcoctors" and seemed to be amused by their nighttime antics in the Tapas Bar along with GM's booming Glaswegian accent. If she was entertained from her balcony I'm sure she wasn't alone! I would imagine it made for good people watching seeing a bunch of doctors in high spirits, undoubtedly drinking more than the recommended 2/3 units a day, (I'm pretty good at that too) with the various members leaving and returning every few minutes. People would probably pay to watch and herein lies the answer imo.
Some of the parents were in a larger group. Most of them worked for the NHS and had met many years before in Leicestershire. Now they lived in different parts of the UK, and this holiday was their opportunity to catch up, to introduce their children, to reunite. They booked a large table every night in the Tapas. We called them "the Doctors". Sometimes we would sit out on our balcony and their laughter would float up around us. One man was the joker. He had a loud Glaswegian accent. He was Gerry McCann. He played tennis with Jes.
We had booked a table for two at Tapas and were placed next to the Doctors' regular table. One by one, they started to arrive. The men came first. Gerry McCann started chatting across to Jes about tennis. Gerry was outgoing, a wisecracker, but considerate and kind, and he invited us to join them. We discussed the children. He told us they were leaving theirs sleeping in the apartments. While they chatted on, I ruminated on the pros and cons of this. I admired them, in a way, for not being paranoid parents, but I decided that our apartment was too far off even to contemplate it. Our baby was too young and I would worry about them waking up.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/dec/14/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
-
If you asked an actuary to put a stat on the risk of your child being abducted on holiday how do you think they would perform such a calculation?
-
It's the truth Eleanor but I understand what you're saying.
There won't be any others. Thanks!
Je vous en prie. And thank you.
-
If you asked an actuary to put a stat on the risk of your child being abducted on holiday how do you think they would perform such a calculation?
A big factor would be the place you intended to travel to.
I used the time between Ben Needham being abducted and Madeleine McCann being abducted = 19 years.
I gave a conservative figure of three million kids going abroad each year and came up with 19 x 3,000,000 = 57,000,000.
I'm always open to other possible suggestions just as long as they all add up?
You have made the error of saying both of them were abducted when in fact at this stage it is unknown as to why they both disappeared.
-
Hi Holly
It sure is from Gerry. My advice would be to always remember, that it's the ONE Gerry is referring to, the other 100,000,000 didn't get abducted by a stranger abroad. Pay attention to the ONES would be my advice. The abduction was far from the only ONE to factor into the odds in this case.
I've been enjoying reading your new threads. they are all good ones IMO.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks 8((()*/
But if I said to GM ok lets consider how an actuary would calculate the risk.
- Prescriptive routine day (with children) and night (without children) allowing others to quickly identify patterns.
- Loud with a booming Glaswegian accent and a wisecracker - attracting attention
- Nighttime get togethers at tapas bar, same place, same time, considered by other guests as light entertainment akin to an amphitheatre where those on 1st floor balconies had top tickets for a free show.
- T6: JT, ROB, RO, MO, KM, GM up and down like yo-yo's, back and forth, checking children.
- T2: GM, KM only ones entering apartment via patio doors which others guests would know must be unlocked since they can't be locked from inside.
I believe the above would present a unique set of circumstances and features where an actuary would say 'sorry we can't get any re-insurer in the world to take on the risk let alone calculate a premium'!
-
You seem to be getting the picture when it comes to the odds on what DID happen.
8((()*/
lets get this clear...maddie has disappeared...are you suggesting that the odds of her having been abducted are 50 million to one and that SY should realise this...if you are you are totally and completely wrong
-
More than that, but yip that's what I'm saying. My odds will still be there when the case closes, I'd suggest that is the point for testing them out. There are two investigations working in tandem in an attempt to factor the ONE stranger abduction in. Your ONE is still in the running. 8(0(*
your odds are totally wrong... the fact that maddie has dissapeared means the odds of abduction are 1 to single figures....ive explained why this is but you dont seem to have read the posts
-
Maybe Gerry wasn't using the 19 year Ben Needham rate because we don't know what happened. Fair doos, let's see where his 100,000,000/1 figure takes us when we factor all those other ONES in.
100,000,000 x 4 = 400,000,000 + 100,000,000 = 500,000,000 = 4 x 500,000,000 = 2,000,000,000 + 500,000,000 = 2,500,000,000 = 3 x 2,500,000,000 = 7,500,000,000 + 10,000,000,000 = 2 x 10,000,000,000 = 20,000,000,000 + 10,000,000,000 = 30,000,000,000.
5 apartments one choice = 4/1
5 nights, one choice = 4/1
4 PATIO doors, one unlocked = 3/1.
3 children, one not in a cot = 2/1
30,000,000,000/1.
I admit I don't understand odds. Though I don't think they can be trusted. They say Lightening doesn't strike in the same place twice and this has been found out to be wrong.
-
You can explain till the cows come home, I've explained too, but the results of the investigation will ultimately decide on the veracity of those odds. FACT!
on elast time...if the odds for abduction are one in 50 million...what are teh odds for woke and wandered and parental involvement...your answer to taht question will prove you wrong...but you havent answered it...
-
Show us where a child has ever woke and wandered without their body ever being discovered and we'll see what the odds say for woke and wandered in the same way we did for abduction by a stranger?
as I dont think you have a clue im not interested...sorry to be so blunt
-
Show us where a child has ever woke and wandered without their body ever being discovered and we'll see what the odds say for woke and wandered in the same way we did for abduction by a stranger?
First work out odds of a 4 year old leaving an unlocked apartment.
-
Before you go any further, you need to give an example of ONE child who DID wake up, walked out and was never seen again, before you could factor that ONE example into the odds.
Bear that in mind. I'm using known facts of what DID happen to arrive at the odds.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing in this instance when it comes to accuracy.
Divide the activity in 2, leaving and not being found. Different set of odds for both.
-
lets get this clear...maddie has disappeared...are you suggesting that the odds of her having been abducted are 50 million to one and that SY should realise this...if you are you are totally and completely wrong
of course Cheeky Monkey is wrong 30,000,000,000. - 30 Billion not 50 million.
-
on elast time...if the odds for abduction are one in 50 million...what are teh odds for woke and wandered and parental involvement...your answer to taht question will prove you wrong...but you havent answered it...
Just make up some figures and call them facts, multiply them together and you'll get the answer you want.
Think about it. Madeleine is missing and the twins are not. Her bed is empty but the cots are not. Now according to Cheeky Monkey that adds proof to the likelihood Madeleine was abducted. Yet the same observation would hold true for "woke and wandered and parental involvement" too.
How silly can this forum get?
-
of course Cheeky Monkey is wrong 30,000,000,000. - 30 Billion not 50 million.
What's 20 billion between friends?
-
What's 20 billion between friends?
Not a lot of difference between 30 Billion and 50 million only 29,950 million places.
-
5 apartments one choice = 4/1 FACT
5 nights, one choice = 4/1 FACT
4 PATIO doors, one unlocked = 3/1. FACT
3 children, one not in a cot = 2/1 FACT
Silly old Monkey? @)(++(*
You said it, not me.
-
Note for the woke and wandered theorists.
There is no woke and wandered in the odds without at least ONE example.
I think the odds are trying to tell you something. Time to work on another theory. 8(0(*
How do you know Ben Needham didn't wake and wander?
-
How do you know Ben Needham didn't wake and wander?
Because all concerned agree he was outside playing.
In any event is it important to identify a case where a child woke, wandered but no body found? Surely the point is that no body has been found whether last seen in an inactive state (asleep in bed) or an active state (outside playing).
Here's a recent case where a child woke and wondered. Sadly his body was found in the swmming pool.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9316282/british-boy-drowns-hotel-pool-kos/
-
Because all concerned agree he was outside playing.
In any event is it important to identify a case where a child woke, wandered but no body found? Surely the point is that no body has been found whether last seen in an inactive state (asleep in bed) or an active state (outside playing).
Here's a recent case where a child woke and wondered. Sadly his body was found in the swmming pool.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9316282/british-boy-drowns-hotel-pool-kos/
I haven't read any of the frantic searches for MM involved the pool. Is it possible someone covered up because MW were not following procedures by covering the pool if indeed it was left uncovered and/or procedures involved covering the pool?
-
Because all concerned agree he was outside playing.
In any event is it important to identify a case where a child woke, wandered but no body found? Surely the point is that no body has been found whether last seen in an inactive state (asleep in bed) or an active state (outside playing).
Here's a recent case where a child woke and wondered. Sadly his body was found in the swmming pool.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9316282/british-boy-drowns-hotel-pool-kos/
OK playing outside, he could therefore have had a short nap, then woke and wandered. I think wandered is a definite possibility.
Woke wandered and then abducted is always a possible sequence.
-
I haven't read any of the frantic searches for MM involved the pool. Is it possible someone covered up because MW were not following procedures by covering the pool if indeed it was left uncovered and/or procedures involved covering the pool?
Gerry is seen by Tapas Restaurant staff searching the pools.
In the missing child procedure activated by the OC staff the areas to be searched were allocated to various unnamed people. I think it would be unlikely that the pool was missed out.
-
I haven't read any of the frantic searches for MM involved the pool. Is it possible someone covered up because MW were not following procedures by covering the pool if indeed it was left uncovered and/or procedures involved covering the pool?
Keep reading Kate's book. From memory, I think that is one source of Gerry went to the Tapas Zone and checked there.
The issue with the MW structured searches is I don't know which areas of Luz were searched. One assumes that would mean they checked all pools on the complex, but the simple fact is I cannot be certain.
I have never read or seen any evidence that the OC pools could be covered. It's not standard practice in the Algarve.
-
OK playing outside, he could therefore have had a short nap, then woke and wandered. I think wandered is a definite possibility.
Woke wandered and then abducted is always a possible sequence.
Well if he had a short nap he must have dozed off outside. This does not seem to fit with the known facts.
I agree it is possible woke, wandered and came to some harm. KM dismisses this idea as she refers to MM as a 3 year old, whereas in reality she was a few days off 4, who would in her opinion be unable to pull the curtains, slide the patio door, open the child gate and close it and open the gate to road and close it. According to KM she also found the bedroom shutters up, window open and curtains flapping which had all been left closed hence she will not entertain any other theory other than abduction.
Children do not open full length curtains. They find the gap and move along underneath so no problem there. KM does not say MM could not reach handles etc just in her opinion MM would not be able to slide the doors, open the gates and leave returning everything to its rightful place ie closed etc. However throughout the book she repeats numerous times MM was very intelligent, knowing and advanced for her years.
In my experience children are like sponges soaking up everything going on around and are far more knowing than many adults give them credit for. MM would undoubtedly observe what KM/GM did when leaving and could simply have copied. Why not if she is/was as intelligent as KM states in her book?
Has a child psychologist ever offered up opinion about any other aspect of this case?
-
Is it possible/impossible MM opened the shutters/windows and climbed out? Is it possible/impossible MM left via the front door?
Was MM's height and arm measurements obtained to see if she was able to reach the height of handles?
-
Well if he had a short nap he must have dozed off outside. This does not seem to fit with the known facts.
I agree it is possible woke, wandered and came to some harm. KM dismisses this idea as she refers to MM as a 3 year old, whereas in reality she was a few days off 4, who would in her opinion be unable to pull the curtains, slide the patio door, open the child gate and close it and open the gate to road and close it. According to KM she also found the bedroom shutters up, window open and curtains flapping which had all been left closed hence she will not entertain any other theory other than abduction.
Children do not open full length curtains. They find the gap and move along underneath so no problem there. KM does not say MM could not reach handles etc just in her opinion MM would not be able to slide the doors, open the gates and leave returning everything to its rightful place ie closed etc. However throughout the book she repeats numerous times MM was very intelligent, knowing and advanced for her years.
In my experience children are like sponges soaking up everything going on around and are far more knowing than many adults give them credit for. MM would undoubtedly observe what KM/GM did when leaving and could simply have copied. Why not if she is/was as intelligent as KM states in her book?
Has a child psychologist ever offered up opinion about any other aspect of this case?
May I ask if you are asserting you have experience/knowledge of child psychology?
-
How many have refused to answer police questions when made a suspect? Impossible to quantify again.
Career criminals spring to mind 'No comment'!
-
Is it possible/impossible MM opened the shutters/windows and climbed out? Is it possible/impossible MM left via the front door?
Was MM's height and arm measurements obtained to see if she was able to reach the height of handles?
The PJ archiving report says woke and wandered was highly unlikely... Not just unlikely but highly unlikely. Do they have evidence to support that... It would be interesting to know on what basis they made that statement
-
How many after a few days have launched a fund to pay for mainly legal expenditure. Another impossible to quantify.
And there are those among us who think my odds are crazy? We'll see about how crazy they are soon enough!
How many get a 1 to 1 with the pope? And get a free return flight to Vatican city courtesy of Philip Green's private jet? And have David Beckham and Christiano Ronaldo make appeals for their missing abducted child?
Lets get number crunching...
-
Is it possible/impossible MM opened the shutters/windows and climbed out? Is it possible/impossible MM left via the front door?
Was MM's height and arm measurements obtained to see if she was able to reach the height of handles?
The concept of path of least resistance is innate.
The patio door was open.
-
Is it possible/impossible MM opened the shutters/windows and climbed out? Is it possible/impossible MM left via the front door?
Was MM's height and arm measurements obtained to see if she was able to reach the height of handles?
If you comb the files and photos, you will find ...
Both Kate and Gerry's statements say MBM was 90cm. There was an inflatable put up on Luz beach describing her as 90cm.
I have an issue with that. Based on UK figures for girls turning 4, she should have been around 1.02m, even if she was petite.
Based on the same source, she should have weighed 12kg to 16kg, again even is she was petite.
The latter suggest the Tanner sighting was not MBM. Carrying 12 to 16kg in a crane posture is a back-breaker.
I have not yet breached Fortress Rothley to ascertain why 90cm was used. Guests, please note there is more than one innocent explanation for this.
-
Career criminals spring to mind 'No comment'!
Colin stagg was, another no comment when it was realised the police were trying to stitch him up
-
May I ask if you are asserting you have experience/knowledge of child psychology?
I did a psychology course back in the 80's which covered child development and have experience of my own now teenage and adult children which doesn't really make my opinions any more valid than anyone else's.
But I do think it would be helpful to have expert opinion from a qualified child psychologist. I'm about to do some ironing whilst I listen to a McCann docu I uploaded the other day - the dispatches C4 one - I recall a David Canter who from memory was some sort of criminal profiler/psychologist but I think what is required is an all out child psychologist maybe talking to those who knew MM not just her parents but the wider family, T7 etc to build up a picture of what she may well have done if she did wake up. Bearing in mind this was a different situation for her; normally if she woke at home and wanted her parents they were there. Here she was in a new environment where her parents were unavailable. According to Mrs Fenn and MM herself she did wake and her needs went unmet eg 'Where were you when Shaun and I were crying'. She has already learned if she needs her parents they are unavailable in this place so what does she do?
If this has not been done it begs the question why not?
-
How many after a few days have launched a fund to pay for mainly legal expenditure. Another impossible to quantify.
And there are those among us who think my odds are crazy? We'll see about how crazy they are soon enough!
I would tend to use probabilities. Associated with :-
Item
Dog Alerts
Wiped Cell Phone records
Inconsistent Statements
Deep Sleeping Twins
Refusing to Answer Questions
Refusing to do reconstruction
Leaving PDL quickly after saying would never leave
Excessive use of Litigation
Body Language
Unrestricted Fund
Smith Sighting
Crying in the Night
Leaving Twins for extended periods (plus to raise alarm)
-
The concept of path of least resistance is innate.
The patio door was open.
Unlocked but then she had to open the child gate and gate leading onto road all of which the McCanns said they closed and KM said she found closed at her 10pm check.
-
I would tend to use probabilities. Associated with :-
Item
Dog Alerts
Wiped Cell Phone records
Inconsistent Statements
Deep Sleeping Twins
Refusing to Answer Questions
Refusing to do reconstruction
Leaving PDL quickly after saying would never leave
Excessive use of Litigation
Body Language
Unrestricted Fund
Smith Sighting
Crying in the Night
Leaving Twins for extended periods (plus to raise alarm)
Then you have.. No real evidence against them
-
I did a psychology course back in the 80's which covered child development and have experience of my own now teenage and adult children which doesn't really make my opinions any more valid than anyone else's.
But I do think it would be helpful to have expert opinion from a qualified child psychologist. I'm about to do some ironing whilst I listen to a McCann docu I uploaded the other day - the dispatches C4 one - I recall a David Canter who from memory was some sort of criminal profiler/psychologist but I think what is required is an all out child psychologist maybe talking to those who knew MM not just her parents but the wider family, T7 etc to build up a picture of what she may well have done if she did wake up. Bearing in mind this was a different situation for her; normally if she woke at home and wanted her parents they were there. Here she was in a new environment where her parents were unavailable. According to Mrs Fenn and MM herself she did wake and her needs went unmet eg 'Where were you when Shaun and I were crying'. She has already learned if she needs her parents they are unavailable in this place so what does she do?
If this has not been done it begs the question why not?
*&(+(+
Please bear in mind that C4 documentary was done before the PJ Files were released, so a vast raft of information was unavailable to them then.
That aside, I remember it as a reasonable stab at getting the case across, based on contemporary information.
-
Then you have.. No real evidence against them
You have to consider that there has to be an innocent explanation for each anomaly to clear the McCanns.
-
You have to consider that there has to be an innocent explanation for each anomaly to clear the McCanns.
Pretty sure that's what Clarence told us anyway. 8(0(*
-
You have to consider that there has to be an innocent explanation for each anomaly to clear the McCanns.
I'm sure there is... I think everything there has been discussed at length
-
If you comb the files and photos, you will find ...
Both Kate and Gerry's statements say MBM was 90cm. There was an inflatable put up on Luz beach describing her as 90cm.
I have an issue with that. Based on UK figures for girls turning 4, she should have been around 1.02m, even if she was petite.
Based on the same source, she should have weighed 12kg to 16kg, again even is she was petite.
The latter suggest the Tanner sighting was not MBM. Carrying 12 to 16kg in a crane posture is a back-breaker.
I have not yet breached Fortress Rothley to ascertain why 90cm was used. Guests, please note there is more than one innocent explanation for this.
Arm reach/span does not always directly correlate with height but usually a good indicator. Yes 90 cm seems on the low side. GM seems about average height for a guy and KM taller than average female so you would expect MM to be at least average. I haven't seen any shorties in the wider family. In any event even at 90cm I don't see a problem with a child that height reaching up to door handles of average height?
I thought the Tanner sighting had been pretty much ruled out? Father and daughter identified by SY? Having now learned a bit more about the case I'm thinking the Tanner and Smith sightings were simply fathers carrying their children from MW creche facilities.
-
I would tend to use probabilities. Associated with :-
Item
Dog Alerts
Wiped Cell Phone records
Inconsistent Statements
Deep Sleeping Twins
Refusing to Answer Questions
Refusing to do reconstruction
Leaving PDL quickly after saying would never leave
Excessive use of Litigation
Body Language
Unrestricted Fund
Smith Sighting
Crying in the Night
Leaving Twins for extended periods (plus to raise alarm)
What does your 'Item' refer to or is this your list?
Can you expand on the wiped phone records?
Good point about the twins being left even momentarily having found MM gone. Maybe genuine traumatic reaction coupled with what she believes happened ie out the window and gone.
-
Arm reach/span does not always directly correlate with height but usually a good indicator. Yes 90 cm seems on the low side. GM seems about average height for a guy and KM taller than average female so you would expect MM to be at least average. I haven't seen any shorties in the wider family. In any event even at 90cm I don't see a problem with a child that height reaching up to door handles of average height?
I thought the Tanner sighting had been pretty much ruled out? Father and daughter identified by SY? Having now learned a bit more about the case I'm thinking the Tanner and Smith sightings were simply fathers carrying their children from MW creche facilities.
Maybe, but Smithman remains unaccounted for, even after intensive investigation
-
Arm reach/span does not always directly correlate with height but usually a good indicator. Yes 90 cm seems on the low side. GM seems about average height for a guy and KM taller than average female so you would expect MM to be at least average. I haven't seen any shorties in the wider family. In any event even at 90cm I don't see a problem with a child that height reaching up to door handles of average height?
I thought the Tanner sighting had been pretty much ruled out? Father and daughter identified by SY? Having now learned a bit more about the case I'm thinking the Tanner and Smith sightings were simply fathers carrying their children from MW creche facilities.
Tannerman was heading the wrong way re the OC creche.
Smithman was well outside the OC, so unlikely to be involved with the creche.
-
Was Colin Stagg's child missing believed snatched from her bed? There again, if we could know how many career criminals give no comment interviews and compare those with interviews of mother's of snatched from their bed children, we'd be able to factor those odds in. I doubt if we could quantify that number, the odds would go anyway other than up the way.
By the way, woke, wandered out and then was abducted by a stranger, is in the SAME odds as for 'abducted by a stranger' but I'm sure you already knew that. 8(0(*
What do we have to compare with..
How many other mother's whose child has disappeared in a foreign country who thinks the police are trying tofind evidence to arrrest her and has been advised by her lawyer not to answer questions. A police enquiry led by a detective who is, an arguido in another child disappearance...
Can we arrive at a number for that to compare with
-
The number of mothers of abducted children who refuse to answer police questions after being made a police suspect should suffice? I'm not holding out for that one.
We can't count Gerry in because unlike his wife, he ignored his lawyer's advice.
Doesn't really matter.. Your figures aren't of any significance
IMO Kate was right... Gerry was wrong
-
You may well be right, who am I to argue. We will just have to wait and see.
There's no danger of me sitting on any fence with odds like that. Btw, it was a three year old child we're talking about, don't be under the illusion I would like to see those odds be correct. But the odds are the odds, nothing I can do about them. They stick out like a sore thumb IMHO.
Good luck!
And they are completely wrong.. Imo
-
I hope so, for the child's sake but it's only fools who ignore the odds. We'll see when SY conclude their investigation if there's proof for stranger abduction? That's our only guide for the veracity of the odds.
No arrests, no charges and no convictions doesn't = stranger abduction in the odds!
I'd put abduction odds on...
-
Then Operation Grange is our guide. You can't claim to consider the odds in one hand AND completely ignore the NO arrests, NO charges and NO convictions in the other.
Time will tell and I hope you win.
I've explained many times... I'm confident
-
Of what exactly?
Of the fact that abduction is the most probable scenario
-
Jeezuz. What a load of old codswallop. No Arrests and No Charges. But never mind. Any minute now.
-
Show us where a child has ever woke and wandered without their body ever being discovered and we'll see what the odds say for woke and wandered in the same way we did for abduction by a stranger?
Ben Needham is thought to have wandered off so what are the odds of that happening? Furthermore what are the odds that it did happen versus parental involvement and abduction?
-
The only way the odds will EVER be wrong, whether they are Monkey's 57,000,000/1 or Professor McCann's 100,000,000/1, is if Operation Grange convicts an abductor.
Let's raise a glass to SY. ^*&&
If an abductor is convicted the odds as you have calculated them wouldn’t change.
-
Ben Needham is thought to have wandered off so what are the odds of that happening? Furthermore what are the odds that it did happen versus parental involvement and abduction?
Did he take his shorts with him?
-
You have to consider that there has to be an innocent explanation for each anomaly to clear the McCanns.
One of your items is a lie for a start.
-
Did he take his shorts with him?
Strange question.
-
Strange question.
According to reports I've read, Ben had wet himself & his grandmother washed his shorts & hung them out to dry.
The shorts, apparently, disappeared along with Ben.
-
According to reports I've read, Ben had wet himself & his grandmother washed his shorts & hung them out to dry.
The shorts, apparently, disappeared along with Ben.
Oh. Well in that case she must have done it.
-
Oh. Well in that case she must have done it.
Some toy cars went missing as well, apparently.
So either Ben took his stuff & did a runner, or the abductor had a fetish for toy cars & wet shorts as well as little boys.
-
Some toy cars went missing as well, apparently.
So either Ben took his stuff & did a runner, or the abductor had a fetish for toy cars & wet shorts as well as little boys.
So what are the odds he wandered off then? Must be at least a grillion to one on the basis of the shorts alone.
-
Does this mean Madeleine is the first British child to ever have been abducted by a stranger abroad? In that case it's every single child who has ever been abroad and never been abducted by a stranger/1.
See what I mean, whatever way you look at it, you're up the creek without a paddle. You're all in on the one.
Good luck! 8)-)))
She may well be. It’s a massively statistical improbability, but well, shit happens, and statistics can’t prevent it from happening.
-
Does this mean Madeleine is the first British child to ever have been abducted by a stranger abroad? In that case it's every single child who has ever been abroad and never been abducted by a stranger/1.
See what I mean, whatever way you look at it, you're up the creek without a paddle. You're all in on the one.
Good luck! 8)-)))
I cannot think of anything even remotely coherent to say.
-
I cannot think of anything even remotely coherent to say.
It would be interesting to know what Monkey thinks of the odds of Planet Earth being the only planet in the universe with intelligent life, and whether or not the odds are greater that Madeleine was abducted?
-
It would be interesting to know what Monkey thinks of the odds of Planet Earth being the only planet in the universe with intelligent life, and whether or not the odds are greater that Madeleine was abducted?
What Intelligent Life?
-
The PJ archiving report says woke and wandered was highly unlikely... Not just unlikely but highly unlikely. Do they have evidence to support that... It would be interesting to know on what basis they made that statement
Could they have had a discussion with Cheeky Monkey?
The odds of a woke and wandered or even an abduction might be greater than life forming on planet Earth. Truly amazing stuff.
-
The concept of path of least resistance is innate.
The patio door was open.
Nothing about this case is innate IMO.
-
Nothing about this case is innate IMO.
What does Innate mean, in this context?
-
Could they have had a discussion with Cheeky Monkey?
The odds of a woke and wandered or even an abduction might be greater than life forming on planet Earth. Truly amazing stuff.
Singing......"The chances of anything coming from Mars, are million to one, he said"
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YwFvmnbj3E
-
Does this mean Madeleine is the first British child to ever have been abducted by a stranger abroad? In that case it's every single child who has ever been abroad and never been abducted by a stranger/1.
See what I mean, whatever way you look at it, you're up the creek without a paddle. You're all in on the one.
Good luck! 8)-)))
Every time a UK child goes abroad is there a chance that it gets abducted. I don't see any special protection being applied to UK children.
So sooner or later a UK will be abducted. What is stopping it?
-
What does Innate mean, in this context?
"PHILOSOPHY
originating in the mind." You won't find the solution simply by using your mind.
-
That's exactly what he said. Well done.
Now I'm trying to decide if the known fact they waited for 41 minutes to report their daughter's abduction has any bearing on the calculable odds. Have you ever been burgled, found your daughter missing and waited 41 minutes to call the police.
Giving your daughter's abductor a 41 minute head start so to speak? You ever done that?
Singing......"The chances of any stranger abducting Madeleine, are fifty seven million to one, before you factor in the known facts in he said" @)(++(*
-
Singing......"The chances of any stranger abducting Madeleine, are fifty seven million to one, before you factor in the known facts in he said" @)(++(*
@)(++(* @)(++(*
-
I cannot think of anything even remotely coherent to say.
8)--))
-
What does Innate mean, in this context?
No doubt Rob Googled the literal meaning.
Good luck with that.
It's a quite simple concept; MM would have known the patio door was open, so no need to find another exit.
Even for a 3 year old, the 'innate' nature of time-saving and path of least resistance is strong.
Jesus.
-
What Intelligent Life?
@)(++(*
-
It would be even more interesting to know what the odds of Planet Earth being the only planet in the universe with intelligent life has to do with the odds of Madeleine McCann's abduction.
Well?
A massive statistical improbability does not mean it didn’t happen. We are all proof of that fact.
-
That's exactly what he said. Well done.
Now I'm trying to decide if the known fact they waited for 41 minutes to report their daughter's abduction has any bearing on the calculable odds. Have you ever been burgled, found your daughter missing and waited 41 minutes to call the police.
Giving your daughter's abductor a 41 minute head start so to speak? You ever done that?
This is a distortion of the Facts. You are at it again. Stop this now.
-
"PHILOSOPHY
originating in the mind." You won't find the solution simply by using your mind.
Oh Dear. That's all I ever do.
-
Madeleine being abducted by a stranger is the massive statistical improbability on this thread. There's no proof for that ONE. You still don't get it I see.
I doubt you, like some others are ever going to get the hang of the odds, but just as long as you keep coming back and proving it, I'll keep on plugging away.
Madeleine being abducted by a stranger is highly likely... You just won't listen to reason
-
Madeleine being abducted by a stranger is the massive statistical improbability on this thread. There's no proof for that ONE. You still don't get it I see.
I doubt you, like some others are ever going to get the hang of the odds, but just as long as you keep coming back and proving it, I'll keep on plugging away.
What bit don’t I get? I think it’s you who doesn’t get it. Madeleine has disappeared. There are only three possible explanations. This makes abduction statistically far more probable than the odds you would calculate for any random child on h9liday abroad, unless you can show the odds for the other two explanations and how you arrived at them. Until you do then it’s clear to me that you’re the one thst still doesn’t get it.
-
Every time a UK child goes abroad is there a chance that it gets abducted. I don't see any special protection being applied to UK children.
So sooner or later a UK child will be abducted. What is stopping it?
This is what Operation Grange is all about, to me.
It is not possible to physically protect every British Child 24/7, but you sure as hell can let these persons know that they will be hunted.
Too much time was lost in early days on this case. This won't be allowed to happen if this occurs again. Which Country won't come into it. Unless they wish to be seen as protectors of child abductors.
-
What bit don’t I get? I think it’s you who doesn’t get it. Madeleine has disappeared. There are only three possible explanations for each. This makes abduction statistically far more probable than the odds you would calculate for any random child on h9liday abroad, unless you can show the odds for the other two explanations and how you arrived at them. Until you do then it’s clear to me that you’re the one thst still doesn’t get it.
Precisely... I don't think monkey is even listening to what anyone else says he's Si convinced he's right
-
Precisely... I don't think monkey is even listening to what anyone else says he's Si convinced he's right
IMO he is living up to his forum name and making a monkey of himself.
-
No doubt Rob Googled the literal meaning.
Good luck with that.
It's a quite simple concept; MM would have known the patio door was open, so no need to find another exit.
Even for a 3 year old, the 'innate' nature of time-saving and path of least resistance is strong.
Jesus.
It is strong in me, and always has been. I wish I could say the same for my 52 year old son.
No, he is not stupid, but logistics is not his strong suit, nor that of everyone.
-
I will listen if you ever decide show me your workings, I've showed you mine. Without them your reason will always be nothing but nonsense. I'm not listening to nonsense if that's what you mean.
Listen to this then and tell me what is wrong..
All three options need to add up to 100%
Could you... Using your methods.. Give me the odds of parental involvement and woke and wandered
-
It is strong in me, and always has been. I wish I could say the same for my 52 year old son.
No, he is not stupid, but logistics is not his strong suit, nor that of everyone.
The ability to rail against these instincts is a commodity found in high achievers / leaders, as they tend to be tenacious and driven.
-
I will listen if you ever decide show me your workings, I've showed you mine. Without them your reason will always be nothing but nonsense. I'm not listening to nonsense if that's what you mean.
Your odds are for whether Madeleine would be abducted before her disappearance.... They are not the odds that she was abducted once she had disappeared
-
Precisely... I don't think monkey is even listening to what anyone else says he's Si convinced he's right
Personally, I think Cheeky Monkey is pulling our legs.
-
That's the bit you're only too willing to demonstrate a complete lack understanding of the odds. The odds only offer TWO possibilities. (ALL the other possibilities/ONE stranger abduction).
You're doing a fine job of proving you'r not the sharpest tool in the box. This is about the ODDS of Madeleine being abducted remember. TWO possibilities, not three. She either WAS abducted by a stranger or she WASN'T in the odds. That's a fact.
Are you talking about Madeline being abducted when she went on holiday.... Or the odds that she was abducted on the night of 3/5
-
The ability to rail against these instincts is a commodity found in high achievers / leaders, as they tend to be tenacious and driven.
Spot on. My son doesn't care about being a high achiever. He would much rather be your friend and forgive your sins.
He thinks that I am mad. However, I do have to say that he wouldn't make a good Moderator. This Site would fast degenerate into total chaos without my tenacity.
-
That's the bit you're only too willing to demonstrate a complete lack understanding of the odds. The odds only offer TWO possibilities. (ALL the other possibilities/ONE stranger abduction).
You're doing a fine job of proving you'r not the sharpest tool in the box. This is about the ODDS of Madeleine being abducted remember. TWO possibilities, not three. She either WAS abducted by a stranger or she WASN'T in the odds. That's a fact.
Do you agree with the principle that there are two sets of odds here
1) the odds that Madeleine would be abducted.
2) the odds that Madeleine actually was abducted.
If not kindly explain why you reject this principle.
-
He isn't, he's letting them all pull their own legs. @)(++(*
I think your Odds are bordering on insane. Unfortunately, I have to read them.
-
Personally, I think Cheeky Monkey is pulling our legs.
Apparently he’s deadly serious, which is somewhat worrying!
-
If it's the known facts I used for my calculation and you're all in on the one stranger abduction, I can seed why you're worried.
I don't blame you.
Do you agree with the principle that there are two sets of odds here
1) the odds that Madeleine would be abducted.
2) the odds that Madeleine actually was abducted.
If not kindly explain why you reject this princip
-
You got it, TWO possibilities in the odds. (&^&
1. That's what the odds are offered on.
2. When you PROVE that's what DID happen the odds have come up.
Praise the lord. &%54%
That's not happened yet.
You have not answered my question.
-
Read through the thread Davel, I have tried. I'm not responsible for your own and the other's failure to understand the concept of odds. All the other odds/One stranger abduction. Thats the odds, end of. Two possibilities, not three. Stick to head and tails I told you on more than one occasion but still you refuse to listen.
The maths is the maths, I'm not responsible for creating it.
You are calling people thick now.... I think we've been very kind to you.
-
It's yourself you have failed to be kind to IMO. Even you admitted Madeleine McCann was the ONE in 45,000,000.
Remember?
She was the one... If the odds are ten million to one... And ten million children go on holiday... The chances of it happening to one are extremely high... Madeleine unfortunately was the one
-
I used to back Horses from time to time. I always went for Greys because I like the look of them, and more often than not they did win. But not always. The Odds were irrelevant to me. I caught a couple when the Odds were really good.
I once stated my preference in a Private Member's Box, in my hay days when I had access to such, and every idiot in the Box raced off to back The Grey. Fortunately, it won, and I became a legend on Racing Form without the vaguest idea of what I was doing.
Now, Dog Racing is another thing altogether, being the bent of The Working Classes, of which I remain one, no matter how hard I try to pretend otherwise. But I know Dogs, so I tended to win at that as well under entirely different opinions. And No, I never bothered with The Odds then either.
Thank God there isn't a Dog Track around here.
-
The dog did only pick the ONE apartment of all those it searched.
There is a dog track in here. 6/1 actually.
My mate's old boy used to be a bookie and he has a thing for backing horses with TWO (a)s in their name. He's not a skint old bookie by any means.
My dad gave me one piece of advice,never go into a bookies,you'll come out poorer that you went in,to this day I never have and have never laid a bet.
-
The dog did only pick the ONE apartment of all those it searched.
There is a dog track in here. 6/1 actually.
My mate's old boy used to be a bookie and he has a thing for backing horses with TWO (a)s in their name. He's not a skint old bookie by any means.
Sadly, The Odds against Eddie were Odds On to fail. He wasn't ever a proper Cadaver Dog. Too many tricks already learned.
You might be able to teach an old dog new tricks, but you will never teach it to forget old tricks. Which was the problem.
Now, my dog is a Badger Hunter, despite the fact that he has never so much a even sniffed one, but he could find a Badger if there ever is one. You should see the state of my lovely Lawn. O'Connor will be Down Under with Rob before much longer.
Can you watch out for him, Rob? He's a rotten little swine, but such a sweet thing.
-
My dad gave me one piece of advice,never go into a bookies,you'll come out poorer that you went in,to this day I never have and have never laid a bet.
What fun you have missed.
-
As long as you keep it small it can be great fun, even if you lose. The abduction supporters should have taken your father's advice IMO. It's too late now, they've placed their bet and they're all in on the ONE.
This thread is not the bookie's odds, it's about the real ones. That's why they are up the creek without a paddle. They'll never get their odds back.
You think? I wouldn't bet on that one.
-
Both you and VS agreed that you both believe that Madeleine was the first UK child to be abducted by a stranger abroad since Ben Needham, giving you odds of Madeline being abducted by a stranger of:
(all the children who went abroad between 1989 and 2007 and weren't abducted/to the ONE child (Madeleine, who you both believe was). The chances of her being abducted are low very low indeed BUT there is always the ONE.
Madeleine being abducted has to be that one. I'm quite happy for you to view MATHEMATICALLY very LOW odds as extremely high. I'll let the maths do the talking.
Kindly refrain from not telling the truth. You do NOT know if she was the one or not. That is a FACT!
If you were as smart as you claim to be you would have seen I've said abduction is one if three possibilities. ..not that it's, a certainty... You obviously don't understand the facts if you think I have stated abduction is a certainty... That's a massive fail by you
-
We don't know if he failed and we don't know if the alerts were false.
We DO KNOW there were seven apartments searched in total and he ONLY alerted to ONE = 6/1. 8((()*/
We don't know if The Alerts were False. What odds on that?
My opinion of Grime is no longer acceptable on this Forum.
-
You understand the odds of abduction I'm slowly learning. I bet you wouldn't. 8(0(*
I probably knew more about Odds before you were born. It's a massive miracle that I wasn't bombed out of existence. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time. What Odds on that?
And then there was Glasgow. What a joy that was. And I never met anyone like you.
-
Because we can't prove they were false we can't put odds on that.
The dog DID search 7 properties and DID only alert to ONE of them. The odds are 6/1 that it would be the McCann's or any of the others. It could have searched seven and alerted to two. The odds in that case would be 5/2.
Of the seven properties, it only chose the family of the ONE missing child. FACT! 6/1!
You carry on with that delusion, and ignore anything that might suggest otherwise. It matters not to me.
Bring me an Arrest and Charge of The McCanns. Otherwise your Odds are nonsense.
-
If you're older than me the odds are that you did.
You'd have to know how many bombs and how many homes got hit? Get those figures and I'll tell you the odds?
My home was obliterated one week after my mother took me and moved in with her mother. The only house in the street to have a direct hit. What odds on that?
-
Then we have ONE week with ONE house being directly hit.
How many weeks were in the war and how many houses were in the street? Calculating those odds will be easy if you can give us the answers? I've got things to do now but I will give you the odds of just how lucky you were if you can give us those answers later on.
If you were staying in a house that was the only ONE to be obliterated ONE week after moving out, you are a very lucky lady whatever the odds. It will only go to show, there's always the ONE. 8(0(*
I don't have the time or patience to provide you with any further information. And Yes, I do know that I was very lucky. No Odds to that.
-
As another weekend approaches can I ask everyone to please follow the forum rules. The hard pressed moderators do an excellent job in keeping things moving so do consider them next time you feel you need to have a go at someone.
Let's try and set a new record this weekend by drastically cutting the number of moderated posts. As an incentive, the prize for the member whose has the most posts moderated/deleted over Saturday and Sunday will be a two day ban.
Happy posting!
-
Madeleine being abducted by a stranger is highly likely... You just won't listen to reason
Mainly because Cheeky Monkey's calculations are all wrong as I have explained multiple times.
-
Mainly because the calculations are all wrong as I have explained on multiple times.
Are you accusing my calculations of being wrong... Surely not
-
Listen to this then and tell me what is wrong..
All three options need to add up to 100%
Could you... Using your methods.. Give me the odds of parental involvement and woke and wandered
Cheeky Monkey has already ruled out woke and wandered so parental involvement must be the bulk of the 100%
-
Your odds are for whether Madeleine would be abducted before her disappearance.... They are not the odds that she was abducted once she had disappeared
I would not even make that allowance.
-
It's mathematically impossible to have three possibilities in the odds Dave. That's a fact.
There is no third option EVER. She either was abducted or she wasn't. It's an odds thread. And you haven't yet showed me an example of a child waking wandering and never being found for 12 years making it impossible to calculate odds on. I have told you that too, but you refuse to listen.
Each horse in a race has it own odds. Odds of winning. 10/1 to me means the bookie will pay out $10 for every dollar I place on the bet if that particular horse won.
So you can have the odds for abduction and the odds for woke and wandered, or parental involvement.
-
Do you agree with the principle that there are two sets of odds here
1) the odds that Madeleine would be abducted.
2) the odds that Madeleine actually was abducted.
If not kindly explain why you reject this principle.
I don't believe you can put Madeleine's name in (1).
-
What fun you have missed.
Far from it,my life is not lacking because I don't gamble,"a fool and his money" is not on my resumé.
-
Because we can't prove they were false we can't put odds on that.
The dog DID search 7 properties and DID only alert to ONE of them. The odds are 6/1 that it would be the McCann's or any of the others. It could have searched seven and alerted to two. The odds in that case would be 5/2.
Of the seven properties, it only chose the family of the ONE missing child. FACT! 6/1!
So what! Unless you can explain why they did alert, it has no factual value.
-
Are you accusing my calculations of being wrong... Surely not
I've edited that post to now read "Mainly because Cheeky Monkey's calculations are all wrong as I have explained multiple times."
-
I've edited that post to now read "Mainly because Cheeky Monkey's calculations are all wrong as I have explained multiple times."
Many thanks
-
There are NEVER two set of different odds ever offered on what would happen in any ONE event and what actually DID happen in that event. It's ONE set of odds on what could happen that ONLY come up if that event DOES actually happen. It's still only ONE set of odds.
Get it yet?
No. You are wrong. There are two sets of odds here. If I may be permitted to use an example unrelated to this case to demonstrate.
Your odds of being being run over are 1000 to one every time you cross the road (I made up the figure, it doesn’t really matter what that figure actually is for this example).
You are discovered unconscious and bleeding heavily from a head wound in the middle of the road. What are the odds that you were run over? 1000 to one also? Just answer yes or no please and then we’ll take it from there.
-
Then your odds of being run over are 1000/1? One set!
Are you suggesting Madeleine was abducted TWO TIMES? *%87
That's the ONLY way you'd have TWO sets of odds for Madeleine being abducted by a stranger abroad.
Oh dear, back to the drawing board for Vertigo Swirl. @)(++(*
So you cannot answer my question with a simple yes or no. Why not?
-
Then your odds of being run over are 1000/1? One set!
Are you suggesting Madeleine was abducted TWO TIMES? *%87
That's the ONLY way you'd have TWO sets of odds for Madeleine being abducted by a stranger abroad.
Oh dear, back to the drawing board for Vertigo Swirl. @)(++(*
Sorry. everyone thinks that you are making this up as you go along.
-
Then your odds of being run over are 1000/1? One set!
Are you suggesting Madeleine was abducted TWO TIMES? *%87
That's the ONLY way you'd have TWO sets of odds for Madeleine being abducted by a stranger abroad.
Oh dear, back to the drawing board for Vertigo Swirl. @)(++(*
It's almost painful reading to your posts... Read VS spost again.. The odds of you being run over.. Future tense... Are different to the odds that you were runover... Past tense..
That's what VS is pointing out to you but you seem blind to the facts in the case
-
It's almost painful reading to your posts... Read VS spost again.. The odds of you being run over.. Future tense... Are different to the odds that you were runover... Past tense..
That's what VS is pointing out to you but you seem blind to the facts in the case
"None so blind as those who will not see"
-
I did, because you don't like it, that's just two bad. If YOU say the odds of getting knocked down in ONE event are 1000/1 then you MUST have factored in the possibility that someone could be discovered unconscious and bleeding heavily from a head wound in the middle of the road BEFOREHAND. Otherwise YOU have got your ONE set of odds WRONG. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
We are talking about the ONE set of odds on Madeleine being abducted by a stranger abroad.
I have factored numerous things to ALTER the odds on a stranger abducting Madeleine abroad BUT they'll always be the ONE set of odds for the ONE event.
Do you think Madeleine was abducted TWICE? Just answer yes or no please and then we’ll take it from there. @)(++(*
No I don’t think she was abducted twice. Now you answer my question in a similar straight forward manner please. That’s your challenge for the day.
-
That's the bit you just don't get, do you? I'm giving you the odds for what WE KNOW DID HAPPEN. So you'll NEVER get much more accurate odds than that. NEVER. Don't you like accurate odds?
We are told an abductor DID abduct Madeleine.
We know a cadaver dog DID pick ONE apartment of the SEVEN it searched.
We know an abductor DID pick the ONE unlocked apartment of a possible FOUR.
We know an abductor DID pick the ONE child of the THREE NOT confined to a cot.
You will never be able to alter the odds of WHAT WE KNOW DID HAPPEN. That's a fact.
Unless it didn't happen at all. You can alter them then. 8((()*/
We know an abductor took Madeleine now do we? OK.
-
That's the ONE, REMEMBER.
That's what we're all waiting to find out. ?>)()<
Nope. Complete nonsense. Sorry.
-
1000/1 YOU said for getting knocked down ONCE. I'll let you answer it, you already have. 8(0(*
just answer my question yes or no, it surely isn’t that difficult is it?
-
Here it is again
Your odds of being being run over are 1000 to one every time you cross the road (I made up the figure, it doesn’t really matter what that figure actually is for this example).
You are discovered unconscious and bleeding heavily from a head wound in the middle of the road. What are the odds that you were run over? 1000 to one also?
-
You're saying the odds are 1000/1. Are they ONE set of odds for 1000/1 or Not. A simple yes or no please?
Yes - in actual facts the odds of being run over and killed each time a person crosses the road are 300 million to one. That’s the odds of it happening on any given road crossing.
so.
You come across a person dead in the road, legs akimbo, blood everywhere. What are the odds that they were run over? 300 mlllion to one? What would the police conclude, before making any further investigation? Would they rule out a hit and run because the odds are 300 million to one of it hapoening to a person on any one road crossing?
https://blogs.dnvgl.com/oilgas/safety/what-is-the-risk-of-crossing-the-road/
-
Seemples really tch. *%87. Fair to deduce that the odds regardless of exact number are astronomical. Which is the actual point of evaluation of the Q.
I think the argument is that because the odds are so high it must have been the parents wot dunnit.
-
It doesn't mean that at all. It just means stranger abduction abroad HAS TO represent the ONE in the odds IF you believe that's the ONE thing that happened. She can only be abducted once, agreed? Only Scotland Yard can factor that ONE in. Be patient. Madeleine might just be that 1 in every 4.25 billion (my odds with KNOWN FACTS and calculations).
Or the first since the last UK child to be abducted abroad. Take your pick. 8)-)))
You never did give me a straightforward answer to my question. 8(8-))
-
Every single answer I've given you is a straightforward one to those folk who understand the true concept of the odds. It's an odds thread, so I make no apologies for other's lack of understanding, including your own. 8(0(*
You refused to answer yes or no, a question which can very easily be answered yes or no. Try it. I bet you can’t. 8(0(*
-
1. Ben Needham goes missing/stranger abduction 1989.
2. Madeleine McCann next goes missing/stranger abduction 2007.
3. Cadaver dog searches SEVEN apartments and only alerts to ONE, the McCann ONE.
4. Of the FOUR families the abductor picks the ONE family who leave ONE door unlocked.
5. The abductor then chooses to abduct the ONE child of the THREE not confined to a cot.
If anyone is making that lot up, it certainly is NOT me.
Who cares what everyone thinks, it's what me and the facts think, that count. 8(0(*
What does this line mean? "2. Madeleine McCann next goes missing/stranger abduction 2007."
-
That's the bit you just don't get, do you? I'm giving you the odds for what WE KNOW DID HAPPEN. So you'll NEVER get much more accurate odds than that. NEVER. Don't you like accurate odds?
We are told an abductor DID abduct Madeleine.
We know a cadaver dog DID pick ONE apartment of the SEVEN it searched.
We know an abductor DID pick the ONE unlocked apartment of a possible FOUR.
We know an abductor DID pick the ONE child of the THREE NOT confined to a cot.
You will never be able to alter the odds of WHAT WE KNOW DID HAPPEN. That's a fact.
Unless it didn't happen at all. You can alter them then. 8((()*/
Do you accept that "an abductor DID abduct Madeleine" as a fact?
For you seem to be using that as a fact in your baseline calculation (time period between Ben and Madeleine)
-
Do you accept that "an abductor DID abduct Madeleine" as a fact?
It would seem from that post that he does. Bless him. &%54%
-
Do you accept that "an abductor DID abduct Madeleine" as a fact?
For you seem to be using that as a fact in your baseline calculation (time period between Ben and Madeleine)
Who is Ben please.
-
You refused to answer yes or no, a question which can very easily be answered yes or no. Try it. I bet you can’t. 8(0(*
What were the odds of that bet?
-
What were the odds of that bet?
2-1.
-
Who is Ben please.
Ben Needham IIRC. He went missing in Cyprus IIRC.
-
Ben Needham IIRC. He went missing in Cyprus IIRC.
Professional police opinion is that he died in a accident, so no abduction. Greece actually Rob.
"It is my professional belief that Ben Needham died as a result of an accident near to the farmhouse in Iraklis where he was last seen playing.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/ben-needham-was-killed-in-accident-near-farmhouse-say-police/
-
Professional police opinion is that he died in a accident, so no abduction. Greece actually Rob.
"It is my professional belief that Ben Needham died as a result of an accident near to the farmhouse in Iraklis where he was last seen playing.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/ben-needham-was-killed-in-accident-near-farmhouse-say-police/
Fair enough, but it was Ben and Madeleine that were being used by Cheeky Monkey (CM) as a way of establishing a rate for abducted kids. So was CM wrong to use Ben Needham?
-
Professional police opinion is that he died in a accident, so no abduction. Greece actually Rob.
"It is my professional belief that Ben Needham died as a result of an accident near to the farmhouse in Iraklis where he was last seen playing.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/ben-needham-was-killed-in-accident-near-farmhouse-say-police/
Professional Opinion. They don't actually know. No Body was found.
-
Professional Opinion. They don't actually know. No Body was found.
Well the search stopped.
-
Fair enough, but it was Ben and Madeleine that were being used by Cheeky Monkey (CM) as a way of establishing a rate for abducted kids. So was CM wrong to use Ben Needham?
I couldn't possibly comment.
-
Well the search stopped.
So what are the odds of a toddler wandering off and never being seen again?
-
I couldn't possibly comment.
It is a forum where you are allowed to comment.
-
So what are the odds of a toddler wandering off and never being seen again?
It clearly happens.
-
It is a forum where you are allowed to comment.
Not a fan of yes minister then.
-
It is a forum where you are allowed to comment.
Indeed. but only if you choose to.
-
It clearly happens.
It does, but it’s incredibly rare, therefore the odds must be billions to one.
-
It clearly happens.
A wandering child is a vulnerable child. There was a notable Australian case. Forgot the name sorry.
-
It does, but it’s incredibly rare, therefore the odds must be billions to one.
It can't be ruled out, can it?
-
It can't be ruled out, can it?
No, and neither can stranger abduction, I’m sure you agree.
-
Indeed. but only if you choose to.
But the reason given was "I couldn't possibly comment". That didn't read as if he chose not to comment.
-
But the reason given was "I couldn't possibly comment". That didn't read as if he chose not to comment.
He couldn’t possibly comment because if he did comment honestly about Monkey’s posts he would be perceived as being disloyal to a fellow sceptic. IMO.
-
No, and neither can stranger abduction, I’m sure you agree.
as opposed to "a toddler wandering off and never being seen again". That must be the accidental death resulting in a well hidden body situation.
What I'm picking it wandering off and followed by "stranger or someone known to the family abduction".
-
He couldn’t possibly comment because if he did comment honestly about Monkey’s posts he would be perceived as being disloyal to a fellow sceptic. IMO.
I couldn't possibly comment on that.
-
as opposed to "a toddler wandering off and never being seen again". That must be the accidental death resulting in a well hidden body situation.
What I'm picking it wandering off and followed by "stranger or someone known to the family abduction".
Have you abandoned the practical joke theory?
-
Have you abandoned the practical joke theory?
Ah yes, the old 'hide the child' ruse, cracking everyone up.
-
A wandering child is a vulnerable child. There was a notable Australian case. Forgot the name sorry.
...and
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/the-case-i-cant-forget-former-detective-878371 (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/the-case-i-cant-forget-former-detective-878371)
-
Well the search stopped.
Before they found the body?
-
Before they found the body?
Was a body to be found after 25 yrs? remnants at best imo.
-
Was a body to be found after 25 yrs? remnants at best imo.
So they only think he is dead.
-
So they only think he is dead.
Professional opinion.I think Kerry accepted it as much.
-
You've not ruled it out, it's the only ONE you believe in. That's all that counts in the odds. What YOU believe in.
ALL the other odds of all those millions and millions of children who managed to go on holiday and not get abducted is where my odds are.
Good luck! 8)-)))
%77*
-
For those who missed this earlier...
As another weekend approaches can I ask everyone to please follow the forum rules. The hard pressed moderators do an excellent job in keeping things moving so do consider them next time you feel you need to have a go at someone.
Let's try and set a new record this weekend by drastically cutting the number of moderated posts. As an incentive, the prize for the member whose has the most posts moderated/deleted over Saturday and Sunday will be a two day ban.
Happy posting!
-
Professional opinion.I think Kerry accepted it as much.
You Think?
-
Are we having second thoughts about the ONE stranger abduction are we. ^*&&
A toddler wandering off and never being seen again AND every other possibility/YOUR ONE !
That's the odds as far as your ONE is concerned. Still don't get it. Tut tut!
What exactly is it you believe I think?
-
Well I did believe you thought Madeleine McCann was the first British child to be abducted abroad since Ben Needham because that's what you agreed to earlier in the thread. Have you changed your mind about that?
No, so...what am I not getting?
-
You Think?
Ok then,K Needham,the lads mother believes so why you can't accept it between you and your conscience.
THE mum of missing toddler Ben Needham now believes that her son's body was hidden in an oil drum after he was killed.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8812779/missing-ben-needhams-mum-fears-toddler-was-dumped-in-an-oil-drum-in-greece/
-
Have you abandoned the practical joke theory?
No, of course not. You obviously have not understood what my theory states. One can plan to play a joke on someone but the whole thing goes awry from a certain point due to unforeseen complications.
The following are the sort of questions I've had to deal with?
Could they predict that burglars would attempt a break in to the apartment?
Was Matt really aware that "all was quiet", and what that quietness meant? Where was Madeleine at his visit?
What would Madeleine do if another "stranger" (other than Matt) appeared in the apartment while she was awake?
Would she not escape via the front door if some man, other than her father, was entering the patio door?
-
You're not getting the fact that you may get different odds on what CAN happen but the odds on what DID happen are EXACT. We're talking about what DID happen to Madeleine not which horse is going to win the next race at Ascot. That's one set of odds that we know about exactly because it has happened. There's nothing you, me or anyone else can do about that fact.
But there's always the one, without proof of what DID happen your ONE means nothing in the odds. FACT!
We know she's ONE abducted child because it DID happen.
We know a cadaver dog MISTAKENLYchose her family's ONE property over all the others because it DID happen.
We know an abductor had to pick the ONE unlocked apartment over all the others because it DID happen.
We know an abductor chose the ONE child not confined to a cot over all the others because it DID happen.
You can say we don't know and that's true. But for your ONE to come in to the odds, ALL those things have to be true.
Ignore the odds at your peril, don't say you haven't been warned.
Great. We’re in agreement then. Despite the huge odds we know Madeleine was abducted. Progress.
-
Who's a clever boy then? ?>)()<
You have altered my post in your quote. That is against forum rules and I shall be reporting it.
-
Sorry for inserting the word “DON’T” into your post when I quoted it. It was very cheeky of me, please forgive me
OK.
-
No I haven't, you're clearly imagining things. @)(++(*
Edited at 10.35pm by yourself after I reported it. Sly and sneaky.
-
OK.
Touche.
-
Let's get back to the good stuff, these HUGE ODDS you talk about. Given the HUGE ODDS what would make the innocent parents of an abducted girl delete their call logs before the police got their phones.? Any suggestions.?
The key to this facet of the case is this; were they aware of the data preservation that phone providers maintain?
You may still try to delete 'incriminating' calls, but surely they would know there's an imprint held elsewhere.
I'd personally be banjaxed if I tried to explain my call log.
-
Cheeky, You’re beyond reason. &^&*%
-
You have altered my post in your quote. That is against forum rules and I shall be reporting it.
It must have been restored to the original again.
-
It must have been restored to the original again.
He removed the offending word that he had inserted in my post once I told him I was reporting it, then attempted to gaslight me.
-
At first you were funny... But calling people liars when they are telling the truth isn't funny.. You have become more than a bit of a bore
I was only quoting CM who has repeatedly claimed on this thread “we know Madeleine was abducted “. I think his plot may have woke and wandered tbh.
-
Does the truth break forum rules Eleanor?
Yes, if you can't prove it, and if it is insulting. Which your comments often are.
-
I can prove it. One set of possibilities/to the other set. Where do you put these exciting and intelligent folks third set? Unless you can answer it, there's your proof!
Sorry, I meant if it ISN'T insulting, which your comments often are. I decide if your comment won't do.
However, I do have to say that you aren't quite as bad as you were.
-
Under John's latest directive, I am trying really hard not to sanction the comments of anyone, because I don't want anyone to be banned for two days.
Take Note.
-
I can prove it. One set of possibilities/to the other set. Where do you put these exciting and intelligent folks third set? Unless you can answer it, there's your proof!
Of course some of us know the difference between the odds of an event and the probabilities of different events.
-
Some of us know there's only TWO possibilities in the odds NOT three. That's the point!
I understand that.
-
I understand that.
Then you understand Cheeky Monkey’s odds which put the likelihood that Madeleine was abducted at 4.25 billion to one. Do you agree with this assessment?
-
Under John's latest directive, I am trying really hard not to sanction the comments of anyone, because I don't want anyone to be banned for two days.
Take Note.
I can think of one member who's heading over that particular cliff. @)(++(*
-
They don't have to agree with my odds, no one does, the result is the ONLY thing that will determine their accuracy but they do understand the fundamental principle that three can't be squeezed into two, no matter what you try to do.
All the other odds/VS's ONE stranger abduction.
Who cares who agrees? You just keep up the good work. @)(++(*
Please moderate your language Cheeky Monkey and abide by the forum protocols.
-
That's the bit you just don't get, do you? I'm giving you the odds for what WE KNOW DID HAPPEN. So you'll NEVER get much more accurate odds than that. NEVER. Don't you like accurate odds?
We are told an abductor DID abduct Madeleine.
We know a cadaver dog DID pick ONE apartment of the SEVEN it searched.
We know an abductor DID pick the ONE unlocked apartment of a possible FOUR.
We know an abductor DID pick the ONE child of the THREE NOT confined to a cot.
You will never be able to alter the odds of WHAT WE KNOW DID HAPPEN. That's a fact.
Unless it didn't happen at all. You can alter them then. 8((()*/
Monkey, see above.
-
What is there to moderate, it's the truth?
Since when did it become forum protocol for members to post down right lies about other members, uh?
VS: I was only quoting CM who has repeatedly claimed on this thread “we know Madeleine was abducted “. I think his plot may have woke and wandered tbh.
What about moderating that heap of who flung dung, uh?
I would say the facts of the case make abduction highly likeley
-
I would say the facts of the case make abduction highly likeley
Odds on favourite in fact.
-
Odds on favourite in fact.
On whose terms,Do Carmo isn't of that opinion,
-
On whose terms,Do Carmo isn't of that opinion,
How do you know... What's his opinion
-
On whose terms,Do Carmo isn't of that opinion,
Go into any bookies office and ask them.
-
Go into any bookies office and ask them.
Could someone actually do that and report back to the forum please?
-
Could someone actually do that and report back to the forum please?
I did this. Just managed to nip in before they closed. They said 'what?'
-
I did this. Just managed to nip in before they closed. They said 'what?'
So are the bookies not taking bets on Madeleine McCann being found?
-
Whatever the odds you're all in the ONE.
Would you be willing to take a bet at the odds you have calculated?
Try Willie Hill and you'll get 4.25 billion to one.
I'll put a pound on that.
-
I would say the facts of the case make abduction highly likeley
Don't know about these facts but there isn't a scrap of evidence to support abduction from the apartment, in fact the opposite is true. Lifted from the street outside dead or alive is much more likely and supported by real evidence.
-
Don't know about these facts but there isn't a scrap of evidence to support abduction from the apartment, in fact the opposite is true. Lifted from the street outside dead or alive is much more likely and supported by real evidence.
I agree.
-
Gerry McCann: "If you think about the millions and millions of British families who go to the Mediterranean each year, really the chances of this happening are in the order of 100 million to one."
FACTS OF THE CASE
7 apartments the dog DID pick ONE =6/1 100,000,000 x 6 = 600,000,000 + Gerry's 100,000,000 = 700,000,000.
4 apartments the abductor picked the ONE unlocked one = 3/1. 3 x 700,000,000 = 2,100,000,000 + 700,000,000 = 2,800,000,000.
3 children ONE abducted not confined to a cot = 2/1. 2 x 2,800,000,000 = 5,600,000,000 + 2,800,000,000 = 8,400,000,000.
Use Gerry's odds if you like. But SY are closing in on the ONE as we speak so I'd get into Willie Hill's now if I were you.
Could you do that for me please? I'll pay you back out of the winnings.
-
4.25 billion to your ONE.
https://www.quora.com/Statistically-speaking-what-most-likely-happened-to-Madeleine-McCann
*%87
-
Winnings? You'll get them at the end, not before. 8(0(*
I'm gonna leave you lot to it, you have my odds. I'll be sure to pop back in if they come up.
You can be even more sure I'll pop back in when they don't come up.
8)-)))
Did you put a pound on for me before you go? Cheers - thanks for your efforts to educate us about "odds".
-
I gave up on that bit with you 20 pages ago. Impossible! But I did stick a tenner on the abductor's nose on your your behalf. No each ways.
I'll be sure to see you, VS and Davel at the finishing line! &^&*%
How many times have you waved goodbye on this thread?
-
I gave up on that bit with you 20 pages ago. Impossible! But I did stick a tenner on the abductor's nose on your your behalf. No each ways.
I'll be sure to see you, VS and Davel at the finishing line! &^&*%
Keep the proof of placing the bet.
-
Amongst the discussion on odds relative to children abducted in Europe in the past 19yrs, I wonder if the figures amongst refugee children missing/abducted has wagered into this factor? Just a thought?
https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/articles/2017/07/20/no-one-is-counting-europes-missing-refugee-children
-
Amongst the discussion on odds relative to children abducted in Europe in the past 19yrs, I wonder if the figures amongst refugee children missing/abducted has wagered into this factor? Just a thought?
https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/articles/2017/07/20/no-one-is-counting-europes-missing-refugee-children
I often give a great deal of thought to the countless displaced, orphaned,exploited and bartered child slaves which is our worldwide legacy.
-
I often give a great deal of thought to the countless displaced, orphaned,exploited and bartered child slaves which is our worldwide legacy.
As I often do. Just kind of struck me that the basis of figures was highlighted amongst the main factors of thought, displacing those we often forget to include.
-
I often give a great deal of thought to the countless displaced, orphaned,exploited and bartered child slaves which is our worldwide legacy.
Me too.
Horrific, how so many have vanished'
Good to know that others are concerned.
It doesn't bear thinking about, does it ?
But I have been thinking over a number of years ... and have one idea at least, with a small sprinkling of pointers but not enough to have any conviction
-
How do you know... What's his opinion
Abduction is not a given
29:30 in M Brunt: Do you accept the girl was abducted.
Do Carmo in reply;We don't know what happened,we have to be prepared to deal with different scenarios.
https://youtu.be/FX3u2Hp42ic
-
Abduction is not a given
29:30 in M Brunt: Do you accept the girl was abducted.
Do Carmo in reply;We don't know what happened,we have to be prepared to deal with different scenarios.
https://youtu.be/FX3u2Hp42ic
I don't know how anyone can rule out abduction from the apartment or 'woke and wandered' and was abducted from outside the apartment. What evidence exists supporting any hypothesis? It seems to me zilch.
-
Abduction is not a given
29:30 in M Brunt: Do you accept the girl was abducted.
Do Carmo in reply;We don't know what happened,we have to be prepared to deal with different scenarios.
https://youtu.be/FX3u2Hp42ic
So daCarmo definitely does not rule out abduction and you don't know if he believes or not it's the most probable scenario...
-
Re the title is this abduction from the apartment or 'woke and wandered' and was then abducted or both?
Remember Prof Roy Meadow's ill-fated statistical evidence at the trial of Sally Clark who had two sons both of whom died as a result of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) aka Cot Death. Meadows, a pediatrician by profession, calculated the odds of 2 children dying as a result of SIDS in an affluent non-smoking family at 1 in 73,000,000. Meadow's evidence played a part in Sally Clarke's conviction for murder which was subsequently overturned.
Much controversy existed about the statistics and some mathematicians have calculated that the true odds may have been greater than 2:1 in favour of death not being murder.
-
I don't know how anyone can rule out abduction from the apartment or 'woke and wandered' and was abducted from outside the apartment. What evidence exists supporting any hypothesis? It seems to me zilch.
Cause some awfully nice person when setting up grange said it was to investigate an abduction as if it happened in the uk .
-
So daCarmo definitely does not rule out abduction and you don't know if he believes or not it's the most probable scenario...
Nor is his flag nailed to the abduction mast,unlike the blinkered SY.
-
Nor is his flag nailed to the abduction mast,unlike the blinkered SY.
I think SY are, spot on and in no way blinkered
-
Re the title is this abduction from the apartment or 'woke and wandered' and was then abducted or both?
Remember Prof Roy Meadow's ill-fated statistical evidence at the trial of Sally Clark who had two sons both of whom died as a result of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) aka Cot Death. Meadows, a pediatrician by profession, calculated the odds of 2 children dying as a result of SIDS in an affluent non-smoking family at 1 in 73,000,000. Meadow's evidence played a part in Sally Clarke's conviction for murder which was subsequently overturned.
Much controversy existed about the statistics and some mathematicians have calculated that the true odds may have been greater than 2:1 in favour of death not being murder.
Very bad stats that. Although the causes of SIDS are not fully known an assumption should have been made that they do not occur randomly:
-
Came to some harm in 5a by persons known or unknown and body removed.
Abducted from 5a by persons known or unknown
Woke and wondered and had some accident alone eg entered Ocean and drowned
Woke and wondered and had some accident at the hands of persons known or unknown eg knocked over by car
Woke and wondered and was abducted by persons known or unknown
Can anyone think of any other possibilities?
-
Came to some harm in 5a by persons known or unknown and body removed.
Abducted from 5a by persons known or unknown
Woke and wondered and had some accident alone eg entered Ocean and drowned
Woke and wondered and had some accident at the hands of persons known or unknown eg knocked over by car
Woke and wondered and was abducted by persons known or unknown
Can anyone think of any other possibilities?
You've covered the field pretty well IMO.
The one scenario I have been developing over the years is a "Woke and wondered and had some accident at the hands of persons known or unknown eg knocked over by car" variation.
My version is:
Woke up by burglars who attempt an entry to 5A.
Madeleine was hiding in 5A when Matt did his check.
Madeleine fled out via the front door when another person entered via through the patio door.
This other person closes the front door and leaves via the patio door and goes to look for Madeleine.
Madeleine goes to the secondary reception and finds it closed, crosses over to the car park and gets hit by a car. She is picked up and taken away for "medical attention".
-
Very convoluted scenario that -IMO
I'm sure the solution is much simpler.
-
If I take two scenarios where strangers could've been involved.
The odds for the-abducted-by-a-stranger-from-5A-scenario is sky high.
The odds for the scenario where she was abducted in panic by a stranger after an accident outside 5A is pretty low.
-
If I take two scenarios where strangers could've been involved.
The odds for the-abducted-by-a-stranger-from-5A-scenario is sky high.
The odds for the scenario where she was abducted in panic by a stranger after an accident outside 5A is pretty low.
Do you realise that as the numbers in an odds calculation goes up the probability of that event goes down.
Can you put some numbers onto those odds so I'm sure you are on the right track for I thought you might have it around the wrong way around.
It is a lot easier to pick a child off a street than it would be to get into a home and take her IMO.
-
Do you realise that as the numbers in an odds calculation goes up the probability of that event goes down.
Can you put some numbers onto those odds so I'm sure you are on the right track for I thought you might have it around the wrong way around.
It is a lot easier to pick a child off a street than it would be to get into a home and take her IMO.
You are using the British odds system in the UK we do not.
We are using the European odds system so the odds for the scenario where she was abducted by a stranger in 5A would be equal to Watford winning the Prem leauge this season, around 1000x the money.
The odds for the scenario that she was abducted by a stranger after an accident outside 5A is equal to Liverpool winning the Prem leauge, around 4x the money.
And the explanation for this is quite simple.
No evidence, witnesses or forensics are able to show that any stranger took her from 5A.
On the other hand there's a chain of circumstances where the pieces fit in the puzzle.
According to the witness Fiona Payne was Kate worried that she would wake up so she thought it would be better to left the door unlocked so she could go out to find them.
If we believe the given timeline there was no one around 5A for about 25 minutes between ~20:40-21:05 and exactly during this time of period there was a man who travelled by car along these roads and withheld important information and lied about the time.
He said he travelled home by car at ~20:45 but he did not.
He travelled home by car after 21:00, after he had picked up a service vehicle (van/pick up) and he withheld this information and why did he need a service vehicle AFTER his job was done?
And one more thing,
there was no lock at all on the lower "security" gate that lead directly out onto the dark street.
-
Re the title is this abduction from the apartment or 'woke and wandered' and was then abducted or both?
Remember Prof Roy Meadow's ill-fated statistical evidence at the trial of Sally Clark who had two sons both of whom died as a result of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) aka Cot Death. Meadows, a pediatrician by profession, calculated the odds of 2 children dying as a result of SIDS in an affluent non-smoking family at 1 in 73,000,000. Meadow's evidence played a part in Sally Clarke's conviction for murder which was subsequently overturned.
Much controversy existed about the statistics and some mathematicians have calculated that the true odds may have been greater than 2:1 in favour of death not being murder.
Deleted
-
You are using the British odds system in the UK we do not.
We are using the European odds system so the odds for the scenario where she was abducted by a stranger in 5A would be equal to Watford winning the Prem leauge this season, around 1000x the money.
The odds for the scenario that she was abducted by a stranger after an accident outside 5A is equal to Liverpool winning the Prem leauge, around 4x the money.
And the explanation for this is quite simple.
No evidence, witnesses or forensics are able to show that any stranger took her from 5A.
On the other hand there's a chain of circumstances where the pieces fit in the puzzle.
According to the witness Fiona Payne was Kate worried that she would wake up so she thought it would be better to left the door unlocked so she could go out to find them.
If we believe the given timeline there was no one around 5A for about 25 minutes between ~20:40-21:05 and exactly during this time of period there was a man who travelled by car along these roads and withheld important information and lied about the time.
He said he travelled home by car at ~20:45 but he did not.
He travelled home by car after 21:00, after he had picked up a service vehicle (van/pick up) and he withheld this information and why did he need a service vehicle AFTER his job was done?
And one more thing,
there was no lock at all on the lower "security" gate that lead directly out onto the dark street.
That leaves parental involvement... So what are your odds for parental involvement
-
You are using the British odds system in the UK we do not.
We are using the European odds system so the odds for the scenario where she was abducted by a stranger in 5A would be equal to Watford winning the Prem leauge this season, around 1000x the money.
The odds for the scenario that she was abducted by a stranger after an accident outside 5A is equal to Liverpool winning the Prem leauge, around 4x the money.
And the explanation for this is quite simple.
No evidence, witnesses or forensics are able to show that any stranger took her from 5A.
On the other hand there's a chain of circumstances where the pieces fit in the puzzle.
According to the witness Fiona Payne was Kate worried that she would wake up so she thought it would be better to left the door unlocked so she could go out to find them.
If we believe the given timeline there was no one around 5A for about 25 minutes between ~20:40-21:05 and exactly during this time of period there was a man who travelled by car along these roads and withheld important information and lied about the time.
He said he travelled home by car at ~20:45 but he did not.
He travelled home by car after 21:00, after he had picked up a service vehicle (van/pick up) and he withheld this information and why did he need a service vehicle AFTER his job was done?
And one more thing,
there was no lock at all on the lower "security" gate that lead directly out onto the dark street.
I have read about that person using the service vehicle etc and I found it rather suspicious as well. In theory it doesn't even have to be the ones who knocked the child over to be the ones who take her away from that terrible situation they are observing.
Thanks for your explanation. Just to confirm what you are saying: are you saying that abduction from the street is about 250 times more likely? e.g. 1000:1 compared to 4:1 1000/4 = 250.
-
I have read about that person using the service vehicle etc and I found it rather suspicious as well. In theory it doesn't even have to be the ones who knocked the child over to be the ones who take her away from that terrible situation they are observing.
Thanks for your explanation. Just to confirm what you are saying: are you saying that abduction from the street is about 250 times more likely? e.g. 1000:1 compared to 4:1 1000/4 = 250.
The problem is that those odds only account for 25% of the possibilities. .si are the parents the other 75 % which if course is, absurd
-
The problem is that those odds only account for 25% of the possibilities. .si are the parents the other 75 % which if course is, absurd
How did you work that out?
-
How did you work that out?
We have 1 in a thousand.... 1 in 4.......which leaves 3 in 4...less a thousandth which I've ignored.... 3 in 4 is 75 %
All possibilities have to add up to 100%
-
We have 1 in a thousand.... 1 in 4.......which leaves 3 in 4...less a thousandth which I've ignored.... 3 in 4 is 75 %
All possibilities have to add up to 100%
I know that but these calculations are on "odds" and maybe the bookie doesn't take that consideration (all possibilities have to add up to 100%) into account.
Maybe you shouldn't have used the word "odds" in the thread OP.
-
I know that but these calculations are on "odds" and maybe the bookie doesn't take that consideration (all possibilities have to add up to 100%) into account.
Maybe you shouldn't have used the word "odds" in the thread OP.
Nothing wrong with using the word odds
It's, simply if abduction is highly unlikely and w one and wandered followed by accident or abduction is unlikely..
Then something has to be likely and parental involvement is, al that's left.. Based in the evidence I don't see parental involvement as likely so one of the other estimates is, wrong..
-
Nothing wrong with using the word odds
It's, simply if abduction is highly unlikely and w one and wandered followed by accident or abduction is unlikely..
Then something has to be likely and parental involvement is, al that's left.. Based in the evidence I don't see parental involvement as likely so one of the other estimates is, wrong..
The bookies don't study the case like we do.
-
The bookies don't study the case like we do.
my posts are not directed at bookies but at members of the forum,,,
-
my posts are not directed at bookies but at members of the forum,,,
Well who was doing the estimating you are saying is wrong in a previous sentence made by you?
I'll repeat it: "It's, simply if abduction is highly unlikely and w one and wandered followed by accident or abduction is unlikely..
Then something has to be likely and parental involvement is, al that's left.. Based in the evidence I don't see parental involvement as likely so one of the other estimates is, wrong..
-
Well who was doing the estimating you are saying is wrong in a previous sentence made by you?
I'll repeat it: "It's, simply if abduction is highly unlikely and w one and wandered followed by accident or abduction is unlikely..
Then something has to be likely and parental involvement is, al that's left.. Based in the evidence I don't see parental involvement as likely so one of the other estimates is, wrong..
If you read the thread you will see we are talking about the post made by Niklass
-
If you read the thread you will see we are talking about the post made by Niklass
Yes and he is talking about odds that were attributed to bookies.
-
Yes and he is talking about odds that were attributed to bookies.
are you arguning for arguing sake...my thread never mentioned bookies...its about probability...and the fact that all three probabilities have to add uo to one
-
are you arguning for arguing sake...my thread never mentioned bookies...its about probability...and the fact that all three probabilities have to add uo to one
This thread is about odds?
-
This thread is about odds?
its about odds...probabilities...not specifically bookies
-
I know that but these calculations are on "odds" and maybe the bookie doesn't take that consideration (all possibilities have to add up to 100%) into account.
Maybe you shouldn't have used the word "odds" in the thread OP.
odds are not limited to bookies...we are talking about the odds maddie was abducted....as bookies are not offerring odds on this case I dont really see thie significance
-
That leaves parental involvement... So what are your odds for parental involvement
No directly involvement in her disappearance if this was the scenario that actually happened BUT it does not stop there.
Since I don't believe Madeleine was able to open up the window and raise the shutters by her self, someone else did and there's only one option as I see it.
If this happened between 20:45-21:05 it must mean that Gerry knew she was not in 5A.
They have said in interviews that Madeleine would never have walked out without the cuddle cat, but maybe cuddle cat was with her?
One special event that puzzled the PJ Detectives and Amaral was when Gerry had to pee and walked the long way to the front door, I wonder if the reason for this was because he saw something lying a bit further up the road and he picked it up?
Could cuddle cat have been lying besides the road?
I don't know, but it's very plausible in this scenario.
-
No directly involvement in her disappearance if this was the scenario that actually happened BUT it does not stop there.
Since I don't believe Madeleine was able to open up the window and raise the shutters by her self, someone else did and there's only one option as I see it.
If this happened between 20:45-21:05 it must mean that Gerry knew she was not in 5A.
They have said in interviews that Madeleine would never have walked out without the cuddle cat, but maybe cuddle cat was with her?
One special event that puzzled the PJ Detectives and Amaral was when Gerry had to pee and walked the long way to the front door, I wonder if the reason for this was because he saw something lying a bit further up the road and he picked it up?
Could cuddle cat have been lying besides the road?
I don't know, but it's very plausible in this scenario.
You haven't answered the question... You've provided for 25 % of the probabilities... You seem to be suggesting the only other options... 75%..involve the parents... Is that correct.. Please clarify
-
its about odds...probabilities...not specifically bookies
Odds and probabilities are different.
-
Odds and probabilities are different.
I never said they were the same... More arguing for arguing sake.. What are the odds or probability of a post on topic
-
are you arguning for arguing sake...my thread never mentioned bookies...its about probability...and the fact that all three probabilities have to add uo to one
Had you used the term "probabilities" in the OP we wouldn't have had 30 (correction 58) pages on "odds" in the thread.
-
From Wikipedia on Odds:
"In statistics, the odds for or odds of some event reflect the likelihood that the event will take place, while odds against reflect the likelihood that it will not. In gambling, the odds are the ratio of payoff to stake, and do not necessarily reflect exactly the probabilities."
Well Davel how are you going to divide up the the probability of the three possible board scenarios occurring?
-
Had you used the term "probabilities" in the OP we wouldn't have had 30 (correction 58) pages on "odds" in the thread.
I don’t think Davel started this thread actually. It was started on his behalf, which is a very irritating habit on this forum, imo.
-
From Wikipedia on Odds:
"In statistics, the odds for or odds of some event reflect the likelihood that the event will take place, while odds against reflect the likelihood that it will not. In gambling, the odds are the ratio of payoff to stake, and do not necessarily reflect exactly the probabilities."
Well Davel how are you going to divide up the the probability of the three possible board scenarios occurring?
First...the thread has absolutely nothing to do with ganmbling so i dont understand why you continue to raise an irrelevant point...you are derailing the thread.
Its concerned with statistics and in statistics odds and probabilities are basically the same.
Ive already quoted my understanding of the three possibillities...many..many times...and they add up to 100% which they must.
Niklas has only expalined two and the point i am making is that if he expalins the third as he should...it will highlight the fallacy of his argument
-
Had you used the term "probabilities" in the OP we wouldn't have had 30 (correction 58) pages on "odds" in the thread.
I didnt start the thread ...John did...with an edited version of my post. This is the problem with mods editing posts.....which words of the OP are mine and which are Johns
-
John sifting out and posting interesting comments is not a bad thing. But The OP can't always be held responsible for starting A Thread.
-
John sifting out and posting interesting comments is not a bad thing. But The OP can't always be held responsible for starting A Thread.
Perhaps there should be a rule that when this happens it is made clear in the opening post that that is what has happened. Also, Eleanor, could you please let me know what offensive language I have used recently to merit a warning. Genuinely interested as unless I know I won’t be able to learn from my mistakes. Thanks.
-
John sifting out and posting interesting comments is not a bad thing. But The OP can't always be held responsible for starting A Thread.
its annoying when mods edit posts and completely change their meaning...it happens too often
-
its annoying when mods edit posts and completely change their meaning...it happens too often
Agreed.
-
First...the thread has absolutely nothing to do with ganmbling so i dont understand why you continue to raise an irrelevant point...you are derailing the thread.
Its concerned with statistics and in statistics odds and probabilities are basically the same.
Ive already quoted my understanding of the three possibillities...many..many times...and they add up to 100% which they must.
Niklas has only expalined two and the point i am making is that if he expalins the third as he should...it will highlight the fallacy of his argument
Go past criticism and start providing answers please.
"Well Davel how are you going to divide up the probability of the three possible broad scenarios occurring?"
We both know they add up to 100% but how do you split that 100% up?
-
Go past criticism and start providing answers please.
"Well Davel how are you going to divide up the probability of the three possible broad scenarios occurring?"
We both know they add up to 100% but how do you split that 100% up?
Again I already have done many times and will do again later when I'm not busy
-
Again I already have done many times and will do again later when I'm not busy
We will be waiting.
-
We will be waiting.
As have said... I've done it many times before..
Parents not suspects... No indication if any involvement and I think most will agree it's highly unlikely they are criminally involved. Therefore odds 1 %
Woke and wandered.... According to the archiving despatch by the PJ... Who have more evidence than we do... Was deemed highly unlikely. So 5%
That leaves abduction... Or removal of a body by a stranger... at 94%
-
As have said... I've done it many times before..
Parents not suspects... No indication if any involvement and I think most will agree it's highly unlikely they are criminally involved. Therefore odds 1 %
Woke and wandered.... According to the archiving despatch by the PJ... Who have more evidence than we do... Was deemed highly unlikely. So 5%
That leaves abduction... Or removal of a body by a stranger... at 94%
You use the archiving report to justify the low score for Woke and wandered, what does the same report say about parental involvement or abduction? Since they had more evidence than us we need to compare apples with apples.
-
You use the archiving report to justify the low score for Woke and wandered, what does the same report say about parental involvement or abduction? Since they had more evidence than us we need to compare apples with apples.
Have you not read it... It found no evidence against the McCann's and cited several reasons why they were not involved... I'm not basing anything just on the archiving report... We have much more
-
Have you not read it... It found no evidence against the McCann's and cited several reasons why they were not involved... I'm not basing anything just on the archiving report... We have much more
Yes you based your estimation of 5% for Woke and Wandered basically on a line without evidence from the archiving report.
Unless you can show me the evidence it is wrong to boast that you have or even that they had more evidence.
-
Yes you based your estimation of 5% for Woke and Wandered basically on a line without evidence from the archiving report.
Unless you can show me the evidence it is wrong to boast that you have or even that they had more evidence.
I'm stating a fact re the report...
They either based that on nothing.... Which I find hard to believe... Or they had evidence... Which is more likely
-
We will be waiting.
You might be.
-
As have said... I've done it many times before..
Parents not suspects... No indication if any involvement and I think most will agree it's highly unlikely they are criminally involved. Therefore odds 1 %
Woke and wandered.... According to the archiving despatch by the PJ... Who have more evidence than we do... Was deemed highly unlikely. So 5%
That leaves abduction... Or removal of a body by a stranger... at 94%
Odds not probabilities.
-
Odds not probabilities.
We are not talking about gambling odds... But statistical odds... So explain why
-
Odds not probabilities.
Strictly speaking it's probability that's, expressed as a percentage... I think you are nitpicking
-
I'm stating a fact re the report...
They either based that on nothing.... Which I find hard to believe... Or they had evidence... Which is more likely
A presumption on your part in other words.
-
A presumption on your part in other words.
The archiving report said woke and wandered was highly unlikely... Not just unlikely but highly unlikely... That's a fact
No presumption
-
Please, Please, don't anyone ask for a Cite.
-
Please, Please, don't anyone ask for a Cite.
I think most posters are, aware of the fact I've posted
-
The archiving report said woke and wandered was highly unlikely... Not just unlikely but highly unlikely... That's a fact
No presumption
I'm saying that your presumption was they had undisclosed evidence backing up the fact they say woke and wandered was highly unlikely.
-
I'm saying that your presumption was they had undisclosed evidence backing up the fact they say woke and wandered was highly unlikely.
Do you think they would have stated it was highly unlikely based on absolutely nothing..
-
I think most posters are, aware of the fact I've posted
I know what the archiving report says. It does not present evidence backing its claim, therefore your statement is a presumption without the slightest evidence to back it up.
Do you think they would have stated it was highly unlikely based on absolutely nothing..
I know both Gerry and Kate believe woke and wandered was unlikely. Were the PJ now in a state of believing what the McCanns believe?
-
I know what the archiving report says. It does not present evidence backing its claim, therefore your statement is a presumption without the slightest evidence to back it up.
I know both Gerry and Kate believe woke and wandered was unlikely. Were the PJ now in a state of believing what the McCanns believe?
My statement is a deduction.. Not a presumption
-
My statement is a deduction.. Not a presumption
Prove to me it is "a deduction.. Not a presumption".
-
Prove to me it is "a deduction.. Not a presumption".
I don't have to prove anything to you...do you think they would say highly unlikely without any evidence to support that.... That doesn't make any sense... I would say they must have had some evidence ...they could have said unlikely... But they chose... Highly unlikely... That sounds like an opinion based on evidence to me
-
I think most posters are, aware of the fact I've posted
Of course they are.
-
I don't have to prove anything to you...do you think they would say highly unlikely without any evidence to support that.... That doesn't make any sense... I would say they must have had some evidence ...they could have said unlikely... But they chose... Highly unlikely... That sounds like an opinion based on evidence to me
But you have got no evidence of that evidence, other than your assumption come deduction.
Do you think the PJ did a great job in investigating the McCann case?
-
I think most posters are, aware of the fact I've posted
Opinions are not to be confused with facts.
-
Opinions are not to be confused with facts.
What we know as a fact is that the final report from the PJ considered woke and wandered as highly unlikely and s remote hypothesis
-
What we know as a fact is that the final report from the PJ considered woke and wandered as highly unlikely and s remote hypothesis
You can't prove that they even gave it a full and honest consideration. Having found what they thought was cadaver odour in the apartment, how could they think in terms of Madeleine wandering away from the apartment alive?
-
You can't prove that they even gave it a full and honest consideration. Having found what they thought was cadaver odour in the apartment, how could they think in terms of Madeleine wandering away from the apartment alive?
And you can't prove they didn't have information to support their thesis... What we know for certain is this is what they believed
-
And you can't prove they didn't have information to support their thesis... What we know for certain is this is what they believed
You accused GA of lying. So how can you be sure what anyone believes?
-
You accused GA of lying. So how can you be sure what anyone believes?
There is proof of GA lying
-
There is proof of GA lying
That is what I mean. If GA can lie so can the writers of the archiving report. Why do you trust it so much?
-
That is what I mean. If GA can lie so can the writers of the archiving report. Why do you trust it so much?
I see it as a piece of evidence ti be considered..
I think it must be based on some evidence
The, artvof being s good detective is working out who is lying... Who is telling the truth.. Who's mistaken etc
I believe Kate.... The window was open and shutters raised
-
I see it as a piece of evidence ti be considered..
I think it must be based on some evidence
The, artvof being s good detective is working out who is lying... Who is telling the truth.. Who's mistaken etc
I believe Kate.... The window was open and shutters raised
So do I.
-
I see it as a piece of evidence ti be considered..
I think it must be based on some evidence
The, artvof being s good detective is working out who is lying... Who is telling the truth.. Who's mistaken etc
I believe Kate.... The window was open and shutters raised
Yes, & she's not lying about that! (Gulp)
https://youtu.be/WLvnfcl-Zkg?t=1370
-
Yes, & she's not lying about that! (Gulp)
https://youtu.be/WLvnfcl-Zkg?t=1370
Well you heard it for yourself, Kate said she was not lying about that! I believe her so why don't you?
-
Well you heard it for yourself, Kate said she was not lying about that! I believe her so why don't you?
May I ask why you do?
-
May I ask why you do?
I have no reason to think she is lying.
Do you think she is lying and if so why?
-
How many parents go out for 2/3 hours during the hours of dusk/darkness and leave their children in an unlocked holiday apartment where a) they don't have direct line of sight of the unlocked doors and b) others do have direct line of sight of the unlocked doors?
Other members of TP9 did not leave their children in an unlocked holiday apartment:
Payne's apartment was locked and fitted with a hi-tec baby monitor
ROB/JT apartment locked - checks carried out via front door
Oldfields apartment locked - checks carried out via front door
McCanns apartment unlocked - checks carried out via patio door
Even if one considers teenage parents who might have come from chaotic backgrounds and experienced poor parenting themselves I doubt they would be so stupid as to leave such small children in an unlocked holiday apartment unsupervised. Moreover others unknown to the McCanns would know their small children were home alone in an unlocked holiday apartment. The McCanns were lucky not to find themselves locked up for child neglect. Reading KM's book I find her disagreeable. That said I do not believe they were directly responsible for MM's disappearance.
-
I have no reason to think she is lying.
Do you think she is lying and if so why?
I asked first.
-
I asked first.
I have answered you. "I have no reason to think she is lying." Therefore I believe her.
Now could you answer my question please?
-
I have answered you. "I have no reason to think she is lying." Therefore I believe her.
Now could you answer my question please?
Do I think she's lying? Hmmm.....yes. Why? Because, in my opinion, and in full view and cognisance of the Common Law system of England and the Empire, I have reason to think she is lying.
-
Do I think she's lying? Hmmm.....yes. Why? Because, in my opinion, and in full view and cognisance of the Common Law system of England and the Empire, I have reason to think she is lying.
Is she one of those that would float in the village pond?
"Ordeal by water was associated with the witch hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries: an accused who sank was considered innocent, while floating indicated witchcraft. Some argued that witches floated because they had renounced baptism when entering the Devil's service." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunking
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Old_woman_draught_at_Ratcliffe_Highway.png/450px-Old_woman_draught_at_Ratcliffe_Highway.png)
-
Is she one of those that would float in the village pond?
"Ordeal by water was associated with the witch hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries: an accused who sank was considered innocent, while floating indicated witchcraft. Some argued that witches floated because they had renounced baptism when entering the Devil's service." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunking
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/Old_woman_draught_at_Ratcliffe_Highway.png/450px-Old_woman_draught_at_Ratcliffe_Highway.png)
Somewhat of a win win situation or something like that. If you float you are guilty and if you sink and are drowned you are innocent and you get to keep your good name. Justice is served?
-
Somewhat of a win win situation or something like that. If you float you are guilty and if you sink and are drowned you are innocent and you get to keep your good name. Justice is served?
And "in full view and cognisance of the Common Law system of England and the Empire". Bravo General.
-
Do I think she's lying? Hmmm.....yes. Why? Because, in my opinion, and in full view and cognisance of the Common Law system of England and the Empire, I have reason to think she is lying.
The judicial system found Sally Clarke guilty of murdering her 2 sons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
-
The judicial system found Sally Clarke guilty of murdering her 2 sons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
Note the Royal Statistical Society criticised the misuse of statistics in court cases, ....how very apt to this forum
And it also highlights the reliance on expert witness statements which obviously can be wrong and should be questioned ...who would have thought a professor of paediatrics could get things so wrong. Some posters here seem to want to treat so called experts as infallible... How wrong they are
-
The judicial system found Sally Clarke guilty of murdering her 2 sons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
What are the odds on a Flawed Expert Witness? There are two mentioned in this article.
-
What are the odds on a Flawed Expert Witness? There are two mentioned in this article.
Yet Rob thinks they should be believed simply because they are regarded as experts
-
Yet Rob thinks they should be believed simply because they are regarded as experts
And thy aren't the only ones who have been caught out.
-
What are the odds on a Flawed Expert Witness? There are two mentioned in this article.
Well Prof Roy Meadows, a pediatrician, ventured outside his area of expertise into the world of murky statistics. Dr Alan Williams, a HO pathologist, withheld evidence.
From looking at other cases I have found most experts to be competent and reliable but when unusual cases present, as above, that imo is when they go awry not just with experts but police and judiciary too. The common theme running through the cases I've looked at is that they're unusual:
- Bamber - Family annihilation
- Bain - Family annihilation
- Dando - Law abiding woman, shot on her doorstep at point blank range in broad daylight on a busy street
- Rettendon murders - 3 drug dealers shot at point blank range in Range Rover
- McCanns - Child abducted from holiday apartment/filicide for sceptics
The above are not your run of the mill case for police, experts, judiciary.
-
Well Prof Roy Meadows, a pediatrician, ventured outside his area of expertise into the world of murky statistics. Dr Alan Williams, a HO pathologist, withheld evidence.
From looking at other cases I have found most experts to be competent and reliable but when unusual cases present, as above, that imo is when they go awry not just with experts but police and judiciary too. The common theme running through the cases I've looked at is that they're unusual:
- Bamber - Family annihilation
- Bain - Family annihilation
- Dando - Law abiding woman, shot on her doorstep at point blank range in broad daylight on a busy street
- Rettendon murders - 3 drug dealers shot at point blank range in Range Rover
- McCanns - Child abducted from holiday apartment/filicide for sceptics
The above are not your run of the mill case for police, experts, judiciary.
Don't you think that even one is bad enough? Sally Clark was killed by their ignorance.
-
Well Prof Roy Meadows, a pediatrician, ventured outside his area of expertise into the world of murky statistics. Dr Alan Williams, a HO pathologist, withheld evidence.
From looking at other cases I have found most experts to be competent and reliable but when unusual cases present, as above, that imo is when they go awry not just with experts but police and judiciary too. The common theme running through the cases I've looked at is that they're unusual:
- Bamber - Family annihilation
- Bain - Family annihilation
- Dando - Law abiding woman, shot on her doorstep at point blank range in broad daylight on a busy street
- Rettendon murders - 3 drug dealers shot at point blank range in Range Rover
- McCanns - Child abducted from holiday apartment/filicide for sceptics
The above are not your run of the mill case for police, experts, judiciary.
The professor should have understood statistics... It's not rocket science. He made a very basic error. He ignored the fact that there could have been a genetic disposition shared by siblings that increases the incidence if cot deaths.
We cannot simply trust so called experts
-
Don't you think that even one is bad enough? Sally Clark was killed by their ignorance.
Of course. Another feature of all these cases is that they are almost all presided over by males from similar backgrounds which tends to produce 'group think' and 'herd mentality' whether it be police officers, experts, judiciary, media, crime writers etc, etc.
How many females appear in this case, McCanns?
-
The professor should have understood statistics... It's not rocket science. He made a very basic error. He ignored the fact that there could have been a genetic disposition shared by siblings that increases the incidence if cot deaths.
We cannot simply trust so called experts
The professor was a pediatrician not a statistician.
-
Of course. Another feature of all these cases is that they are almost all presided over by males from similar backgrounds which tends to produce 'group think' and 'herd mentality' whether it be police officers, experts, judiciary, media, crime writers etc, etc.
How many females appear in this case, McCanns?
Justice Hogg who returned a child to her abusive parent who killed her...
-
The professor was a pediatrician not a statistician.
Medics discuss statistics everyday... It's part if their training.
Expert witnesses quote statistics regularly..
His mistake was medical... Not statistical
-
I think robs just making a complete and utter fool of himself...AIMO of course
Thanks a million.
-
This is total ad hom and reveals your true motive.
Without having to resort to a dictionary... A deduction is based on evidence an assumption is not... You obviously don't understand the English language.
As for accusing me of not being honest ...I'm not allowed to post my response. I will report your post to John... It proves what I've been saying to him for some time
Are you telling me you will swear by Almighty God that you are being absolutely honest in all you write on the forum.
-
Are you telling me you will swear by Almighty God that you are being absolutely honest in all you write on the forum.
Why do you think I would swear by almighty god. .ridiculous
You need to point out a post ewhere you think I have not been honest... You won't find one... You should apologise and move on... I'm honest and you have no right to suggest I'm not... That's totally against forum rules
-
Are you telling me you will swear by Almighty God that you are being absolutely honest in all you write on the forum.
I am. So why suspect that Davel isn't?
-
Yet Rob thinks they should be believed simply because they are regarded as experts
Did I say that? I would never say "they should be believed simply because they are regarded as experts".
-
Why do you think I would swear by almighty god. .ridiculous
You need to point out a post ewhere you think I have not been honest... You won't find one... You should apologise and move on... I'm honest and you have no right to suggest I'm not... That's totally against forum rules
'I already have. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10798.msg540301#msg540301
In the linked post I believe you are misquoting me, all in an effort to embarrass me.
-
'I already have.
I haven't told any lies on this forum and you should not accuse me of lying
-
I haven't told any lies on this forum and you should not accuse me of lying
Did you not see that I said that your claim: "Yet Rob thinks they should be believed simply because they are regarded as experts", is untrue?
-
Look now, you two. I have had enough of this.
-
Look now, you two. I have had enough of this.
I'm not the one calling another poster a liar.. I'm not the one breaking forum rules
-
Did I say that? I would never say "they should be believed simply because they are regarded as experts".
I will look at your post again and quote it
-
I haven't told any lies on this forum and you should not accuse me of lying
Of course you have.
You invented a fake Portuguese car for your son, in order to try to 'win' an argument as silly as the one you are trying to 'win' now.
You later admitted you had lied.
Remember?
-
Of course you have.
You invented a fake Portuguese car for your son, in order to try to 'win' an argument as silly as the one you are trying to 'win' now.
You later admitted you had lied.
Remember?
I think anyone with an ounce of sense would realise thst was a wind up not a lie... So are you now calling me a liar
-
I think anyone with an ounce of sense would realise thst was a wind up not a lie... So are you now calling me a liar
It was very definitely a lie.
Consequently, when you claim you have never lied on the forum, that too is a known lie.
So that's at least two times when you have knowingly lied in order to win an argument.
You would do better to let the matter drop.
-
It was very definitely a lie.
Consequently, when you claim you have never lied on the forum, that too is a known lie.
So that's at least two times when you have knowingly lied in order to win an argument.
You would do better to let the matter drop.
So once more you accuse me of lying. I would say you would have to be very very stupid not to realise I was having a bit of fun... And as you didn't realise what does that say about you
But carry on... It appears accusing posters of lying is now acceptable
-
So once more you accuse me of lying. I would say you would have to be very very stupid not to realise I was having a bit of fun... And as you didn't realise what does that say about you
But carry on... It appears accusing posters of lying is now acceptable
It most certainly is when such a poster admits to having lied.
-
Guys, please can we quit all this liar stuff and just focus on the facts of the case as we perceive them. Thanks.
-
Guys, please can we quit all this liar stuff and just focus on the facts of the case as we perceive them. Thanks.
Then remove the posts accusing me of lying
-
Then remove the posts accusing me of lying
I will remove any post where posters refer to one another as lying after my post above.
-
Medics discuss statistics everyday... It's part if their training.
Expert witnesses quote statistics regularly..
His mistake was medical... Not statistical
It was statistical as well.
-
It was statistical as well.
His mistake was that he ignored the fact that there might be a genetic link to the deaths... Apart from that his statistics were basically correct... So his mistake was medical not statistical
-
His mistake was that he ignored the fact that there might be a genetic link to the deaths... Apart from that his statistics were basically correct... So his mistake was medical not statistical
His error was that he used statistical techniques applicable to random events when it had long been suspected that they weren’t random.
-
No more name calling.
-
His error was that he used statistical techniques applicable to random events when it had long been suspected that they weren’t random.
The fact that they were not random was related to medicine not statistics
-
The fact that they were not random was related to medicine not statistics
He used incorrect statistics.
-
He used incorrect statistics.
No he didn't.. His statistics were correct... His medical decision was not... I understand both medicine and statistics
-
I will remove any post where posters refer to one another as lying after my post above.
I think this is a mistake, The forum will not progress if claims can be made and a cite request is ignored.
-
No he didn't.. His statistics were correct... His medical decision was not... I understand both medicine and statistics
Do you believe he thought SID was a random occurance then it is a medical matter. Otherwise it was a statistical error.
-
Do you believe he thought SID was a random occurance thren it is a medical matter. Otherwise it was a statistical error.
I believe he thought it was random
-
You haven't answered the question... You've provided for 25 % of the probabilities... You seem to be suggesting the only other options... 75%..involve the parents... Is that correct.. Please clarify
As I said, is it direct or indirect involvement?
It's not simple to answer that question but I don't believe the parents commited a first degree murder and I don't believe she was abducted from 5A.
I don't believe she had an accident inside 5A but I do believe the parents knows that she was not abducted from 5A.
Here in Sweden the parents have 100% responsibility for their children so in my book they are 100% involved to what led to her disappearance but as I said, I do not believe they commited a first....or second degree murder, nor a manslaughter.
Playing with numbers.
100% indirect involvement of parents.
------------------
>1% abducted by a stranger in 5A and that is also what the statistics says about abducted children in the EU.
80% that she was abducted or her body was taken away after an accident outside 5A.
19% other theories....I leave it there.
-
As I said, is it direct or indirect involvement?
It's not simple to answer that question but I don't believe the parents commited a first degree murder and I don't believe she was abducted from 5A.
I don't believe she had an accident inside 5A but I do believe the parents knows that she was not abducted from 5A.
Here in Sweden the parents have 100% responsibility for their children so in my book they are 100% involved to what led to her disappearance but as I said, I do not believe they commited a first....or second degree murder, nor a manslaughter.
Playing with numbers.
100% indirect involvement of parents.
------------------
>1% abducted by a stranger in 5A and that is also what the statistics says about abducted children in the EU.
80% that she was abducted or her body was taken away after an accident outside 5A.
19% other theories....I leave it there.
Very good post!
-
As I said, is it direct or indirect involvement?
It's not simple to answer that question but I don't believe the parents commited a first degree murder and I don't believe she was abducted from 5A.
I don't believe she had an accident inside 5A but I do believe the parents knows that she was not abducted from 5A.
Here in Sweden the parents have 100% responsibility for their children so in my book they are 100% involved to what led to her disappearance but as I said, I do not believe they commited a first....or second degree murder, nor a manslaughter.
Playing with numbers.
100% indirect involvement of parents.
------------------
>1% abducted by a stranger in 5A and that is also what the statistics says about abducted children in the EU.
80% that she was abducted or her body was taken away after an accident outside 5A.
19% other theories....I leave it there.
I don't see that your figures are based on any facts.
The parents, are not suspects and the, PJ have said there is no evidence against them.. How can you therefore say almost, as, a fact that they know she was not abducted... Pure speculation
Fact number 2...the archiving report said woke and wandered was highly unlikely so how can you give it such a high rating.
If the parents know she was not abducted then why have they continued a 12 year charade of funds.. Appeals etc
SY believe she was abducted... They will have access to more information than we have..do you really think they have got things so wrong
Your post us high on speculation but very low on logic.. Imo
-
COOOEEE - Why would I give up on the odds argument? There is no argument to be had about the statistical odds. You just can't count or calculate but that's not an argument that's a statement of fact. The odds are what they are and that's all there is about it. No ifs, no buts.
There is nothing you or I can do to alter them now, they are cast in stone other than the estimated number of children who go abroad each year and I've been conservative with that estimate according to professor McCann himself.
You can never alter the number of children who went abroad every year between Ben Needham and Madeleine McCann who were NOT abducted by a stranger. (est 3,000,000/1 x 19 years)
You can never alter the number apartments the tapas claim were left unlocked. (3/1)
You can never alter the number of children not confinded to a cot in the apartement the child went missing. (2/1)
You can never alter the number of apartments the dogs searched and alerted to. (6/1)
You can never alter the number of of cars the dogs searched and alerted to. (9/1)
You can never alter the number of minutes it took the bedroom door to slam closed. (90/1)
The McCanns and the police files prove all those statistical facts did happen. You can never unhappen a statistical fact once they have happened. Those are the statistical odds and logic doesn't come in to it. Logic and statistical odds are for loonies, they simpy don't mix.
It's hardly my fault for your inabiltity to understand the calculations of all those things that DID happen. But in the abduction theory they all had to occur.
Madeleine couldn't possibly be abducted from the cot and the apartment door be secured for your very flimsy theory to stand up factually, could it? So you see, the odds are not my odds, the odds are the theory's odds and only mugs would choose to ignore them.
Be my guest.
I can hardly be wrong given all those figures other than the estimated number of children on holiday each year are mathmatical constants and can never be varied. Mathmatical constants I tell you, that's important to understanding the odds of the things that are alleged to have taken place in this case. Those figures can only be altered if someone was lying through their teeth, then they can be varied to suit. Facts eh, what would you do without them Dave? Was someone lying through their teeth about any of those statistics and we can vary those odds accordingly? Were no apartments left unlocked for instance? That would alter the odds of 3/1 but infringe on the abduction narritive dramatically. The odds are the odds Dave, I didn't set them, merely calcluated them all together.
It's a maths teacher you need sunshine, preferably a primary school one.
I suggest you start at the very beginning.
I can show you the working for those statistical facts if you like?
The abduction narritive is bound fundamentally to the the statistical odds because they can never be altered. Unless the McCanns are the lying.
See you on the other thread Dave.
You can demonstrabe your abilitity, or complete inabilty to answer my perfectly reasonable questions over there.
I never had you down for a coward Dave.
you are still confusing the odds of whether maddie would be abducted rather than whether she was abducted.
when I was at school we derived Pi from first principles....It resulted in an equation that was the sum of an infinite geometric progression. We also studied a branch of maths that used the square root of -1....I actually remeber correcting my maths teacher who was an MA Cantab in maths...yes he hated me.
I doubt theres much any school teacher can teach me about maths
-
COOOEEE - Why would I give up on the odds argument? There is no argument to be had about the statistical odds. You just can't count or calculate but that's not an argument that's a statement of fact. The odds are what they are and that's all there is about it. No ifs, no buts.
There is nothing you or I can do to alter them now, they are cast in stone other than the estimated number of children who go abroad each year and I've been conservative with that estimate according to professor McCann himself.
You can never alter the number of children who went abroad every year between Ben Needham and Madeleine McCann who were NOT abducted by a stranger. (est 3,000,000/1 x 19 years)
You can never alter the number apartments the tapas claim were left unlocked. (3/1)
You can never alter the number of children not confinded to a cot in the apartement the child went missing. (2/1)
You can never alter the number of apartments the dogs searched and alerted to. (6/1)
You can never alter the number of of cars the dogs searched and alerted to. (9/1)
You can never alter the number of minutes it took the bedroom door to slam closed. (90/1)
The McCanns and the police files prove all those statistical facts did happen. You can never unhappen a statistical fact once they have happened. Those are the statistical odds and logic doesn't come in to it. Logic and statistical odds are for loonies, they simpy don't mix.
It's hardly my fault for your inabiltity to understand the calculations of all those things that DID happen. But in the abduction theory they all had to occur.
Madeleine couldn't possibly be abducted from the cot and the apartment door be secured for your very flimsy theory to stand up factually, could it? So you see, the odds are not my odds, the odds are the theory's odds and only mugs would choose to ignore them.
Be my guest.
I can hardly be wrong given all those figures other than the estimated number of children on holiday each year are mathmatical constants and can never be varied. Mathmatical constants I tell you, that's important to understanding the odds of the things that are alleged to have taken place in this case. Those figures can only be altered if someone was lying through their teeth, then they can be varied to suit. Facts eh, what would you do without them Dave? Was someone lying through their teeth about any of those statistics and we can vary those odds accordingly? Were no apartments left unlocked for instance? That would alter the odds of 3/1 but infringe on the abduction narritive dramatically. The odds are the odds Dave, I didn't set them, merely calcluated them all together.
It's a maths teacher you need sunshine, preferably a primary school one.
I suggest you start at the very beginning.
I can show you the working for those statistical facts if you like?
The abduction narritive is bound fundamentally to the the statistical odds because they can never be altered. Unless the McCanns are the lying.
See you on the other thread Dave.
You can demonstrabe your abilitity, or complete inabilty to answer my perfectly reasonable questions over there.
I never had you down for a coward Dave.
This is off topic and will be deleted. Please remove it to the appropriate thread as you appear to have found one.
Thank you
-
you are still confusing the odds of whether maddie would be abducted rather than whether she was abducted.
when I was at school we derived Pi from first principles....It resulted in an equation that was the sum of an infinite geometric progression. We also studied a branch of maths that used the square root of -1....I actually remeber correcting my maths teacher who was an MA Cantab in maths...yes he hated me.
I doubt theres much any school teacher can teach me about maths
Please see my post re Off Topic ... I will be deleting shortly
-
I'm confusing nothing sunshine, you are.
I know the difference between what could happen and what DID happen. It's highlighted above because of it's importance.
Those are the statistical odds for your very flimsy abduction theory occuring beause they are calculated base on events that DID occur, according to the theory, NOT could.
Give up, your clueless when it comes to the odds.
Your expertise is in pretending to yourself you understand the evidence better than anyone else.
Until they ask you tricky questions that is.
Stick to what you're good at and forget the odds. @)(++(*
As i said ...you dont understand the odds. You might think you do. im not really bothered if you think im clueless stupid...wahtever. its of no importance . i know Im absolutely right.
-
What exactly about those odds have I got wrong since you know you are absolutely right?
Were there five apartments and they were all left unlocked?
Were there twenty cars and the dog alerted to 15 of them?
Come on then, they don't call me big ears for nothing?
I'm waiting.
none of those affect the figure the way you think the do.
it was highly unlikely maddie would be abducted...the fact she has disappeared amd other evidence , makes it highly likely she was.
lets take it one step further ,,...what are the odds of parental invovement...and what are the odds of woke and wandered
-
What exactly about those odds have I got wrong since you know you are absolutely right?
Were there five apartments and they were all left unlocked?
Were there twenty cars and the dog alerted to 15 of them?
Come on then, they don't call me big ears for nothing?
I'm waiting.
One of my most earliest and most fond memories was of an ornament in my gran's home of the three wise monkeys.
I have two of the same type of ornaments in our home now.
Which monkey are you?
Hope you are keeping safe in Glasgow.
-
Get a grip for god's sake. The abduction theory is fundamentally based on all those things happening.
Madeleine got abducted hypothetically right? Each and every one of those statistical odds occurred (if the McCanns are telling the truth) didn't they?
If you are seriously suggesting that none of those things affect the figure the way I KNOW it does, then I cite that as evidential proof that you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
If Madeleine was put to bed in a cot and the apartment door locked where does that leave your abduction theory then?
You really need to pull your socks up laddie. *%87
the abduction theory is based on maddies disappearance ....the unlikelihood of the mccanns being involved...and according to the archiving report the unlikelihood of woke and wandered..
there are only basically three options
-
Get a grip for god's sake. The abduction theory is fundamentally based on all those things happening.
Madeleine got abducted hypothetically right? Each and every one of those statistical odds occurred (if the McCanns are telling the truth) didn't they?
If you are seriously suggesting that none of those things affect the figure the way I KNOW it does, then I cite that as evidential proof that you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
If Madeleine was put to bed in a cot and the apartment door locked where does that leave your abduction theory then?
You really need to pull your socks up laddie. *%87
the massive flaw in your raesoning is taht you think the abduction could not have happened because it was so unlikeley...thats a totally false premise.
-
If there is a flaw, it's not in MY reasoning, I never set the statistical odds. They are what they are and your lack of understanding is what it is.
Of course the odds say it could have happened, you fail to understand yet again that in the odds there is always the ONE.
You forgot that didn't you. There's the big giant flaw right there, in YOUR thinking. The statistical odds do all my thinking for me.
But there are a whole more odds in all the others.
There, no flaw, in my thinking... It's totally correct
-
It boggles the mind how incapable of logical thought some people can be. The odds of being a victim of hit and run are 10,000 to one. The odds of a body found lying in the middle of the road being the victim of a hit and run are...? Work it out.
-
It just boggles my mind when I read how out of touch from the reality of statistical odds you really are if you are deluded enough to believe logic is involved. Dearie, dearie me.. logic?
Do you think the McCanns applied any logic when they decided to be the ONE family to neglect their kids in an unlocked apartment?
Or do you think the Jimmy the abductor applied any logic when he stole the ONE biggest, heaviest child who was not confined to a cot?
What logic do you think the cadaver dog was applying when it ignored the six apartments it searched and decided to bark like hell at the ONE the child went missing from?
Stay out the bookies, they'd take you to the cleaners.
That's about the best logic we can apply to the statistical odds where you're concerned. 8(0(*
Logical thinking and statistical odds? @)(++(*
Back to the drawing board for VS.
I suggest you come back with some serious suggestions.
So you couldn’t answer my very simple question. Why am I not surprised. You must be on a wind up because no one could be that thick in real life, surely??!
-
They could, really. You attempted to apply logical thinking to the statistical odds. Don't be silly.
If you can give me access to the UK's road traffic data then I will give you, your answer in two ticks of a lamb's tail?
If you wish to apply logical thinking to your statistical question, don't you think it would be logical to supply the relevant data?
Don't you ever think logically? *%87
Why am I not surprised
Oh I see, that explains it. Logic cannot be applied when discussing statistics. So if the odds of being the victim of a hit and run are 10,000 to 1, then if you see a body lying in the middle of the road then then likelihood of it having been the victim of a hit and run is also 10,000 to 1. Of course, it all makes perfectly illogical sense now.
-
When the police come to investigate the body lying dead in the middle of the road, they will say to themselves the odds of being killed in a hit and run are 10,000 to one so lets look for a more likely explanation for death, like cancer as theres a 50% chance of getting cancer in a lifetime so it’s far more likely this person died from that.
-
*%87
-
It boggles the mind how incapable of logical thought some people can be. The odds of being a victim of hit and run are 10,000 to one. The odds of a body found lying in the middle of the road being the victim of a hit and run are...? Work it out.
Not to trivialise the events the odds of someone found lying in the street https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2244544/Pictured-Stowaway-fell-thousands-feet-London-street-clinging-planes-landing-gear.html - or in someone's flower bed https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/sunbather-almost-killed-by-stowaway-who-fell-1000-metres-from-kenya-airways-jet-in-london/news-story/c5316398aa9483e83a73d487c1202f1b - having fallen from a plane must be absolutely huge. Yet it has happened.
Or what about someone leaping onto the bonnet of your car and attacking the windscreen with a blade https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1684668/beggar-jumps-on-car-attacks-windscreen-with-knife. The odds against that must be exceedingly slim ... yet it has happened.
Thankfully the odds against a child being kidnapped by a stranger are also very slim ... but as you point out, these things do happen and as there is no evidence supporting any other explanation I think there is plenty of room for giving it credence.
Particularly as that is very obviously the line being followed by the present investigators of the Judicial Police and Scotland Yard.
-
Well this thread now makes no sense whatsoever. Removing the counter argument will still be remembered you know, guys, we saw it. Poor show, poor show.
Besides, it would seem you're all missing the point as usual.
As I recall I had to explain the basic premise of if the odds are higher it means it's more unlikely - not too long ago either. Probably deleted now, alas, you could go back and refresh yourselves.
-
Well this thread now makes no sense whatsoever. Removing the counter argument will still be remembered you know, guys, we saw it. Poor show, poor show.
Besides, it would seem you're all missing the point as usual.
As I recall I had to explain the basic premise of if the odds are higher it means it's more unlikely - not too long ago either. Probably deleted now, alas, you could go back and refresh yourselves.
it would depend on why they were removed..perhaps monkey requested it...or their my be other reasons. his membership apppears to have gone too.
You certainly havent explained anything to me re odds....and im missing no point. It was highly unlikely Maddie would be abducted....once she was missing its likely...highly imo...that she was abducted. the two events are different and therefore the odds are different...monkey couldnt seem to see this...perhaps you should have explained it too him.
-
it would depend on why they were removed..perhaps monkey requested it...or their my be other reasons. his membership apppears to have gone too.
You certainly havent explained anything to me re odds....and im missing no point. It was highly unlikely Maddie would be abducted....once she was missing its likely...highly imo...that she was abducted. the two events are different and therefore the odds are different...monkey couldnt seem to see this...perhaps you should have explained it too him.
I explained the rudiments to she whose name shall not be uttered. It was a revelation.
But let's talk odds again. Would the odds of MM being abducted improve or decrease if the patio door is locked?
-
I explained the rudiments to she whose name shall not be uttered. It was a revelation.
But let's talk odds again. Would the odds of MM being abducted improve or decrease if the patio door is locked?
is this pre abduction or post...pre it would decrease the odds....if the door was locked it would decrease the chance of woke and wandered...parental involvemnet stays the same ...so abduction more likely
-
is this pre abduction or post...pre it would decrease the odds....if the door was locked it would decrease the chance of woke and wandered...parental involvemnet stays the same ...so abduction more likely
So with the door locked it decreases the chance of abduction and woke and wandered.
With the door open it increases the chances of....everything.
-
So with the door locked it decreases the chance of abduction and woke and wandered.
With the door open it increases the chances of....everything.
You have to seperate the two incidents...would be abducted...was abducted, thats the mistake monkey made
-
You have to seperate the two incidents...would be abducted...was abducted, thats the mistake monkey made
Was abducted, how's that relevant? As we've seen from those who aren't grasping, a pigeon flew in through a pigeon-shaped hole in a window and escaped unscathed - 14.21 million to one, thus proving the near impossible possible? No. Thus the '1' occurred. Try replicating it. Could take up to 14 million flights.
-
Was abducted, how's that relevant? As we've seen from those who aren't grasping, a pigeon flew in through a pigeon-shaped hole in a window and escaped unscathed - 14.21 million to one, thus proving the near impossible possible? No. Thus the '1' occurred. Try replicating it. Could take up to 14 million flights.
of course the one occurred...that doesnt make the abduction theory a 14 million to one outsider..if you think it does then its you who doesnt understand
-
of course the one occurred...that doesnt make the abduction theory a 14 million to one outsider..if you think it does then its you who doesnt understand
Who said it did, apart from Gerry?
I think it's you who doesn't understand my understanding.
-
Who said it did, apart from Gerry?
I think it's you who doesn't understand my understanding.
Then simply make your point clear and the there can be no understanding. It was highly unlikely maddie would be abducted......that doesnt mean its highly unlikeley she was abducted...do you agree with that
-
There are three possibilities regarding what happened
death and parental cover up
woke and wandered
abducted
If the odds of the last are millions to one, what are the odds of the other two, and based on what?
-
There are three possibilities regarding what happened
death and parental cover up
woke and wandered
abducted
If the odds of the last are millions to one, what are the odds of the other two, and based on what?
We've established Gerry could have dramatically reduced those odds if he'd have locked the door as a minimum control measure. There are others that would reduce those odds down exponentially, having a much more significant impact.
The odds? Before or after?
-
We've established Gerry could have dramatically reduced those odds if he'd have locked the door as a minimum control measure. There are others that would reduce those odds down exponentially, having a much more significant impact.
The odds? Before or after?
After of course
-
After of course
After? Infinitesimally small, as it had come to fruition.
-
After? Infinitesimally small, as it had come to fruition.
Eh?
-
Was abducted, how's that relevant? As we've seen from those who aren't grasping, a pigeon flew in through a pigeon-shaped hole in a window and escaped unscathed - 14.21 million to one, thus proving the near impossible possible? No. Thus the '1' occurred. Try replicating it. Could take up to 14 million flights.
And therein lies the offering of the odds. When people place bets they look for all sorts of favorable traits. The horse breed, the trainer/the stable/previous wins in different grounds.
#1 How many children were abducted from their beds in PDL in past 10 years
#2 Leaving door unlocked
#3 leaving children alone every night
#4 not carrying out physical checks on the children
#5 children waking up crying and knowing parents are not int he apartment
Very highly likely a disappearance-
looking at the odds on Number 1 abduction from bed extremely unlikely
looking at the rest-very highly likely -woke and wandered
-
Eh?
You wanted the odds for these two:
death and parental cover up
woke and wandered
Given that MM was now 'missing', then the odds of her succumbing to either of the two above after that fact are now nil. Unless, if she woke and wandered, she then woke and wandered again, I suppose.
-
You wanted the odds for these two:
death and parental cover up
woke and wandered
Given that MM was now 'missing', then the odds of her succumbing to either of the two above after that fact are now nil. Unless, if she woke and wandered, she then woke and wandered again, I suppose.
you sound very confused...the inability to give a straight answer. No one on the forum had the guts to give what they thought were the likely odds for the three scenarios...apart from myself of course. 3 basic scenarios and the odds/probability have to add up to unity...have a go
-
you sound very confused...the inability to give a straight answer. No one on the forum had the guts to give what they thought were the likely odds for the three scenarios...apart from myself of course. 3 basic scenarios and the odds/probability have to add up to unity...have a go
That wasn't the question. VS wanted to know the odds of.....whatever it was she wanted to know the odds of after the event. There's no confusion there for me, the odds are negligible given these parameters, as MM was 'gone' and replicating it after the fact is impossible.
I think you're getting mixed up with before and after.
-
You wanted the odds for these two:
death and parental cover up
woke and wandered
Given that MM was now 'missing', then the odds of her succumbing to either of the two above after that fact are now nil. Unless, if she woke and wandered, she then woke and wandered again, I suppose.
What?
-
That wasn't the question. VS wanted to know the odds of.....whatever it was she wanted to know the odds of after the event. There's no confusion there for me, the odds are negligible given these parameters, as MM was 'gone' and replicating it after the fact is impossible.
I think you're getting mixed up with before and after.
im not ...what are the odds of the three possibiliteis..
parental involvement...1% but probbaly less
woke and wandered....a generous 20% ...given the fact the archiving report said highly unlikely...
abduction...79% by default
-
im not ...what are the odds of the three possibiliteis..
parental involvement...1% but probbaly less
woke and wandered....a generous 20% ...given the fact the archiving report said highly unlikely...
abduction...79% by default
OK.....let's try again. VS wanted the odds of it happening AFTER it happened.
-
im not ...what are the odds of the three possibiliteis..
parental involvement...1% but probbaly less
woke and wandered....a generous 20% ...given the fact the archiving report said highly unlikely...
abduction...79% by default
Besides, there are other possibilities.
-
OK.....let's try again. VS wanted the odds of it happening AFTER it happened.
The odds of Madeleine being abducted after she was abducted?? No, that’s not what I asked.
-
The odds of Madeleine being abducted after she was abducted?? No, that’s not what I asked.
Yes you did, look: After of course
We've established Gerry could have dramatically reduced those odds if he'd have locked the door as a minimum control measure. There are others that would reduce those odds down exponentially, having a much more significant impact.
The odds? Before or after?
After of course
-
Besides, there are other possibilities.
you have to evade....so what other possibilities are there
-
Besides, there are other possibilities.
cite...havent heard taht for a long time...cite for other possibilities
-
you have to evade....so what other possibilities are there
- Decided to leave of her own volition, sick of Kate's shit.
- One of the party adopted her - parental involvement, admittedly
- Sold on the black market - also parental involvement
- She never existed
- She hid in an unknown cubby or compartment in the apartment and is still there
-
- Decided to leave of her own volition, sick of Kate's shit.
- One of the party adopted her - parental involvement, admittedly
- Sold on the black market - also parental involvement
- She never existed
- She hid in an unknown cubby or compartment in the apartment and is still there
they say it takes years to build a reputation and afew minutes to ruin it
-
they say it takes years to build a reputation and afew minutes to ruin it
What reputation? My reputation was in tatters long before joining this obscure forum. A little matter of a limpet mine on the 'wrong' vessel in Aden in '93. They all look the same at night with full SCUBA on.
I mean, have they checked? For a cubby hole? Probably not. Is it a possibility, irrespective of how small? Yes.
-
What reputation? My reputation was in tatters long before joining this obscure forum. A little matter of a limpet mine on the 'wrong' vessel in Aden in '93. They all look the same at night with full SCUBA on.
I mean, have they checked? For a cubby hole? Probably not. Is it a possibility, irrespective of how small? Yes.
No.. Ptsd perchance
-
No.. Ptsd perchance
Could be. They briefly ran out of tea at the mess at Brize Norton one morning. That was an ordeal let me tell you.
-
Could be. They briefly ran out of tea at the mess at Brize Norton one morning. That was an ordeal let me tell you.
I'm sorry.. Didn't realise things could get that bad... I think we just dont realise just how tough it gets for the forces sometime... Was there any coffee for back up
-
I'm sorry.. Didn't realise things could get that bad... I think we just dont realise just how tough it gets for the forces sometime... Was there any coffee for back up
Apparently there was coffee. Any port in a storm and all that, but not for me.
-
Yes you did, look:
We've established Gerry could have dramatically reduced those odds if he'd have locked the door as a minimum control measure. There are others that would reduce those odds down exponentially, having a much more significant impact.
The odds? Before or after?
After of course
*%87 After “it” (the disappearance) happened, not the odds of abduction happening after the abduction. Jesus. What parallel universe of nonsense have I stepped into?
-
*%87 After “it” (the disappearance) happened, not the odds of abduction happening after the abduction. Jesus. What parallel universe of nonsense have I stepped into?
'It' being one of a number of potential outcomes, one of which is still abduction. You specifically said 'after'. So, if you like, after 'it'.
-
'It' being one of a number of potential outcomes, one of which is still abduction. You specifically said 'after'. So, if you like, after 'it'.
What are the odds Madeleine was abducted? Over to you to put a number on it.
-
Statistically, what are the odds of a 10 year old boy at a school summer camp in France being the victim of abduction & murder by a serial (20+ times) abuser/abductor/murderer who'd committed all his other crimes in Germany?
-
What are the odds Madeleine was abducted? Over to you to put a number on it.
In the exact circumstances that she may not have been?
-
Statistically, what are the odds of a 10 year old boy at a school summer camp in France being the victim of abduction & murder by a serial (20+ times) abuser/abductor/murderer who'd committed all his other crimes in Germany?
You tell me, I've no idea what you're talking about. Hit me with a number Scotch Mist.
-
In the exact circumstances that she may not have been?
Just answer the question.
-
Just answer the question.
Need to get the context right. Bearing in mind you wanted to know the odds of two scenarios after the event had already occurred. So, you know, for accuracy.
Besides, the German serial killer one or your one?
-
Need to get the context right. Bearing in mind you wanted to know the odds of two scenarios after the event had already occurred. So, you know, for accuracy.
Besides, the German serial killer one or your one?
Just answer the question. Give as many odds as you like so long as you clearly describe the different circumstances.
-
OK, I've worked on this most of the night. Here's the odds, in no particular order:
Woke and wandered - 28%
Abducted - 34%
Parental involvement - 37%
Other (i.e. Cubby Hole theory) - 1%
-
OK, I've worked on this most of the night. Here's the odds, in no particular order:
Woke and wandered - 28%
Abducted - 34%
Parental involvement - 37%
Other (i.e. Cubby Hole theory) - 1%
Fabulous. Now, explain how Monkey was right when he said the odds that Madeleine was abducted were 57 million to one.
-
OK, I've worked on this most of the night. Here's the odds, in no particular order:
Woke and wandered - 28%
Abducted - 34%
Parental involvement - 37%
Other (i.e. Cubby Hole theory) - 1%
reasonable based on your understanding of the evidence
-
Fabulous. Now, explain how Monkey was right when he said the odds that Madeleine was abducted were 57 million to one.
OK, so the probability that an event will occur is the fraction of times you expect to see that event in many trials, as per my pigeon analogy. The odds are defined as the probability that the event will occur divided by the probability that the event will not occur. So Monkey was doing the latter, calculating the probability using rough estimates of the known variables - it's simple mathematics at this stage - what was it? 57 million to 1?
Now what I've done is a separate thing entirely. I'm not calculating the probability of purely a child being abducted in those exact circumstances, which may be slightly subjective; I'm calculating the 'odds' or 'chance' of one of the three (or four) scenarios laid out, using a similar calculation, but deriving a likelihood given the evidence to hand and referring back to the empirical evidence of such crimes.
-
OK, so the probability that an event will occur is the fraction of times you expect to see that event in many trials, as per my pigeon analogy. The odds are defined as the probability that the event will occur divided by the probability that the event will not occur. So Monkey was doing the latter, calculating the probability using rough estimates of the known variables - it's simple mathematics at this stage - what was it? 57 million to 1?
Now what I've done is a separate thing entirely. I'm not calculating the probability of purely a child being abducted in those exact circumstances, which may be slightly subjective; I'm calculating the 'odds' or 'chance' of one of the three (or four) scenarios laid out, using a similar calculation, but deriving a likelihood given the evidence to hand and referring back to the empirical evidence of such crimes.
Nice waffle, so was Monkey correct to say that the likelihood that Madeleine was abducted was 57 million to one?
-
OK, so the probability that an event will occur is the fraction of times you expect to see that event in many trials, as per my pigeon analogy. The odds are defined as the probability that the event will occur divided by the probability that the event will not occur. So Monkey was doing the latter, calculating the probability using rough estimates of the known variables - it's simple mathematics at this stage - what was it? 57 million to 1?
Now what I've done is a separate thing entirely. I'm not calculating the probability of purely a child being abducted in those exact circumstances, which may be slightly subjective; I'm calculating the 'odds' or 'chance' of one of the three (or four) scenarios laid out, using a similar calculation, but deriving a likelihood given the evidence to hand and referring back to the empirical evidence of such crimes.
no...monkey said...
57,000,000/1 that Madeleine was abducted abroad
monkey seemed to beleive that Maddie couldnt have been abducted becasue the odds were so great
-
Nice waffle, so was Monkey correct to say that the likelihood that Madeleine was abducted was 57 million to one?
Well correct in so far as Stan James might have Tiger Rolls at 10/1 to win the National, but Paddy Power might have him at 12/1. It's not finite, it's finely nuanced and can be subjective. If you ran the numbers through Deep Blue it might spit out something utterly mindblowing - or it might explode as it's a chess computer.
Where do you stop with the variables? Where do you start? Monkey had 3 million as a working number of children going on holiday abroad - but where? Tanzania? Sierra Leone? Algarve? An aggregate of all holidays? And that's just one variable, as I've mentioned.
I will say the assumptions he gave were relatively reasonable and the maths was performed in a standard manner.
-
Well correct in so far as Stan James might have Tiger Rolls at 10/1 to win the National, but Paddy Power might have him at 12/1. It's not finite, it's finely nuanced and can be subjective. If you ran the numbers through Deep Blue it might spit out something utterly mindblowing - or it might explode as it's a chess computer.
Where do you stop with the variables? Where do you start? Monkey had 3 million as a working number of children going on holiday abroad - but where? Tanzania? Sierra Leone? Algarve? An aggregate of all holidays? And that's just one variable, as I've mentioned.
I will say the assumptions he gave were relatively reasonable and the maths was performed in a standard manner.
No, he was talking crap, obviously, as your own calculations show. Thanks.
-
But wait, guys. The logical course of action, if you were casting aspersions on his workings, would be to do your own analysis of the odds of parental involvement - try it out. I can see the clickbait headline now 'These Numbers Shocked The World'
-
No, he was talking crap, obviously, as your own calculations show. Thanks.
How so? It's easy to say, but not so easy to prove. How do you come to that conclusion? Do you want me to explain it for you again in simpler terms, using, I don't know, chocolate buttons and a kitten?
-
How so? It's easy to say, but not so easy to prove. How do you come to that conclusion? Do you want me to explain it for you again in simpler terms, using, I don't know, chocolate buttons and a kitten?
Yes, I’d like you to show how the odds that Madeleine was abducted can simultaneously be 1 in 3 (your odds, roughly) and 1 in 57 million (Monkeys odds). Use kittens.
-
Yes, I’d like you to show how the odds that Madeleine was abducted can simultaneously be 1 in 3 (your odds, roughly) and 1 in 57 million (Monkeys odds). Use kittens.
You called my previous post 'waffle', but you didn't read it.
You are referring to two very separate calculations with very distinct variables. They are incompatible.
-
You called my previous post 'waffle', but you didn't read it.
You are referring to two very separate calculations with very distinct variables. They are incompatible.
No I am not. I’m interested only in the odds that Madeleine was abducted. One calculation. That’s all I asked for. Monkey presented the odds that Madeleine faced of being abducted in the circumstances she was placed in, prior to disappearing. I am only interested in the odds that Madeleine WAS abducted based on all the known circumstances of her disappearance. Monkey maintained that the two sets of odds were the same. Clearly they are not.
-
No I am not. I’m interested only in the odds that Madeleine was abducted. One calculation. That’s all I asked for. Monkey presented the odds that Madeleine faced of being abducted in the circumstances she was placed in, prior to disappearing. I am only interested in the odds that Madeleine WAS abducted based on all the known circumstances of her disappearance. Monkey maintained that the two sets of odds were the same. Clearly they are not.
That's not what you said here:
Yes, I’d like you to show how the odds that Madeleine was abducted can simultaneously be 1 in 3 (your odds, roughly) and 1 in 57 million (Monkeys odds). Use kittens.
....but OK, I refer you back to my previous calculation. Monkey's calculation is a different one - out of 57 million kittens, one gets abducted while on holiday with its adult cat parents.
-
That's not what you said here:....but OK, I refer you back to my previous calculation. Monkey's calculation is a different one - out of 57 million kittens, one gets abducted while on holiday with its adult cat parents.
Yes, Monkey’s calculation was a different one, but he insisted that it was the same as your one. Are you being deliberately obtuse just to carry on Monkey’s mischievous work?
-
Yes, Monkey’s calculation was a different one, but he insisted that it was the same as your one. Are you being deliberately obtuse just to carry on Monkey’s mischievous work?
Come on, I'm trying to help.
Monkey was attempting to demonstrate the likelihood of one singular event - any of the 3 million children going on holiday every year in the intervening 19 years between Ben Needham and MM going missing.
That's totally different to presenting the chances of W & W, PI, CH and A (see my previous post).
-
Come on, I'm trying to help.
Monkey was attempting to demonstrate the likelihood of one singular event - any of the 3 million children going on holiday every year in the intervening 19 years between Ben Needham and MM going missing.
That's totally different to presenting the chances of W & W, PI, CH and A (see my previous post).
You are (deliberately?) failing to understand or accept the point I am making over and over again and therefore the conversation afaiac is at an end. Ta ta.
-
Come on, I'm trying to help.
Monkey was attempting to demonstrate the likelihood of one singular event - any of the 3 million children going on holiday every year in the intervening 19 years between Ben Needham and MM going missing.
That's totally different to presenting the chances of W & W, PI, CH and A (see my previous post).
I dint think you are right... Because we all agree the chances that Maddie would be abducted were very very remote.
My understanding is this monkey thought the odds were the same that she was abducted
-
You tell me, I've no idea what you're talking about. Hit me with a number Scotch Mist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Ney
On this link you will find a list of the crimes against young boys committed by Ney in Northern Germany over a 9 year period. The most recent crime in which he is implicated occurred in France in 2004 - the murder of Jonathan Coulom - broke the pattern in terms of location. However, in 2019 the French issued an EAW to Germany in order for Ney to be questioned further over Jonathan's murder, based on new evidence.
Statistically, Ney would neither have abused nor murdered young boys in France - but he may well have done. It's unclear as to why he appears to have stopped offending after 2004 - or maybe he didn't. The odds of a boy being abused in a holiday camp in 1990's Northern Germany were far greater than, say, Switzerland. It's possible that the public were not made aware of the risk to young boys attending such camps, hence what appears to have been a lack of vigilance.
In the Noughties on the Algarve, we now know that there was a series of holiday residence intrusions, in which the victims were young white girls.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
These intrusions do not seem to have warranted police making them public or issuing warnings through relevant agencies. Although none of the Algarve cases reported involved abduction or murder, it cannot be taken for granted that the offences would never escalate from just sexual abuse. Had Tapas 9 & other holidaymakers been aware of the increased risk to young white girls on the Algarve they may not have left their children unattended (all but one of the children were female) at night or even chosen Luz as their holiday destination.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Ney
On this link you will find a list of the crimes against young boys committed by Ney in Northern Germany over a 9 year period. The most recent crime in which he is implicated occurred in France in 2004 - the murder of Jonathan Coulom - broke the pattern in terms of location. However, in 2019 the French issued an EAW to Germany in order for Ney to be questioned further over Jonathan's murder, based on new evidence.
Statistically, Ney would neither have abused nor murdered young boys in France - but he may well have done. It's unclear as to why he appears to have stopped offending after 2004 - or maybe he didn't. The odds of a boy being abused in a holiday camp in 1990's Northern Germany were far greater than, say, Switzerland. It's possible that the public were not made aware of the risk to young boys attending such camps, hence what appears to have been a lack of vigilance.
In the Noughties on the Algarve, we now know that there was a series of holiday residence intrusions, in which the victims were young white girls.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
These intrusions do not seem to have warranted police making them public or issuing warnings through relevant agencies. Although none of the Algarve cases reported involved abduction or murder, it cannot be taken for granted that the offences would never escalate from just sexual abuse. Had Tapas 9 & other holidaymakers been aware of the increased risk to young white girls on the Algarve they may not have left their children unattended (all but one of the children were female) at night or even chosen Luz as their holiday destination.
Or perhaps they should have done what most parents do and put their children’s welfare, without or without the threat of assault, above their need for ‘adult’ time ?
-
Or perhaps they should have done what most parents do and put their children’s welfare, without or without the threat of assault, above their need for ‘adult’ time ?
Perhaps so. I wonder how often they have tortured themselves with thoughts along those lines in the intervening years since.