what do you think the odds are of abduction in this case?

[Mr Gray]

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

[slartibartfast]

The fact that they were not random was related to medicine not statistics

He used incorrect statistics.

[Mr Gray]

He used incorrect statistics.

No he didn't.. His statistics were correct... His medical decision was not... I understand  both medicine and statistics

[Robittybob1]

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.

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[niklasericson]

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.

[Miss Taken Identity]

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!

[Mr Gray]

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

[Mr Gray]

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

[Brietta]

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

[Brietta]

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

[Mr Gray]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[Erngath]

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.