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

[The General]

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'

[The General]

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?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[The General]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[The General]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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?

[The General]

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).

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[misty]

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.

[faithlilly]

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 ?

[Brietta]

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.