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

[Parky41]

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? 

My manners, nice to meet you too!

[Parky41]

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.

[Parky41]

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.

[Parky41]

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.

[Parky41]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Eleanor]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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 

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

[Holly Goodhead]

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?

[Eleanor]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Holly Goodhead]

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 

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'!