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

[Robittybob1]

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? 

[Mr Gray]

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%

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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..

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Mr Gray]

The bookies don't study the case like we do.

my posts are  not directed at bookies but at members of the forum,,,

[Robittybob1]

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..

[Mr Gray]

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

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[slartibartfast]

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?

[Mr Gray]

This thread is about odds?

its about odds...probabilities...not specifically bookies

[Mr Gray]

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

[niklasericson]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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