Many people are wrong interpreting statistics ...

[Lace]

The 48 hours used by police as the crutial time limit that a person could be found alive.

In Madeleine's case the police said if Madeleine had been abducted by a lone person for the intention of being abused and murdered,   then the liklihood would be that this person would dump Madeleine's body within 48 hours of her being abducted.

There was an extensive search carried out and no body was found.

The likihood then is that the abductor/abductor's have taken her somewhere.   

The likihood that Madeleine is alive is much greater due to the fact that no body was ever found and that she had been kept alive long enough to be taken away somewhere.

[Eleanor]

The 48 hours used by police as the crutial time limit that a person could be found alive.

In Madeleine's case the police said if Madeleine had been abducted by a lone person for the intention of being abused and murdered,   then the liklihood would be that this person would dump Madeleine's body within 48 hours of her being abducted.

There was an extensive search carried out and no body was found.

The likihood then is that the abductor/abductor's have taken her somewhere.   

The likihood that Madeleine is alive is much greater due to the fact that no body was ever found and that she had been kept alive long enough to be taken away somewhere.

This is my hope.  I find it very, very hard to believe that a paedophile would go to these lengths and take these risks to abduct a child of Madeleine's age.   It is simply not necessary, unfortunately.

And as for taking one of the twins, there would have been difficulties transporting a very small child in nappies, and some serious emotional damage at a later date by separating one twin from the other.  And no one in their even remotely right mind is going to steal two babies under the circumstances.

[Lace]

Eleanor

Also it is easier to tell an older child something on the lines of 'Mummy sent me to fetch you'   or 'there's a fire we need to take you out'   or similar.   

[Eleanor]

Absolutely.  There are many reasons for why Madeleine was the obvious target.  And three coming up four is well young enough for Madeleine to forget on anything but a subconcious level.

[Admin]

The fact that the abductor was quite prepared to be seen carrying a child away from the resort leads us to the conclusion that he was not local and therefore had travelled a long distance from the locus of the crime by the time the PJ had launched any useful roadblocks.  These people are not amateurs, they knew that they only had a limited time to get clear from the local area and before any major police effort was put into place.

They were limited to the period in which they could carry out the abduction.  It had to be late enough at night so as to catch the police at a quiet period but it had to be before the McCanns returned from their meal.  They were also aware that the routine could have ceased at any time and that the parents may have dined in their apartment instead of going out to eat at the restaurant or the tapas.

Since a body has not been found or anyone brought to account for the crime, this gives hope that Madeleine is still alive.

[Heriberto Janosch]

The 48 hours used by police as the crutial time limit that a person could be found alive.

Really I was unsuccessful explaining my point. There is no scientific basis to apply "likelihoods", "probabilities", "chances", etc ... from previous (a lot of cases statistics) ...

We have two levels of analysis here: the aggregate level (a lot of cases) and the single case level.

We are dealing with no random events like crimes also. So the probability maths theory can not be used here.

You can not scientifically use results from the aggregate level to explain a single case. Or take a single case to explain the aggregate level.

An example. Suppose we know that 15% of Madrid women are pregnant now. So now 85% are not pregnant. Now you meet a woman from Madrid, María. You can not use the statistics to say nothing about María state. She is not 15% pregnant for sure. She is 100% pregnant or 100% not pregnant.

But you can use the statistics to estimate how many maternity hospitals to build and how many maternity health personnel you will need in the next years. Aggregate level (past) to explain aggregate level (future). You can predict more or less how many women will be pregnant the following years, but not who of them.

To know more on María single case and her actual state, you have to study María single case. You can not assign to her "probability", "likelihood", or "chance". It is not scientific.

So as an example if "in the 90% of the last 2,000 solved past cases of missing people who were missed for more than 48 hours the person was found dead", we can not say the Madeleine has 90% probability of being dead. And that is all.

Or, if 60% of the persons of your age have illness X, have you 60% of illness X? No. you have 100% of illness X, or 0% of illness X. You can not applied statistics collected on a aggregate level to a single case level.

You can not estimate 50/50, 70/30, 30/70, 90/10, 10/90 ... You can not estimate nothing about this unknown fact ... And you can not used past (aggregate of lot of cases) statistics to a single case ... So the only way of knowing is investigating the single case searching for Madeleine ...

In Madeleine's case the police said if Madeleine had been abducted by a lone person for the intention of being abused and murdered,   then the liklihood would be that this person would dump Madeleine's body within 48 hours of her being abducted.

There was an extensive search carried out and no body was found.

The likihood then is that the abductor/abductor's have taken her somewhere.   

The likihood that Madeleine is alive is much greater due to the fact that no body was ever found and that she had been kept alive long enough to be taken away somewhere.

More of the same. Police are wrong if they applied "likelihoods", or consulting criminal profilers or psychics, by the way.

But yes, Eleanor and Admin ... you can use "hope", "expectation", "wish" ... 

And the last to Admin ... You say he/they was/were not amateur(s) ... Do you think a not amateur walking 5-7 minutes with the child in arms before taking a car/van? Only a question   

Heri.

[stephen25000]

The 48 hours used by police as the crutial time limit that a person could be found alive.

Really I was unsuccessful explaining my point. There is no scientific basis to apply "likelihoods", "probabilities", "chances", etc ... from previous (a lot of cases statistics) ...

We have two levels of analysis here: the aggregate level (a lot of cases) and the single case level.

We are dealing with no random events like crimes also. So the probability maths theory can not be used here.

You can not scientifically use results from the aggregate level to explain a single case. Or take a single case to explain the aggregate level.

An example. Suppose we know that 15% of Madrid women are pregnant now. So now 85% are not pregnant. Now you meet a woman from Madrid, María. You can not use the statistics to say nothing about María state. She is not 15% pregnant for sure. She is 100% pregnant or 100% not pregnant.

But you can use the statistics to estimate how many maternity hospitals to build and how many maternity health personnel you will need in the next years. Aggregate level (past) to explain aggregate level (future). You can predict more or less how many women will be pregnant the following years, but not who of them.

To know more on María single case and her actual state, you have to study María single case. You can not assign to her "probability", "likelihood", or "chance". It is not scientific.

So as an example if "in the 90% of the last 2,000 solved past cases of missing people who were missed for more than 48 hours the person was found dead", we can not say the Madeleine has 90% probability of being dead. And that is all.

Or, if 60% of the persons of your age have illness X, have you 60% of illness X? No. you have 100% of illness X, or 0% of illness X. You can not applied statistics collected on a aggregate level to a single case level.

You do not understand me. You can not estimate 50/50, 70/30, 30/70, 90/10, 10/90 ... You can not estimate nothing about this unknown fact ... And you can not used past (aggregate of lot of cases) statistics to a single case ... So the only way of knowing is investigating the single case searching for Madeleine ...

In Madeleine's case the police said if Madeleine had been abducted by a lone person for the intention of being abused and murdered,   then the liklihood would be that this person would dump Madeleine's body within 48 hours of her being abducted.

There was an extensive search carried out and no body was found.

The likihood then is that the abductor/abductor's have taken her somewhere.   

The likihood that Madeleine is alive is much greater due to the fact that no body was ever found and that she had been kept alive long enough to be taken away somewhere.

More of the same. Police are wrong if they applied "likelihoods", or consulting criminal profilers or psychics, by the way.

Heri.

When it comes to investigating cases, do you believe the police use statistics in their analysis of a given situation/case ?

e.g. When examining the case of a missing person, on the balance of probability of course, where would they start ?

[Heriberto Janosch]

The 48 hours used by police as the crutial time limit that a person could be found alive.

Really I was unsuccessful explaining my point. There is no scientific basis to apply "likelihoods", "probabilities", "chances", etc ... from previous (a lot of cases statistics) ...

We have two levels of analysis here: the aggregate level (a lot of cases) and the single case level.

We are dealing with no random events like crimes also. So the probability maths theory can not be used here.

You can not scientifically use results from the aggregate level to explain a single case. Or take a single case to explain the aggregate level.

An example. Suppose we know that 15% of Madrid women are pregnant now. So now 85% are not pregnant. Now you meet a woman from Madrid, María. You can not use the statistics to say nothing about María state. She is not 15% pregnant for sure. She is 100% pregnant or 100% not pregnant.

But you can use the statistics to estimate how many maternity hospitals to build and how many maternity health personnel you will need in the next years. Aggregate level (past) to explain aggregate level (future). You can predict more or less how many women will be pregnant the following years, but not who of them.

To know more on María single case and her actual state, you have to study María single case. You can not assign to her "probability", "likelihood", or "chance". It is not scientific.

So as an example if "in the 90% of the last 2,000 solved past cases of missing people who were missed for more than 48 hours the person was found dead", we can not say the Madeleine has 90% probability of being dead. And that is all.

Or, if 60% of the persons of your age have illness X, have you 60% of illness X? No. you have 100% of illness X, or 0% of illness X. You can not applied statistics collected on a aggregate level to a single case level.

You do not understand me. You can not estimate 50/50, 70/30, 30/70, 90/10, 10/90 ... You can not estimate nothing about this unknown fact ... And you can not used past (aggregate of lot of cases) statistics to a single case ... So the only way of knowing is investigating the single case searching for Madeleine ...

In Madeleine's case the police said if Madeleine had been abducted by a lone person for the intention of being abused and murdered,   then the liklihood would be that this person would dump Madeleine's body within 48 hours of her being abducted.

There was an extensive search carried out and no body was found.

The likihood then is that the abductor/abductor's have taken her somewhere.   

The likihood that Madeleine is alive is much greater due to the fact that no body was ever found and that she had been kept alive long enough to be taken away somewhere.

More of the same. Police are wrong if they applied "likelihoods", or consulting criminal profilers or psychics, by the way.

Heri.

When it comes to investigating cases, do you believe the police use statistics in their analysis of a given situation/case ?

e.g. When examining the case of a missing person, on the balance of probability of course, where would they start ?

If you use "on the balance of probability of course" you missed my point at all.

Heri.

[stephen25000]

The 48 hours used by police as the crutial time limit that a person could be found alive.

Really I was unsuccessful explaining my point. There is no scientific basis to apply "likelihoods", "probabilities", "chances", etc ... from previous (a lot of cases statistics) ...

We have two levels of analysis here: the aggregate level (a lot of cases) and the single case level.

We are dealing with no random events like crimes also. So the probability maths theory can not be used here.

You can not scientifically use results from the aggregate level to explain a single case. Or take a single case to explain the aggregate level.

An example. Suppose we know that 15% of Madrid women are pregnant now. So now 85% are not pregnant. Now you meet a woman from Madrid, María. You can not use the statistics to say nothing about María state. She is not 15% pregnant for sure. She is 100% pregnant or 100% not pregnant.

But you can use the statistics to estimate how many maternity hospitals to build and how many maternity health personnel you will need in the next years. Aggregate level (past) to explain aggregate level (future). You can predict more or less how many women will be pregnant the following years, but not who of them.

To know more on María single case and her actual state, you have to study María single case. You can not assign to her "probability", "likelihood", or "chance". It is not scientific.

So as an example if "in the 90% of the last 2,000 solved past cases of missing people who were missed for more than 48 hours the person was found dead", we can not say the Madeleine has 90% probability of being dead. And that is all.

Or, if 60% of the persons of your age have illness X, have you 60% of illness X? No. you have 100% of illness X, or 0% of illness X. You can not applied statistics collected on a aggregate level to a single case level.

You do not understand me. You can not estimate 50/50, 70/30, 30/70, 90/10, 10/90 ... You can not estimate nothing about this unknown fact ... And you can not used past (aggregate of lot of cases) statistics to a single case ... So the only way of knowing is investigating the single case searching for Madeleine ...

In Madeleine's case the police said if Madeleine had been abducted by a lone person for the intention of being abused and murdered,   then the liklihood would be that this person would dump Madeleine's body within 48 hours of her being abducted.

There was an extensive search carried out and no body was found.

The likihood then is that the abductor/abductor's have taken her somewhere.   

The likihood that Madeleine is alive is much greater due to the fact that no body was ever found and that she had been kept alive long enough to be taken away somewhere.

More of the same. Police are wrong if they applied "likelihoods", or consulting criminal profilers or psychics, by the way.

Heri.

When it comes to investigating cases, do you believe the police use statistics in their analysis of a given situation/case ?

e.g. When examining the case of a missing person, on the balance of probability of course, where would they start ?

If you use "on the balance of probability of course" you missed my point at all.

No I understood what you mean.

Heri, How would the Police judge how to use limited resources ?

Would they  apply the use of statistics in examining whether a case is likely to be solved or not  ?

Likewise, would they employ probability to choose/investigate people who could be involved in a particular crime, such as a missing member of a family ?

True there is also intuition, something hard to quantify, when the Police think they might have a likely suspect(s) for a crime, but then don't have the evidence to prove they committed it.

Also, in this case, who judges when enough money has been spent by SY, above the original level set already, and with nothing to show for it, and of course SY have no jurisdiction in this case  ?

[Heriberto Janosch]

The 48 hours used by police as the crutial time limit that a person could be found alive.

Really I was unsuccessful explaining my point. There is no scientific basis to apply "likelihoods", "probabilities", "chances", etc ... from previous (a lot of cases statistics) ...

We have two levels of analysis here: the aggregate level (a lot of cases) and the single case level.

We are dealing with no random events like crimes also. So the probability maths theory can not be used here.

You can not scientifically use results from the aggregate level to explain a single case. Or take a single case to explain the aggregate level.

An example. Suppose we know that 15% of Madrid women are pregnant now. So now 85% are not pregnant. Now you meet a woman from Madrid, María. You can not use the statistics to say nothing about María state. She is not 15% pregnant for sure. She is 100% pregnant or 100% not pregnant.

But you can use the statistics to estimate how many maternity hospitals to build and how many maternity health personnel you will need in the next years. Aggregate level (past) to explain aggregate level (future). You can predict more or less how many women will be pregnant the following years, but not who of them.

To know more on María single case and her actual state, you have to study María single case. You can not assign to her "probability", "likelihood", or "chance". It is not scientific.

So as an example if "in the 90% of the last 2,000 solved past cases of missing people who were missed for more than 48 hours the person was found dead", we can not say the Madeleine has 90% probability of being dead. And that is all.

Or, if 60% of the persons of your age have illness X, have you 60% of illness X? No. you have 100% of illness X, or 0% of illness X. You can not applied statistics collected on a aggregate level to a single case level.

You do not understand me. You can not estimate 50/50, 70/30, 30/70, 90/10, 10/90 ... You can not estimate nothing about this unknown fact ... And you can not used past (aggregate of lot of cases) statistics to a single case ... So the only way of knowing is investigating the single case searching for Madeleine ...

In Madeleine's case the police said if Madeleine had been abducted by a lone person for the intention of being abused and murdered,   then the liklihood would be that this person would dump Madeleine's body within 48 hours of her being abducted.

There was an extensive search carried out and no body was found.

The likihood then is that the abductor/abductor's have taken her somewhere.   

The likihood that Madeleine is alive is much greater due to the fact that no body was ever found and that she had been kept alive long enough to be taken away somewhere.

More of the same. Police are wrong if they applied "likelihoods", or consulting criminal profilers or psychics, by the way.

Heri.

When it comes to investigating cases, do you believe the police use statistics in their analysis of a given situation/case ?

e.g. When examining the case of a missing person, on the balance of probability of course, where would they start ?

If you use "on the balance of probability of course" you missed my point at all.

No I understood what you mean.

Heri, How would the Police judge how to use limited resources ?

Would they  apply the use of statistics in examining whether a case is likely to be solved or not  ?

Likewise, would they employ probability to choose/investigate people who could be involved in a particular crime, such as a missing member of a family ?

True there is also intuition, something hard to quantify, when the Police think they might have a likely suspect(s) for a crime, but then don't have the evidence to prove they committed it.

Also, in this case, who judges when enough money has been spent by SY, above the original level set already, and with nothing to show for it, and of course SY have no jurisdiction in this case  ?

Police all around the world applies "intuition" though they call it "probabilities", which seems more scientific but it is not.

Awfully (and leaving aside psychics and criminal profilers, who are totally useless) there is a lot of pseudoscience (false science) in "forensic science" used by all around the world police. You MUST read the

Strengthening Forensic Science in the United
States: A Path Forward
Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic
Sciences Community, National Research Council

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf

Heri.