Discussion in 'Lisa Irwin' started by nursebeeme, Oct 28, 2011.
WTF? I thought I was responding to a PM???
I'm guessing that your point is that it's unlikely that an intruder took Lisa from her home from the statistics your using.
That doesn't mean it's impossible for that to have happened. In fact it helps me to stay on the fence in this case by leaving it as a possibility. MOO.
Sorry, this means little to me, Because for all this math to have to work every criminal and child abuctor would all have to have a rubric to know what to do..
Humans commit crimes. Humans who sometimes have reasons for things they do and some times do not. Some are smarter than average some are not, Some are driven by hate and some are driven by sickness. Some are just driven to see what it feels like.
Statistics only matter when you have conclusions, Not when you are looking at possibilities and in all these case the possibilities are all still there.
you first comment makes no sense. the math however makes perfect sense if you're willing to see it...
your second comment? i don't see any relevance to what i posted.
and yes, statisitcs matter b/c they help determine which possibiliites are most likely. this is why NCMEC, the FBI, the DOJ etc. keep them.
in a nutshell, the chance that each of these three girls being taken by an intruder is just infintisimally small. and that is just oh so very sad.
I believe Madeleine was killed by her parents.
I believe JonBenet was killed by an intruder.
I believe this child was given away/sold/used as a marker--was alive at the time (and for a long time thereafter), fate currently unkown
It means nothing really. It is only as good as a statistics when you know the facts of this crime after the solution.
All that matters is that it happens and has to be considered a possibility.
I don't care about statistics, not when it comes to looking at possibilities.
What matters is looking at all the options and seeing what fits. What may have happened in another case has bearing here.
Hi, redheadedgal. It's amazing that you could put this into a mathematical equation to calculate the chances of all three of these cases being an intruder. Everyone knows that statistics show, in child-related crimes, it is most likely to be a family member or someone within their inner circle who is responsible. That doesn't mean that any one single case can't or won't be an "intruder" -- but statistics being what they are, this is the reason investigators look first at the family in order to eliminate the most likely possibilities. It's sad, if you are in the situation of having lost a child, to think that you will have to go through the scrutiny as a suspect at a time when you are so emotionally distraught; but knowing it is a necessary step in the investigation should be enough for anyone to be willing to cooperate and get through it in order for investigators to move on toward finding who is responsible.
On the math... I know the probabilities in a coin toss of it being heads (or tails) is 50% each time it is done, regardless of how many times it is tossed. That strikes the casual observer as impossible because you would think sooner or later it's got to be the opposite. And that is also correct. The difference here that throws most people off is whether you are looking at each individual coin toss (where it is 50% each single time), or the total amount of tosses (where you are looking at the total amount of tosses). If you toss a total of five times, each individual toss has a 50% chance of being heads (or tails). But with each successive toss, the chances of all of them being heads (or tails) is compounded exactly as you calculated above. So even though each of the individual five tosses still has a 50% probability of being one or the other, the chances of all five being the same would be 3.125% [ (0.5) x (0.5) x (0.5) x (0.5) x (0.5)].