Missing Baby Crime Mystery in Missouri

[WildCat]

I was responding to commandlinegamer's question. Nothing more.

I wasn't offering any opinion about appropriate response, either in general or specifically to this case.

What's your point?

I didn't know you were German, sorry.

 

[quadraginta]

I already made it. I don't see any reason to repeat it.

Well, in that case, I disagree with you. I don't think they should just lock the parents up right away.

I also don't think they should just assume that a parent isn't responsible because 'That's not something a parent would do.'.

In the absence of any other compelling evidence it makes sense to look harder at the most statistically likely suspects, which is what the police are doing in this case, apparently.

They are also following any other leads that they can unearth, without any success so far.

Do you think they should just eliminate the parents from any consideration?

 

[Matthew Best]

Do you think they should just eliminate the parents from any consideration?

Yeah, that's right. They should automatically eliminate all parents from any suspicion of anything. That's obviously my position.

 

[shemp]

As we all know, lie detectors are 100% foolproof and police never make mistakes.

This doesn't mean that I think the parents are innocent. It does mean that I don't have a lot of faith in police getting things right.

 

[quadraginta]

Yeah, that's right. They should automatically eliminate all parents from any suspicion of anything. That's obviously my position.

How obvious is the position you were attributing to my post?

 

[Matthew Best]

How obvious is the position you were attributing to my post?

I don't remember attributing a position to your post.

 

[quadraginta]

I don't remember attributing a position to your post.

Of course you don't.

You just popped up with the statement you did out of a clear, blue sky, and any relationship to the post of mine which it closely followed was entirely coincidental.

 

[Matthew Best]

It's not all about you, you know. Obviously my post followed yours and referenced it, but it was not ascribing a position to you, just making a jocular remark.

Have you lost your sense of humour or something?

 

[Humes fork]

In Sweden there have been a few cases of boyfriends reporting their girlfriends/wives as missing and then crying out on national television, only to be found to be the culprits. So the fact that they go on TV gives me bad feelings about their innocence.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Shannon Matthews.

 

[Aepervius]

Here is the statistic on infanticide :
http://missingchild.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/homicide-rates-in-the-us-infanticide/

About 0.44 per 100,000 says wiki.

31% were killed by fathers
29% were killed by mothers (so about 0.13 per 100000)
23% were killed by male acquaintances
7% were killed by other relatives
3% were killed by strangers

Your 115 child "stereotypical" abduction is per 25 million child year 0-5.

So 115/25million *IS* 0.46 per 100000 a *similar* number as total infanticide. And that does not even count the non-family abduction which would make that number explode. And if you count mother only infanticide the number is lower.

Therefore I question the immediate "it is the parent" jump, unless I made an error in calculation.

BY the way if I remember correctely in a thread on judgement error, it was such a statistic was mentionned in some sort of appeal because they demonstrated that the number of child abduction was actually similar or even higher than mother doing infaticide (which is by the way statistically ~1/4 of the the chance ofb stranger abduction!)

Now I could be wrong, but it does not sound as clear cut as presented above.

 

[shemp]

O.J. did it.

 

[lane99]

It isn't hard to look that kind of stuff up yourself, you know...

Yes, that you were able to do it would seem to support that claim.

...Besides how the baby disappeared is very weird.

Though an earlier post of yours seems to indicate you are skeptical that children could be snatched from their homes at night, that does happen. So if that is what you meant by "weird", it's not.

Other than the results of a polygraph test (which have about as much intrinsic validity as a coin flip) I'm not sure if they have any actual evidence to indicate the mother knows the whereabouts of the baby.

Praying that the baby is found safe and sound. As- under similar circumstances to what I see described here- 3y.o. Kienan Hebert was the other day.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

O.J. did it.

He had help from Amanda Knox and Casey Anthony.

 

[William Parcher]

Some factoids:

A door was found unlocked.
A window was open.
No signs of forced entry.
Interior house lights were on.

The lights on seems odd. I would not expect an abductor to turn on the lights - let alone leave them on.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Madeleine McCann did it.

 

[noch1Narr]

WP- maybe the abductor is/was afraid of the dark....?

 

[Verde]

So the fact that they go on TV gives me bad feelings about their innocence.

Did they request the TV presence? Or was it just that the microphones and cameras were thrust upon them?
The media here is notorious for exploiting tragic situations.

V.

 

[quadraginta]

It's not all about you, you know. Obviously my post followed yours and referenced it, but it was not ascribing a position to you, just making a jocular remark.

Have you lost your sense of humour or something?

Sometimes it is smothered by my skepticism. I've seen how you choose to apply your "jocular remarks".

If your claim can be accepted at face value then I regret jumping to conclusions.

 

[quadraginta]

Here is the statistic on infanticide :
http://missingchild.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/homicide-rates-in-the-us-infanticide/

About 0.44 per 100,000 says wiki.

31% were killed by fathers
29% were killed by mothers (so about 0.13 per 100000)
23% were killed by male acquaintances
7% were killed by other relatives
3% were killed by strangers

Your 115 child "stereotypical" abduction is per 25 million child year 0-5.

Umm, no. The link you cited is probably using the source I cited.

~115 of the ~800,000 reported abductions each year of children under eighteen are committed by strangers. (i.e. the 'Stranger Danger" stereotype.)

The infanticide rate is a separate statistic. From your link,

"There are approximately 584 children under the age of 5-years-old murdered each year. Infanticide is the term given to the killing of a child. The term doesn’t differentiate between whether the act was intentional or
accidental."
​

Around 3% of those are by strangers. (i.e. the 'Stranger Danger" stereotype.)

This doesn't make either set of numbers any prettier. Parent or family involvement is still the most probable cause in either one.

So 115/25million *IS* 0.46 per 100000 a *similar* number as total infanticide. And that does not even count the non-family abduction which would make that number explode. And if you count mother only infanticide the number is lower.

Therefore I question the immediate "it is the parent" jump, unless I made an error in calculation.

You did.

I question the "it is a parent" jump, too. I just don't discount the chances that it might be a parent, since it usually* is.

(* For relatively large values of "usually".)

BY the way if I remember correctely in a thread on judgement error, it was such a statistic was mentionned in some sort of appeal because they demonstrated that the number of child abduction was actually similar or even higher than mother doing infaticide (which is by the way statistically ~1/4 of the the chance ofb stranger abduction!)

Comparing child abduction statistics to infanticide statistics can lead to errors. Some elements are common to each group. Not all of them.

Now I could be wrong, but it does not sound as clear cut as presented above.

I think you may be wrong.