Nope. First, it is not a fine point at all. It's the whole darn case! It's how cases are solved- by combining probabilities and stats with the specific facts of a specific case.
Second, not once did I say that the rarity of such cases (and again, except the Lindbergh baby case 83 years ago, I have yet to see one proven case of an infant abducted from his or her bed at night proven where it is not a family case, including every one of your links, none of which involve a non-family abduction of a baby at night from his or her crib. So it's less than a rarity.), is enough to decide that such did not happen here. Or in any case.
Give me a broken-into a house, a strange car racing off, or slowly driving away, dogs barking frantically, a family friend or acquaintance who has suddenly disappeared, tire tracks, foot prints, hand prints on a crib, windowsill or door, cigarette butts outside the window, a figure seen running away with a bundle, give me something, anything, to suggest the possibility if a stranger abduction! I will go there in this case or any other.
I go into cases open-minded. Please read my last post to see why the facts of this specific case, coupled with the stats, have caused me to trust LE's focus. It's clear to me. But I don't expect everyone to share my opinion. And that's perfectly okay!!!
