Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !

Madeleine', by Dr Kate McCann, Foreword, top of page 5:
"...there remains no evidence whatsoever to suggest that she has come to serious harm".
Remains? What a very strange use of English.
It permits of several interpretations, apart from the normal McCann illiteracy and inarticulacy, but even if it were that, then it is still a strange choice of word.

One of the only seriously logical interpretations is
"There was evidence, but we are now confident that we have dealt with it, and that it will never be found. We have covered everything."
Rather similar to Clarence M's notorious statement.

And then I looked again, and left no page unturned.
I wondered it this might actually be a classic 'Freudian slip'?

Wikipedia:
A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious ("dynamically repressed"), subdued, wish, conflict, or train of thought. The concept is thus part of classical psychoanalysis.
Slips of the tongue and the pen are the classical parapraxes, but psychoanalytic theory also embraces such phenomena as misreadings, mishearings, temporary forgettings, and the mislaying and losing of objects.

But then
p. 2 top "Others have seized the opportunity to profit from our agony by writing books about our daughter, several of them claiming to reveal 'what really happened'. Which is extraordinary, given that the only person who knows this is the person who abducted her on 3 May 2007." [my emphases]

So by direct logical implication and on her own admission, neither Kate nor Gerry do know what really happened.
How then can they sue anyone who purports a theory.

p. 5 top, "As will become clear in the following pages, whilst we still do not know what happened to Madeleine, there remains ..."

They admit, yet again, only 3 pages after the first time, that they do not know what happened. (though they may incidentally be admitted to destroying evidence)

Not, we should note, what subsequently happened, or where she might now be, or in what circumstances she was taken or carried away, or by whom, or why, or when .... They admit they simply do not know what happened.

It has been written, and proof read, and passed by all concerned, lawyers, T7, C-R, Old Uncle Tom Tugendhat and all - and it states very simply, and boldly, and perhaps truthfully, who knows, They do not know what happened. And that can only mean whatever allegedly occurred on the alleged night in question.

The fact that later she says "I knew", and then repeats it in italic, thus - "I knew" does not alter the fact that in the foreword, which is ALWAYS written long after the main text has been finalised, and acts in some way as an executive summary of the whole piece, she says in terms "I don't know". And repeats it 3 pages later.

What on earth are we to make of this ?

A McSyllogism.

I don't know what happened.
I don't like your theory,
Therefore - I am going to sue you.

Aristotle defines the syllogism as "a discourse in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so."
Don't you just love "Supposed". Synonymous with "assumed" or "hypothesised"

PeterMac wrote:A McSyllogism.

I don't know what happened.
I don't like your theory,
Therefore - I am going to sue you.

Aristotle defines the syllogism as "a discourse in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so."
Don't you just love "Supposed". Synonymous with "assumed" or "hypothesised"

I've read this three times and I still don't understand it and I want to understand it. Could you explain PM?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The politician's syllogism, also known as the politician's logic or the politician's fallacy, is a logical fallacy of the form:
We must do something
This is something
Therefore, we must do this.
The politician's fallacy was identified in a 1988 episode of the BBC television political sitcom Yes, Prime Minister titled "Power to the People", and has taken added life on the internet.[1] The syllogism (invented by fictional British civil servants) has been quoted in the (real) British Parliament.[2]
In Yes, Prime Minister, the term is discussed between two high-ranking civil servants who are concerned that the prime minister wants to implement a scheme to reform local government due to political opposition there. In this issue, as with many other issues humorously explored by the show, the civil servants believe that doing anything is worse than doing nothing because actions tend to undermine the dominance of the civil service. They identify the politician's logic as a fallacious categorical syllogism:
All cats have four legs
My dog has four legs
Therefore, my dog is a cat.
This invalid form of argument, labeled AAA-2 among syllogisms, commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle: it says nothing about all things having four legs (the middle term) and thus the conclusion cannot logically follow from the premises (even if the premises are sound). The politician's syllogism similarly says nothing about all known "somethings" that could be done. As is common with fallacious undistributed middle arguments, it can also be seen as the fallacy of affirming the consequent when restated as an equivalent hypothetical syllogism[3]:
To improve things, things must change
We are changing things
Therefore, we are improving things.
The politician's syllogism can also be interpreted as committing the informal fallacy of equivocation, which is using one word ("something") in two different senses.

Bit rusty on this but I learned this as:
All elephants have four legs
An elephants is a mammal
All mammals have four legs
as a fallacious syllogism.

If one said: ONLY mammals have four legs it is valid.
All elephants have four legs
Only mammals have four legs
An elephant is a mammal
is correct.

My child is missing
Some missing children are abducted
my child has been abducted.
is a good example of a fallacious syllogism.

tigger

My child is missing
Some missing children are abducted
my child has been abducted.
is a good example of a fallacious syllogism.

But it's also a blatant lie and not all fallacious syllogisms are blatant lies. Thanks for an interesting read

"...there remains no evidence whatsoever to suggest that she has come to serious harm".

I saw this line in a comment here the other day, and it really does leap out. Many people looking at this case want to keep it as a simple 'whodunnit' - a crime, a perpetrator and clues to their identity. But at every turn this simplistic model does not work, there are layers upon layers, deceptions upon deceptions, and despite the best, often dogged and impeccably logical efforts of a number of people, none of us is really any closer to unravelling this whole farrago, and anyone who says definitively 'this is what happened' is doing so as a matter of belief rather than as a result of incontrovertible proof.

As Peter says, this is not a spontaneous off the cuff comment made as a lapse, but something that has been right through the vetting process. The precise words used are the precise words of choice, they have been put there for a purpose. From the simplistic view, this makes no sense at all as it suggests guilt both subliminally and as fact. The use of "remains" on the one hand subliminally suggests a corpse, and on the other suggests the removal of evidence. That phrase implicates the McCanns in at least a cover-up, yet it appears as part of their official narrative. Had the line read "…we've seen no evidence…" neither of those implications would have been injected into the discourse, yet the implicative phrase was the one used.

It is all very curious.

Ross, OK if I copy and paste to Forensic Linguistics?

It looks as if they've already told us what happened, just not how.

tigger wrote:
Ross, OK if I copy and paste to Forensic Linguistics?

It looks as if they've already told us what happened, just not how.

Or someone is telling us. Are we supposed to know? Is that part of the game?

If you think it useful, of course you may repost.

PeterMac wrote:Madeleine', by Dr Kate McCann, Foreword, top of page 5:
"...there remains no evidence whatsoever to suggest that she has come to serious harm".
Remains? What a very strange use of English.
It permits of several interpretations, apart from the normal McCann illiteracy and inarticulacy, but even if it were that, then it is still a strange choice of word.

One of the only seriously logical interpretations is
"There was evidence, but we are now confident that we have dealt with it, and that it will never be found. We have covered everything."
Rather similar to Clarence M's notorious statement.

And then I looked again, and left no page unturned.
I wondered it this might actually be a classic 'Freudian slip'?

Wikipedia:
A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious ("dynamically repressed"), subdued, wish, conflict, or train of thought. The concept is thus part of classical psychoanalysis.
Slips of the tongue and the pen are the classical parapraxes, but psychoanalytic theory also embraces such phenomena as misreadings, mishearings, temporary forgettings, and the mislaying and losing of objects.

But then
p. 2 top "Others have seized the opportunity to profit from our agony by writing books about our daughter, several of them claiming to reveal 'what really happened'. Which is extraordinary, given that the only person who knows this is the person who abducted her on 3 May 2007." [my emphases]

So by direct logical implication and on her own admission, neither Kate nor Gerry do know what really happened.
How then can they sue anyone who purports a theory.

p. 5 top, "As will become clear in the following pages, whilst we still do not know what happened to Madeleine, there remains ..."

They admit, yet again, only 3 pages after the first time, that they do not know what happened. (though they may incidentally be admitted to destroying evidence)

Not, we should note, what subsequently happened, or where she might now be, or in what circumstances she was taken or carried away, or by whom, or why, or when .... They admit they simply do not know what happened.

It has been written, and proof read, and passed by all concerned, lawyers, T7, C-R, Old Uncle Tom Tugendhat and all - and it states very simply, and boldly, and perhaps truthfully, who knows, They do not know what happened. And that can only mean whatever allegedly occurred on the alleged night in question.

The fact that later she says "I knew", and then repeats it in italic, thus - "I knew" does not alter the fact that in the foreword, which is ALWAYS written long after the main text has been finalised, and acts in some way as an executive summary of the whole piece, she says in terms "I don't know". And repeats it 3 pages later.

What on earth are we to make of this ?

Hallo Peter Mac. Found this in the PJ files. The phrasing of 'there remains (..) seems to betray that once there WAS evidence, but it withered away, and what's more: is known to have withered away (or to have been destroyed, of course)



CONCLUSION

The analysis of the samples collected from the garden
wall of the apartment of the OC yielded the following
results:

- No synthetic fibres compatible with the fibres
received for comparison from the pyjamas were found.
- Numerous white cotton fibres were found. However, this
result should not be considered to be significant, given
that according to studies of distribution and
persistence of textile fibres it should always be
possible to find fibres of different types and colours
on any surface, white cotton fibres being very common
and without discriminatory parameters.
- In addition, the interval of time that has passed
between the events being investigated and the collection
of samples (out in the open air) means the existence of
fibres from the date of the events is of very low
probability.

Note: The material remains archived at the SPL.

Lisbon, 23rd November 2007

Signed

Superior Specialist Machado Area Chief Monteiro

Portia wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Madeleine', by Dr Kate McCann, Foreword, top of page 5:
"...there remains no evidence whatsoever to suggest that she has come to serious harm".
Remains? What a very strange use of English.
It permits of several interpretations, apart from the normal McCann illiteracy and inarticulacy, but even if it were that, then it is still a strange choice of word.

One of the only seriously logical interpretations is
"There was evidence, but we are now confident that we have dealt with it, and that it will never be found. We have covered everything."
Rather similar to Clarence M's notorious statement.

And then I looked again, and left no page unturned.
I wondered it this might actually be a classic 'Freudian slip'?

Wikipedia:
A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious ("dynamically repressed"), subdued, wish, conflict, or train of thought. The concept is thus part of classical psychoanalysis.
Slips of the tongue and the pen are the classical parapraxes, but psychoanalytic theory also embraces such phenomena as misreadings, mishearings, temporary forgettings, and the mislaying and losing of objects.

But then
p. 2 top "Others have seized the opportunity to profit from our agony by writing books about our daughter, several of them claiming to reveal 'what really happened'. Which is extraordinary, given that the only person who knows this is the person who abducted her on 3 May 2007." [my emphases]

So by direct logical implication and on her own admission, neither Kate nor Gerry do know what really happened.
How then can they sue anyone who purports a theory.

p. 5 top, "As will become clear in the following pages, whilst we still do not know what happened to Madeleine, there remains ..."

They admit, yet again, only 3 pages after the first time, that they do not know what happened. (though they may incidentally be admitted to destroying evidence)

Not, we should note, what subsequently happened, or where she might now be, or in what circumstances she was taken or carried away, or by whom, or why, or when .... They admit they simply do not know what happened.

It has been written, and proof read, and passed by all concerned, lawyers, T7, C-R, Old Uncle Tom Tugendhat and all - and it states very simply, and boldly, and perhaps truthfully, who knows, They do not know what happened. And that can only mean whatever allegedly occurred on the alleged night in question.

The fact that later she says "I knew", and then repeats it in italic, thus - "I knew" does not alter the fact that in the foreword, which is ALWAYS written long after the main text has been finalised, and acts in some way as an executive summary of the whole piece, she says in terms "I don't know". And repeats it 3 pages later.

What on earth are we to make of this ?

Hallo Peter Mac. Found this in the PJ files. The phrasing of 'there remains (..) seems to betray that once there WAS evidence, but it withered away, and what's more: is known to have withered away (or to have been destroyed, of course)

CONCLUSION

The analysis of the samples collected from the garden
wall of the apartment of the OC yielded the following
results:

- No synthetic fibres compatible with the fibres
received for comparison from the pyjamas were found.
- Numerous white cotton fibres were found. However, this
result should not be considered to be significant, given
that according to studies of distribution and
persistence of textile fibres it should always be
possible to find fibres of different types and colours
on any surface, white cotton fibres being very common
and without discriminatory parameters.
- In addition, the interval of time that has passed
between the events being investigated and the collection
of samples (out in the open air) means the existence of
fibres from the date of the events is of very low
probability.

Note: The material remains archived at the SPL.

Lisbon, 23rd November 2007

Signed

Superior Specialist Machado Area Chief Monteiro

Does anybody know who this Chief Monteiro is? Granted it could be a popular name in Portugal, but isn't the co-ordinator this time a Helena Monteiro?