Let us try some LOGIC

by **PeterMac** 25.11.13 18:29

IF Tannerman (Tm), = (Abductor (Ab) + MbM)
THEN there was 1 minute and 20 seconds available for the abduction
BUT Entry, sedation, Abduction, and exit cannot be completed in 1:20
THEREFORE
Tm ≠ (Ab+MbM)

(OK so far ?. The PJ knew this on day 1, we worked it out several years ago. The PIs probably six years ago, and SY about two years ago)

IF Tm = Father, innocent (Fi) and Child,
THEN . . . well nothing, actually. NO consequences at all - ( except for a 7 year campaign of deliberate misinformation and threats against anyone who thought this. Obviously !)
Tm = Fi + Ch

IF Tm = 0 (he did not exist)
THEN
JT is a liar, or deluded, or a conspirator
* * * * * *
Now apply this to Smithman (Sm)

IF Smithman (Sm), = (Abductor (Ab) + MbM)
THEN there might have been four minutes available for the abduction
BUT Entry, sedation, Abduction, and exit cannot be completed in 4 minutes (or any other number of minutes !)
THEREFORE
Sm ≠ (Ab+MbM)

IF Sm = Father, innocent (Fi) and Child,
THEN . . . well nothing, actually. No consequences at all -
Sm = (Fi + Ch)

IF Sm = 0
THEN
Smith = liar, or deluded, or a conspirator. His wife is also, as is his child.

In the Tm case SY have said that position 2 applies. This may or not be correct.
In the Sm case the McCanns withheld evidence which might, ( if we pretend to purport their own theory) have lead to the recovery of their first born daughter, alive and well, and suppressed the contents of the report for 5 years.

But in this case there is a further possibility, not available to Tm.
IF Sm = (GM + MbM)
THEN
1 Crime ≠ abduction
BUT
2 Crime = death and disposal + crass stupidity.

by Lance De Boils 25.11.13 18:44

Very good.
I like it. smilie

(How did you get 4 mins?)

by Guest 25.11.13 18:49

I've never been real good at formulas. But after the 5th reading [not one reading ...] I get it Mrs

by Ribisl 25.11.13 18:59

crass stupidity, yet getting away with it => unprecedented level of collusion => W.H.Y?

by **PeterMac** 25.11.13 19:05

Lance De Boils wrote:Very good.
I like it.
(How did you get 4 mins?)

From subtracting the time of the last return (not the time of the visit - which in any event is tht time they recorded leaving the Tapas bar ) by a Tapasik across the car park where No car was noted, No open shutter was noted, No open window or whooshing curtain was noted, No lurker or lurkers were noted, Nothing unusual was noted > > >
to the time when Kate said she left the Tapas bar, thus ruling out the patio doors as the point of egress.

It is important to add the two minutes - at least - from Tapas bar to 5A front door, and similar but even slightly longer time to the other apartments. In the case of the upstairs one, probably as much as another minute.
Then enter "using your key ! ! !", and in all the other cases probably physically check and watch the child/ren to ensure they hae not been sedated, or have not vomited or filled their babygrows with diarrhoea , use the loo (they all have weak bladders apparently )
Then exit, lock up, properly, and cross the car park again, and walk round the corner.

This takes a significant and finite time. I doubt it could be done in less than 6 or 7 minutes.
Kate' visit would have been within a very few minutes of this return.

by **tigger** 25.11.13 19:19

The consequences of the actions are greater than the sum of its parts?

Now how could that be written ribisl and PM?

by **PeterMac** 25.11.13 20:48

Or to put it more succinctly

P-> Q
¬ P
∴ ¬ Q

It sort of sums up the 120 page e-book !

by **PeterMac** 25.11.13 21:15

But there is a further possibility- so far only shared with a few.

Tm = (Ab1 + MbM)
Where Ab1 is someone selected by GM to carry away a deceased MbM, and to whom MbM was handed, (at the front door "using his key", to ensure no entry or forensics,) by GM during the strangely long seeing them all perfect, long pee, and football visit, having taken her out of the blue tennis bag . . .
Ab1 beings to move off,
BUT GM crashes into JW and has to pretend that he has taken him to the other side of the road, and retains this memory, even though it is wrong.
Ab1 hears this and hangs back fractionally longer than he was supposed to, before moving off, but then JT comes on the scene and buggers the whole thing up by seeing him

And they are trapped into the 1:20

But the corollary is
Ab1 ≠ Ab
Ab = GM

by Guest 25.11.13 21:22

And AB1 = ? ROB?
Jeez, Peter. I'm going to have a stiff drink before turning in ...

by **Tony Bennett** 25.11.13 21:41

GCSE: Logic: Paper 1

You are given the following information:

Account A

X visits Y
Y is in the shower
X knocks on the front door
Y puts a bathtowel around her
X opens the front door a few inches
X says 'Are you bringing the kids down to watch Gerry and me play tennis?'
Y says No
X says the encounter lasts 30 seconds
X does not see any of the children of Y

Account B

X visits Y
X goes to the patio door, not the front door
X walks in through the open patio door
Y is not in the shower
Y is not in a bath towel
X sees all three children of Y
X sits down and watches Y and her children interrelating
X stays for at least several minutes, maybe up to half an hour.

Using the principles of logic, explain whether these two accounts might be harmonised, and if so, how. [20 marks]

If these accounts cannot be reconciled, which of the following is likely to be true, again using principles of logic:

X has a poor memory of what happened
Y has a poor memory of what happened
both X and Y have poor memories of what happened
X is not telling the truth
Y is not telling the truth
both X and Y are not telling the truth
something else.    [30 marks]

Finally, once again using principles of logic, determine whether any such visit took place at all.  [20 marks]

by **Tony Bennett** 25.11.13 22:03

More logic:

Did any of the Smtihs get a clear view of the man's face, in the darkness and poor lighting?

ANSWERS: No, no and no.

Redwood put up two e-fits which he said were drawn by 'two witnesses'.

Could those e-fits have been drawn up by any of the Smiths?

ANS: Obvioulsy not.

So who did draw them up?

ANS: No-one is telling us.

by Guest 25.11.13 22:08

Tony Bennett wrote:More logic:

Did any of the Smtihs get a clear view of the man's face, in the darkness and poor lighting?

ANSWERS: No, no and no.

Redwood put up two e-fits which he said were drawn by 'two witnesses'.

Could those e-fits have been drawn up by any of the Smiths?

ANS: Obvioulsy not.

So who did draw them up?

ANS: No-one is telling us.

I was just thinking about the Smith sighting today, how useful it would have been, had it been reported on the morning of the 4th. What a pity it wasn't.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.11.13 22:28

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:More logic:

Did any of the Smtihs get a clear view of the man's face, in the darkness and poor lighting?

ANSWERS: No, no and no.

Redwood put up two e-fits which he said were drawn by 'two witnesses'.

Could those e-fits have been drawn up by any of the Smiths?

ANS: Obvioulsy not.

So who did draw them up?

ANS: No-one is telling us.
I was just thinking about the Smith sighting today, how useful it would have been, had it been reported on the morning of the 4th. What a pity it wasn't.

Yes, and that's an even bigger point, CR.

There were NINE of them.

FOUR ADULTS, Aoife, 12, and four smaller children.

How credible, honestly, that all those FIVE, including Aoife, never thought of reporting their sighting...

on 4th May...

on 5th May...

on 6th May...

on 7th May...

on 8th May...

on 9th May...

on 10th May...

on 11th May...

on 12th May...

on 13th May...

on 14th May...

nor on 15th May?

Again, how credible is it that a full 13 days later, it takes Peter Smith to 'phone his Dad, Martin Smith, and ask: "Dad, am I dreaming or something, but did we see a man carrying a child in Portugal 13 days ago?

The excuses given on this forum for this inexcusable day have included: '"they perhaps didn't think of it", "they were busy unpacking", and "maybe there wasn't much publicity about it in Ireland".

I don't buy any of those excuses.

The fact is that Murat, whom Martin Smith knew well, was pulled in for questioning on 15th May in a blaze of world-wide publicity.

It was the PJ's decision to declare Murat a formal suspect that stung Martin Smith into action the very next day.

by Ribisl 25.11.13 23:12

PeterMac wrote:But there is a further possibility- so far only shared with a few.

Tm = (Ab1 + MbM)
Where Ab1 is someone selected by GM to carry away a deceased MbM, and to whom MbM was handed, (at the front door "using his key", to ensure no entry or forensics,) by GM during the strangely long seeing them all perfect, long pee, and football visit, having taken her out of the blue tennis bag . . .
Ab1 beings to move off,
BUT GM crashes into JW and has to pretend that he has taken him to the other side of the road, and retains this memory, even though it is wrong.
Ab1 hears this and hangs back fractionally longer than he was supposed to, before moving off, but then JT comes on the scene and buggers the whole thing up by seeing him

And they are trapped into the 1:20

But the corollary is
Ab1 ≠ Ab
Ab = GM

Tm = Fi + Ch walking towards the crèche at 21.15 (having picked her up from there a moment earlier) sounds implausible without clear evidence.

Ab1, if exists, being the carrier of deceased MbM is more likely than Ab1 = abductor.
Extended arms suggests a manner of carrying a small dead body.

Ab on the other hand carries her like he would carry his own child, alive or dead ∴ Ab := GM

by **PeterMac** 25.11.13 23:27

GCSE: Logic: Paper 1

You are given the following information:
X knocks on the front door
SNIP
Finally, once again using principles of logic, determine whether any such visit took place at all. [20 marks]
____________________
(And the children are all in WHITE,
Not a trace of pink topped Eeyore pyjamas. What colour were the twins' pyjamas. Did we ever find out. Who buys WHITE pyjamas for children ?

Bonus mark of 5 points if you can explain this.
Or as we might say "Show your working"

by Ribisl 25.11.13 23:40

Sometimes I wonder PM, T9's statements are so obviously fabricated yet hard to crack precisely because they are most of them doctors and therefore by nature lack basic logic in their thinking.

by **sharonl** 26.11.13 0:00

Petermac

Help needed please

If

1 * CC (Cadaver cat ) + 1 * CP (Cadaver Pants) = 6 PHC (pre holiday corpses)

1 * CC (Cadaver cat ) + 1 * CP (Cadaver Pants) * 9 * Mc (other McCann cadaver items) = 2 UD (unreliable dogs)

What does 11* (McCann cadaver items) + 0 NMc (non McCannitems) plus 100% SR (success record) * 200 PO (previous outings) amount to?

PS. I am not sure that we should be doing this, bringing logic into it gives us a grossly unfair advantage over the opposition.

by suzyjohnson 26.11.13 0:25

Please could someone explain to me how an abductor would have just 4 minutes?

MO was in apartment 5A at 9.30 pm, returning to the tapas by 9.35 pm

JT then walked round to her apartment at around 9.45 pm

Doesn't that leave an opportunity of about 10 minutes for someone to have been in 5A?

They may have had trouble leaving (through either door) because JT walked past first, followed by ROB on his way back to the tapas at 9.50 pm

After this, an abductor would have had an interval (of about 6 mins?) before KM did her check at 10 pm

I think I've got it now, an abductor would have had only the 4 mins between 9.51 pm until 9.55 pm because it takes 5 extra minutes to walk to where Smithman was seen?

But what about the earlier time, 9.36 pm until 9.44 pm?

by ultimaThule 26.11.13 5:19

Logic dictates that as independent witnesses have stated the table occuped by the Tapas 9 was empty except for Diane Webster at c9.30pm, there was no period after that time during which an abductor could have gained entry to 5A unobserved, removed a sleeping child from its bed without waking her up, and made their getaway on foot via a route that took them past the Smith family c10pm.

Unless, of course, the Tapas 8 had adjourned en masse for comfort breaks or had decamped to the beach for a quick paddle prior to raising the alarm in which case logic again dictates that, as other independent witnesses have stated a search of sorts was underway earlier than 9.30pm, these two scenarios did not occur.

In short, bringing the powers of logic to bear on this case indicates that the various and varying accounts of the evening's events given by the McCanns and their chums cannot be relied on.

by **tigger** 26.11.13 5:48

What is this equation:

Empty bed + cc = abduction

So: eb - cc = no abduction

by Guest 26.11.13 7:50

Tony Bennett wrote:More logic:

Did any of the Smtihs get a clear view of the man's face, in the darkness and poor lighting?

ANSWERS: No, no and no.

Redwood put up two e-fits which he said were drawn by 'two witnesses'.

Could those e-fits have been drawn up by any of the Smiths?

ANS: Obvioulsy not.

So who did draw them up?

ANS: No-one is telling us.

Because they just happened to have two old convicted pedos stayed somewhere in a jail they thought they might stitch up, giving out that they once visited Spain and so MIGHT have visited Portugal at some time in their lives; which two men DO look like the post-attanged e-fits (or vice-versa)

by **tigger** 26.11.13 8:31

From Dr. Roberts : A Norse, a Norse.. 2012 McCannfiles.com

Annika Widebeck [voice over]: How convinced are you that she is still alive then?

Gerry McCann: Well, I try to look at it as logically as possible. What we do know is that there's no evidence, at all, to suggest that Madeleine's dead and that means there's a good chance that she's alive, and as a parent I couldn't accept that she was dead without irrefutable evidence that she is, so...

We'll do the logic bit in a moment. First the lie: 'there's no evidence, at all, to suggest that Madeleine's dead.'

No evidence at all to suggest, eh? Viva Zapata!

...that means there's a good chance that she's alive.' No it does not. If I may quote from an entry in Wikipaedia (on a completely different topic - substitute 'that Madeleine is dead' for the phrase in parentheses):

The argument that there is no evidence (of Shakespeare's authorship) is a form of fallacious logic known as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], or argument from silence, since it takes the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence.'

So, a bit more effort on the logic front required there I think, Gerry.

Unquote

by unchained melody 26.11.13 9:53

Logic dictates:

Tannerman = false (latest incarnation was going towards the creche)

Smithman = false (sighting not reported for 13 days during unprecedented media coverage. See Tony's post
on the previous page)

by Woburn_exile 26.11.13 10:59

Why this continual re-examination of the timings?

GM = FLB (Lin all cases stands for Lying or derivatives thereof)

Tapas gang = FLB(s)

KM = Stupid FLB

The times have been fabricated, as we all know. The sightings for all we know have been fabricated, (especially JT). The Smiths may or may not have seen a man carrying a deceased child, there is every chance it was another holidaymaker from Portugal.
None of the events could have been seen as a "revelation" wft

moment. Until there is clear evidence that will stand up in court and that can only come from the Tapas gang as I lke to call them. The weakest link is KM herself and I firmly believe this is still the focus of SY. KM has to be seen as the chief suspect, she was first at the crime scene, she lied to the Portuguese police more than once and whatever you want to say about Andy Redwood he is not daft enough to throw his career away by ignoring the findings of a brother Police Service (PJ). The hard evidence needed can only come from the centre of the enquiry which is KM herself and as long as she is alive GM will always find a way of stopping that happening. This case has to be solved from within and that means cracking KM when she is outside of his influence.

pop2

by **PeterMac** 26.11.13 11:47

Woburn_exile wrote:Why this continual re-examination of the timings?

Because it exposes the falsity and impossibility of the official TM stance.
No amount of Libel lawyers or extradition lawyers, or official spokes-things can alter that.
They have made statements and have continued to stick by them.
And by those very statements they are condemned

And, Yes, I agree that KM is the one to crack.

by jeanmonroe 26.11.13 13:26

PeterMac wrote:
Woburn_exile wrote:Why this continual re-examination of the timings?
Because it exposes the falsity and impossibility of the official TM stance.
No amount of Libel lawyers or extradition lawyers, or official spokes-things can alter that.
They have made statements and have continued to stick by them.
And by those very statements they are condemned

And, Yes, I agree that KM is the one to crack.

"they have made statements and have TO continue to stick with them"

Anyone changing statements NOW would be, to qoute GM, an absolute 'disaster'.

And by those very statements, they are condemned.

by **PeterMac** 26.11.13 14:13

"they have made statements and have TO continue to stick with them"
Anyone changing statements NOW would be, to quote GM, an absolute 'disaster'.
And by those very statements, they are condemned.

Quite so.
The revelation that SY was stating categorically that Tannerman was not even a suspect Abductor must have hit them very hard.
It had been the central point of their entire theory. People have been sentenced to imprisonment for suggesting that it was not so.
And Tannerman remains on their website, still soliciting funds.
So deep in the TM strategy is Tannerman that they cannot now discard him unconditionally and admit that the past 7 years have been in vain.
How many other things could they change before everyone realised that they had been lying and cheating from the start, and started to say so.

by **PeterMac** 27.11.13 12:16

IF dogs were notoriously unreliable
THEN police forces across the world, Customs and excise, search and rescue, Avalanche patrols . . . would not use them
Police forces DO use them
THEREFORE they are not notoriously unreliable

IF an individual dog made significant numbers of 'mistakes'
THEN it would not be used for this purpose
This dog was used
THEREFORE it does not make significant numbers of mistakes

IF a dog alerts if and only if it detects human cadaverine
THEN there is a trace of human cadaverine
It did
THEREFORE there was

IF the Last Photo was taken at lunch time on 3rd May
THEN the weather must have been 'sunglasses and sweaty brow' hot at that time
It was not
THEREFORE it was not

Or as we would rather put it
P -> Q
¬ Q
∴ ¬ P

by DonNewbery 27.11.13 13:17

PeterMac wrote:IF dogs were notoriously unreliable
THEN police forces across the world, Customs and excise, search and rescue, Avalanche patrols . . . would not use them
Police forces DO use them
THEREFORE they are not notoriously unreliable

IF an individual dog made significant numbers of 'mistakes'
THEN it would not be used for this purpose
This dog was used
THEREFORE it does not make significant numbers of mistakes

IF a dog alerts if and only if it detects human cadaverine
THEN there is a trace of human cadaverine
It did
THEREFORE there was

IF the Last Photo was taken at lunch time on 3rd May
THEN the weather must have been 'sunglasses and sweaty brow' hot at that time
It was not
THEREFORE it was not

Or as we would rather put it
P -> Q
¬ Q
∴ ¬ P

I thought these two particular dogs are known NEVER to have got it wrong, and in over 200 cases have led police to obtain forensic evidence that has then successfully secured convictions?

by **PeterMac** 27.11.13 13:26

DonNewbery wrote:I thought these two particular dogs are known NEVER to have got it wrong, and in over 200 cases have led police to obtain forensic evidence that has then successfully secured convictions?

Exactly. Those are the facts. This is the logic behind the argument.