Gerry and Jez chat while Jane walks by. Seconds later she spots Tannerman!

[pathfinder73]

If they know who dunnit then why need to spend so much money on it?  Just slap the fella in clink and be done with it.  Are you suggesting that if they didn't know who dunnit it they wouldn't have need to spend so much money?  That's typical topsy-turvy logic for you!

It's not what you know but what you can prove. We will see.

[Alfred R Jones]

Why?
All I will say is that Tannerman The Abductor was a blind alley and Smithman remains a suspect.

Why?  Because there have been millions of photofits issued by police over the years.  For the tactic of issuing photofits of suspects already well known and within easy access of the police in order to spook them to be plausible there should by at least hundreds of examples of this tactic having been put into practice over the years and perhaps dozens of occasions when this tactic has worked, and I would have thought at least a handful of examples of these occasions that have been covered by the media at some point.  You imply that because I don't get around much that I wouldn't be aware of these hence why I'm asking you to give your reasons why you believe such a tactic to be plausible.  Unless you think it's plausible this is a novel, untried and untested approach used in this case for the very first time?  In which case, how would you see it working exactly?   

[Alfred R Jones]

It's not what you know but what you can prove. We will see.

How can you know something without any evidence?

[faithlilly]

How can you know something without any evidence?

Are we talking about the abduction again ?

[pathfinder73]

How can you know something without any evidence?

Adrian Prout is an example. They knew it was him but they never had a body. So it's circumstantial and connecting evidence to convict him in court. He later confessed. If they find Maddy then you can prove she is dead or alive. SY think she's dead. They aren't spending millions looking for a body for no reason. With a body they can prove that she died and they will say it happened on 3 May inside apartment 5A and we know who the main suspects are.

[Alfred R Jones]

Adrian Prout is an example. They knew it was him but they never had a body. So it's circumstantial and connecting evidence to convict him in court. He later confessed. If they find Maddy then you can prove she is dead or alive. SY think she's dead. They aren't spending millions looking for a body for no reason. With a body they can prove that she died and they ill say it happened on 3 May inside apartment 5A and we know who the main suspects are.

the only problem with your comparison is that Prout had already been found guilty of murder before he confessed and the body found which tends to suggest there was plenty of evidence he dunnit even without a body found.

[Alice Purjorick]

Why?  Because there have been millions of photofits issued by police over the years.  For the tactic of issuing photofits of suspects already well known and within easy access of the police in order to spook them to be plausible there should by at least hundreds of examples of this tactic having been put into practice over the years and perhaps dozens of occasions when this tactic has worked, and I would have thought at least a handful of examples of these occasions that have been covered by the media at some point.  You imply that because I don't get around much that I wouldn't be aware of these hence why I'm asking you to give your reasons why you believe such a tactic to be plausible.  Unless you think it's plausible this is a novel, untried and untested approach used in this case for the very first time?  In which case, how would you see it working exactly?

OK let's take the superfluous words out of you basic argument.
It then boils down to "it cannot be plausible because it has not been done before".
I'll leave you to convince the forum about the efficacy of that argument.

[Alfred R Jones]

OK let's take the superfluous words out of you basic argument.
It then boils down to "it cannot be plausible because it has not been done before".
I'll leave you to convince the forum about the efficacy of that argument.

plausible


/ˈplɔːzɪb(ə)l/


adjective

adjective: plausible




(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.

If you think it's plausible that this could be the only case in which police have used a photofit of someone already well known to them and easily accessible to them simply to spook him (the suspect), out of millions of photofits that have been used to try and solve crime over the years, then I'll leave that to the rest of the forum to judge the efficacy of your argument.

[Alice Purjorick]

To be remotely plausible there really should be at least one other instance where police have used this tactic that you can draw on to illustrate its plausibility.

Above is what you posted. Words that are irrelevant to the principle of the argument have been struck through.
The argument you put forward should stand as a principle. It clearly doesn't.
Posting etymological detail does not improve the argument.

[ferryman]

Adrian Prout is an example. They knew it was him but they never had a body. So it's circumstantial and connecting evidence to convict him in court. He later confessed. If they find Maddy then you can prove she is dead or alive. SY think she's dead. They aren't spending millions looking for a body for no reason. With a body they can prove that she died and they will say it happened on 3 May inside apartment 5A and we know who the main suspects are.

No comparison at all (with the McCanns).

In the Prout case, evidence (of death) was based primarily on the fact that none of her financial accounts had been touched and she would have needed money to survive.

The dog reaction (hundreds of yards from where Prout murdered and buried her) played no part of the trial or evidence against Prout.

[Alfred R Jones]

To be remotely plausible there really should be at least one other instance where police have used this tactic that you can draw on to illustrate its plausibility.

Above is what you posted. Words that are irrelevant to the principle of the argument have been struck through.
The argument you put forward should stand as a principle. It clearly doesn't.
Posting etymological detail does not improve the argument.

OK, then perhaps you can tell me why you have dismissed this oh so very plausible theory as being believable in this case?  On what grounds?

[Alfred R Jones]

Is it plausible that pigs could in theory fly?  Of course, no pig has ever flown before and pigs don't (as a rule) have wings but surely that doesn't stop it being plausible does it Alice? 

[Alice Purjorick]

Is it plausible that pigs could in theory fly?  Of course, no pig has ever flown before and pigs don't (as a rule) have wings but surely that doesn't stop it being plausible does it Alice?

Oooooh Alf you are a caution!
You use the "logical fallacy" like it is going out of fashion.
As you are so familiar with its use I presume you are familiar with methods for its testing.
It is manifestly preposterous to put forward the argument that for something to be remotely plausible it must have occurred before.
Going back to your original argument and ignoring everything else you are lobbing in as a distraction shall we test your statement in the normal manner?
To be remotely plausible there really should be at least one other instance where police have used this tactic that you can draw on to illustrate its plausibility.

As I am sure you are aware the test is to substitute for the words "where police have used this tactic" and then see if the argument remains standing and as you raise flying lets continue with that notion.

To be remotely plausible there really should be at least one other instance of powered flight that you can draw on to illustrate its [The Wright Brothers theory] plausibility.

Ooops that doesn't seem to have worked. Lets try it with something else. Well don't let's bother because were your argument correct any kind of advancement would be impossible.

ps I think you will find Lord Brabazon took a pig in basket up on one of his first flights  carrying the tag "Pigs can Fly"

[Alfred R Jones]

Oooooh Alf you are a caution!
You use the "logical fallacy" like it is going out of fashion.
As you are so familiar with its use I presume you are familiar with methods for its testing.
It is manifestly preposterous to put forward the argument that for something to be remotely plausible it must have occurred before.
Going back to your original argument and ignoring everything else you are lobbing in as a distraction shall we test your statement in the normal manner?
To be remotely plausible there really should be at least one other instance where police have used this tactic that you can draw on to illustrate its plausibility.

As I am sure you are aware the test is to substitute for the words "where police have used this tactic" and then see if the argument remains standing and as you raise flying lets continue with that notion.

To be remotely plausible there really should be at least one other instance of powered flight that you can draw on to illustrate its [The Wright Brothers theory] plausibility.

Ooops that doesn't seem to have worked. Lets try it with something else. Well don't let's bother because were your argument correct any kind of advancement would be impossible.

ps I think you will find Lord Brabazon took a pig in basket up on one of his first flights  carrying the tag "Pigs can Fly"

So, to cut a long story short in your view it is plausible that pigs can fly and that the Met are spooking their chief suspect by using a photofit of him on Crimewatch, though despite its plausibility you don't actually believe this is what they are doing.  Cool.   

[Alice Purjorick]

So, to cut a long story short in your view it is plausible that pigs can fly and that the Met are spooking their chief suspect by using a photofit of him on Crimewatch, though despite its plausibility you don't actually believe this is what they are doing.  Cool.   

If that is your interpretation of what I have said fair dos, I cannot help you with any aberrations you may have, but it does not detract from your original argument being erroneous.
You said:
To be remotely plausible there really should be at least one other instance where police have used this tactic that you can draw on to illustrate its plausibility.

Which statement does not stand up to scrutiny, however if you wish to introduce pigs and all sorts of other diversions which you then seem to wish to attribute to me go ahead. It will not alter the fact that The Met deffed out Tannerman The Abductor, Smithman is a suspect and you made an insupportable postulation.