... and JeffPT is right:
A truth table is a lovely device.. that's completely worthless if you're using it to prove a premise that is essentially fundamentally flawed. No, I don't mean scripture, rather, I mean that the one thing you (and no one else either!) don't get to do is to create a new gospel narrative by smashing together the existing bible narratives.
In other words, you have no reason to believe that any of the individual gospel narratives are incomplete, and thus you are using them to support your preexisting conclusion.
In doing so, you commit the fallacy of the single cause, cherry picking, and a dash of special pleading for good measure.
You assume that the gospels are true, ergo if they are true, then the story must include all of the visitors to the tomb in some combination at the times listed. However, that very assumption is the fallacy of the single cause, the assumption that there is a simple way to reconcile the gospels because they must be true. It ignores the other possibilities: the authors were lying, the authors had incomplete information, the authors had agendas.. well, the list goes on. Until these have been eliminated, then you cannot simply assume a truth that would allow the resolution you propose.
Additionally, you have cherrypicked data, taking on only the facts that support your argument without dealing with the issues that do not.
Finally, you give the bible authority without substantial cause, leading you to special pleading: the Koran flat out says your bible is a lie, yet you ascribe it no particular value.
Now, we are just playing the apologetic game, so there's that - the last is me being nitpicky. However, this idea of 'smashing all the gospels together to get a single narrative' is a relatively modern invention, used as an apologetic to try to fix inconsistencies between the gospels. It is inherently flawed by the assumption that the Gospels were roughly equivalent in both timing and authorship; they are not.
Get the point?