What would a reconstruction demonstrate or clarify ?

[icabodcrane]

Robert Murat has recently voiced an opinion that is shared by others  ... that a reconstruction of the night's events would be useful to the investigation

In what way  might a reconstruction be helpful  ?

[ferryman]

I can't imagine.

The purpose of reconstructions is to prompt memories, encourage people to come forward with new leads, generate new lines of inquiry.

Now, 6 years after Madeleine's abduction, it's all too late.

[icabodcrane]

I can't imagine.

The purpose of reconstructions is to prompt memories, encourage people to come forward with new leads, generate new lines of inquiry.

Now, 6 years after Madeleine's abduction, it's all too late.

I think that is the purpose of  televised  ( crime-watch style ) reconstructions, I am talking about a police reconstruction, the purpose of which is to aid the investigation

How might a reconstruction be helpful in that regard  ?   

[ferryman]

I can't imagine.

The purpose of reconstructions is to prompt memories, encourage people to come forward with new leads, generate new lines of inquiry.

Now, 6 years after Madeleine's abduction, it's all too late.

I think that is the purpose of  televised  ( crime-watch style ) reconstructions, I am talking about a police reconstruction, the purpose of which is to aid the investigation

How might a reconstruction be helpful in that regard  ?

It wouldn't, it doesn't and it can't.

[icabodcrane]

One way in which I believe a reconstruction would aid the investigation, is that it would confirm or exclude the possibility that the man  Jane Tanner saw was the abductor

As I see it, if the Man Jane saw was the abductor, then he had, at most, a three  minute window of opportunity 

In a reconstruction, a policeman would  play the part of  'the abductor' and whether or not it was possible for him to have entered the apartment, opened the window and shutters, picked up the sleeping child, made his way around the wall and through the car park, and be crossing the road just as Jane was reaching the top of the hill, would be demonstrated

If it was proven to be possible,  then the investigation could conclude that the man Jane saw very likely  was   the abductor

If it was proven to be impossible for the crime to have been committed in that time-frame, then the investigation could eliminate the man Jane saw as a possible abductor,  and concentrate on the other  'windows of opportunity'  that an abductor may have had   ( at some point later )

Wouldn't that be of benefit ?   

[Carana]

Robert Murat has recently voiced an opinion that is shared by others  ... that a reconstruction of the night's events would be useful to the investigation

In what way  might a reconstruction be helpful  ?

I'm wondering if some quotes were actually in context in terms of the general conversation.

Some of the statements taken at the time (and search reports) are so vague as to be virtually useless.

I understand his point that the police should be searching in the area from which she disappeared - but it's the same old Catch-22 situation (unless anyone knows any different).

The investigation can't be reopened unless there are credible new leads, but they are unlikely to fall into a waiting police dormant case desk officer's lap (presuming he's even open-minded), unless the inquiry (and thus the investigation) is reopened.

[icabodcrane]

One way in which I believe a reconstruction would aid the investigation, is that it would confirm or exclude the possibility that the man  Jane Tanner saw was the abductor

As I see it, if the Man Jane saw was the abductor, then he had, at most, a three  minute window of opportunity 

In a reconstruction, a policeman would  play the part of  'the abductor' and whether or not it was possible for him to have entered the apartment, opened the window and shutters, picked up the sleeping child, made his way around the wall and through the car park, and be crossing the road just as Jane was reaching the top of the hill, would be demonstrated

If it was proven to be possible,  then the investigation could conclude that the man Jane saw very likely  was   the abductor

If it was proven to be impossible for the crime to have been committed in that time-frame, then the investigation could eliminate the man Jane saw as a possible abductor,  and concentrate on the other  'windows of opportunity'  that an abductor may have had   ( at some point later )

Wouldn't that be of benefit ?

Could you elaborate on this conclusion a bit further?

As I see it, if the Man Jane saw was the abductor, then he had, at most, a three  minute window of opportunity 

I'm going by witness statements

Gerry left the tapas bar to do his check at just before 9.05pm

His walk to the apartment, entering through the patio, seeing the children's bedroom door open wider than he left it, going into his and Kate's room first to see if Madeleine was there,  going back to the children's room,  veryfying that all three children were asleep, spending a moment looking at Madeleine and thinking how beautiful she was,  going to the toilet, leaving the apartment closing the patio doors, and meeting Jez Wilkins juast as he exits the little gate at thje bottom of the steps

Allowing just two minutes for all that to have happened,  we would have Gerry on the pavement meeting Wilkins at 9.07pm

Jane Tanner is walking up the hill at 9.10pm  ( according to her witness statement )  when she passes Gerry and Jez, and sees the abductor up ahead, crossing the road

That allows the abductor a very generous 3 minute window of opportunity   ( a reconstruction might allow him even less time than that )
 

[Carana]

I can't imagine.

The purpose of reconstructions is to prompt memories, encourage people to come forward with new leads, generate new lines of inquiry.

Now, 6 years after Madeleine's abduction, it's all too late.

I think that is the purpose of  televised  ( crime-watch style ) reconstructions, I am talking about a police reconstruction, the purpose of which is to aid the investigation

How might a reconstruction be helpful in that regard  ?

It wouldn't, it doesn't and it can't.

Six years later seems totally implausible. People will be relying either on really vague memories, or their statements (which the police could do just as easily).

There may have been some dubious people around the area at that time, who may not have given statements at all, or whose statements may not appear in the files for certain reasons.

[icabodcrane]

I can't imagine.

The purpose of reconstructions is to prompt memories, encourage people to come forward with new leads, generate new lines of inquiry.

Now, 6 years after Madeleine's abduction, it's all too late.

I think that is the purpose of  televised  ( crime-watch style ) reconstructions, I am talking about a police reconstruction, the purpose of which is to aid the investigation

How might a reconstruction be helpful in that regard  ?

It wouldn't, it doesn't and it can't.

Six years later seems totally implausible. People will be relying either on really vague memories, or their statements (which the police could do just as easily).

I agree that there is no reason for anyone to be brought back to Portugal,  and that their witness statements could be followed by police personel in their roles

I do think it would be helpful if Scotland Yard were to propose just such a reconstruction

[AnneGuedes]

One way in which I believe a reconstruction would aid the investigation, is that it would confirm or exclude the possibility that the man  Jane Tanner saw was the abductor

As I see it, if the Man Jane saw was the abductor, then he had, at most, a three  minute window of opportunity 

In a reconstruction, a policeman would  play the part of  'the abductor' and whether or not it was possible for him to have entered the apartment, opened the window and shutters, picked up the sleeping child, made his way around the wall and through the car park, and be crossing the road just as Jane was reaching the top of the hill, would be demonstrated

If it was proven to be possible,  then the investigation could conclude that the man Jane saw very likely  was   the abductor

If it was proven to be impossible for the crime to have been committed in that time-frame, then the investigation could eliminate the man Jane saw as a possible abductor,  and concentrate on the other  'windows of opportunity'  that an abductor may have had   ( at some point later )

Wouldn't that be of benefit ?

Icabodcrane, even Mr McCann said this wasn't plausible and deduced the abductor was already inside when he got in.
I can understand Robert M would want his name really cleaned of any doubt. Many people don't know that he couldn't be freed from his arguido statute before the case was shelved.
I wonder why he dropped the case against sustained accusations of sneaking around on the fatal night, that were in fact the origin of his troubles. Proving the man the 3 witnesses saw wasn't him shouldn't be so difficult (I believe the witnesses saw a man speaking fluently English and Portuguese).

[DCI]

One way in which I believe a reconstruction would aid the investigation, is that it would confirm or exclude the possibility that the man  Jane Tanner saw was the abductor

As I see it, if the Man Jane saw was the abductor, then he had, at most, a three  minute window of opportunity 

In a reconstruction, a policeman would  play the part of  'the abductor' and whether or not it was possible for him to have entered the apartment, opened the window and shutters, picked up the sleeping child, made his way around the wall and through the car park, and be crossing the road just as Jane was reaching the top of the hill, would be demonstrated

If it was proven to be possible,  then the investigation could conclude that the man Jane saw very likely  was   the abductor

If it was proven to be impossible for the crime to have been committed in that time-frame, then the investigation could eliminate the man Jane saw as a possible abductor,  and concentrate on the other  'windows of opportunity'  that an abductor may have had   ( at some point later )

Wouldn't that be of benefit ?

Icabodcrane, even Mr McCann said this wasn't plausible and deduced the abductor was already inside when he got in.
I can understand Robert M would want his name really cleaned of any doubt. Many people don't know that he couldn't be freed from his arguido statute before the case was shelved.
I wonder why he dropped the case against sustained accusations of sneaking around on the fatal night, that were in fact the origin of his troubles. Proving the man the 3 witnesses saw wasn't him shouldn't be so difficult (I believe the witnesses saw a man speaking fluently English and Portuguese).

What case against the 3 witness's? There never was one!

Like the case Amaral said Murat was taking against Jane Tanner, I expect, Lies.

[AnneGuedes]

I can't imagine.

The purpose of reconstructions is to prompt memories, encourage people to come forward with new leads, generate new lines of inquiry.

Now, 6 years after Madeleine's abduction, it's all too late.

I think that is the purpose of  televised  ( crime-watch style ) reconstructions, I am talking about a police reconstruction, the purpose of which is to aid the investigation

How might a reconstruction be helpful in that regard  ?

It wouldn't, it doesn't and it can't.

Six years later seems totally implausible. People will be relying either on really vague memories, or their statements (which the police could do just as easily).

I agree that there is no reason for anyone to be brought back to Portugal,  and that their witness statements could be followed by police personel in their roles

I do think it would be helpful if Scotland Yard were to propose just such a reconstruction

More than "helpful", "imperative". Who wants it now ? Robert M ? The McCann ? The PGR ?

[icabodcrane]

One way in which I believe a reconstruction would aid the investigation, is that it would confirm or exclude the possibility that the man  Jane Tanner saw was the abductor

As I see it, if the Man Jane saw was the abductor, then he had, at most, a three  minute window of opportunity 

In a reconstruction, a policeman would  play the part of  'the abductor' and whether or not it was possible for him to have entered the apartment, opened the window and shutters, picked up the sleeping child, made his way around the wall and through the car park, and be crossing the road just as Jane was reaching the top of the hill, would be demonstrated

If it was proven to be possible,  then the investigation could conclude that the man Jane saw very likely  was   the abductor

If it was proven to be impossible for the crime to have been committed in that time-frame, then the investigation could eliminate the man Jane saw as a possible abductor,  and concentrate on the other  'windows of opportunity'  that an abductor may have had   ( at some point later )

Wouldn't that be of benefit ?

Could you elaborate on this conclusion a bit further?

As I see it, if the Man Jane saw was the abductor, then he had, at most, a three  minute window of opportunity 

I'm going by witness statements

Gerry left the tapas bar to do his check at just before 9.05pm

His walk to the apartment, entering through the patio, seeing the children's bedroom door open wider than he left it, going into his and Kate's room first to see if Madeleine was there,  going back to the children's room,  veryfying that all three children were asleep, spending a moment looking at Madeleine and thinking how beautiful she was,  going to the toilet, leaving the apartment closing the patio doors, and meeting Jez Wilkins juast as he exits the little gate at thje bottom of the steps

Allowing just two minutes for all that to have happened,  we would have Gerry on the pavement meeting Wilkins at 9.07pm

Jane Tanner is walking up the hill at 9.10pm  ( according to her witness statement )  when she passes Gerry and Jez, and sees the abductor up ahead, crossing the road

That allows the abductor a very generous 3 minute window of opportunity   ( a reconstruction might allow him even less time than that )
 

Are you allowing for the possibility that the abductor may already have entered the apartment prior to Gerry's check or is that an impossibility in your view?

Gerry walked through the living room  ( no abductor there ).  He checked his and Kate's bedroom looking for Madeleine  ( no abductor there ).  He used the bathroom  ( no abductor there )

Gerry himself concedes that if an abductor was in the apartment whilst he did his check,  then he was probably hiding behind the door of the children's bedroom

Another good reason to do a reconstruction ...  it would demonstrate whether or not is was possible for a man to be standing behind the door when Gerry opened it,  and if it was possible for him to be not visible to Gerry as he stood looking down at Madeleine   

[AnneGuedes]

One way in which I believe a reconstruction would aid the investigation, is that it would confirm or exclude the possibility that the man  Jane Tanner saw was the abductor

As I see it, if the Man Jane saw was the abductor, then he had, at most, a three  minute window of opportunity 

In a reconstruction, a policeman would  play the part of  'the abductor' and whether or not it was possible for him to have entered the apartment, opened the window and shutters, picked up the sleeping child, made his way around the wall and through the car park, and be crossing the road just as Jane was reaching the top of the hill, would be demonstrated

If it was proven to be possible,  then the investigation could conclude that the man Jane saw very likely  was   the abductor

If it was proven to be impossible for the crime to have been committed in that time-frame, then the investigation could eliminate the man Jane saw as a possible abductor,  and concentrate on the other  'windows of opportunity'  that an abductor may have had   ( at some point later )

Wouldn't that be of benefit ?

Icabodcrane, even Mr McCann said this wasn't plausible and deduced the abductor was already inside when he got in.
I can understand Robert M would want his name really cleaned of any doubt. Many people don't know that he couldn't be freed from his arguido statute before the case was shelved.
I wonder why he dropped the case against sustained accusations of sneaking around on the fatal night, that were in fact the origin of his troubles. Proving the man the 3 witnesses saw wasn't him shouldn't be so difficult (I believe the witnesses saw a man speaking fluently English and Portuguese).

What case against the 3 witness's? There never was one!

Like the case Amaral said Murat was taking against Jane Tanner, I expect, Lies.

If someone tells the police you were in a certain place where a horrible crime had been perpetrated whereas you were elsewhere and if that person confirms this to the police in your presence, you just don't mind ? May be martyrdom is your vocation.

[AnneGuedes]

if it was possible for him to be not visible to Gerry as he stood looking down at Madeleine

Not visible, I think it was possible. Now not smelling, not breathing ?