UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Mrs. B on May 14, 2013, 10:31:49 AM
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
The above is from the AG's legal summary. I have put the relevant section in bold. As I understand it, the AG was unable to formulate a cohesive, credible or even possible scenario firmly implicate the McCann in Madeleine's disappearance. Anybody feel they can do a better job?
-
I'm not sure anyone is capable to do a "better job", because Magalhaes e Menezes did no job on that respect. He doesn't say "he was unable", he says "if, hypothetically, one...., it would still have to be explained how, etc.".
This is an extremely delicate issue, and I wonder whether you'll get answers, Mrs B.
-
Why is it an "extremely delicate" issue? Several posters seem to be of the firm opinion that the McCann ARE indeed responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, or even of her death, surely those who do must have some idea or scenario that explains the HOW, WHERE, WHEN & with the help of WHOM questions?
-
Why is it an "extremely delicate" issue? Several posters seem to be of the firm opinion that the McCann ARE indeed responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, or even of her death, surely those who do must have some idea or scenario that explains the HOW, WHERE, WHEN & with the help of WHOM questions?
I've never read a credible theory which proves the McCanns were involved - because IMO, and without exception, they all reach the stage where they crash and burn, UNLESS you are prepared to remove all common sense, logic and reasoned /intelligent thought from the equation - as well as ignoring innumerable witness statements from independent witnesses.
The theory of the 'substitute child' being just one example.
-
I'm not sure anyone is capable to do a "better job", because Magalhaes e Menezes did no job on that respect. He doesn't say "he was unable", he says "if, hypothetically, one...., it would still have to be explained how, etc.".
This is an extremely delicate issue, and I wonder whether you'll get answers, Mrs B.
He says that no one (which I understand as being the police and forensics) has provided the explanation as "to how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and how they freed themselves of the body within the restricted time frame" while being watched 24/7. And because no one has provided answers to the above questions, it is his finding that the McCann's cannot be implicated in the assumption that they killed and disposed of Madeleine's body.
In short - He has ruled out the fact that Madeleine's parents are complicit in murdering and concealing of her body, because there is no evidence to support that assumption.
-
8((()*/ Thank you, yes, that's exactly why I was interested in finding out if anyone can present a scenario that makes any sense whatsoever & doesn't contradict the factual evidence in the police files.
It's always been the elephant in the room as far as I'm concerned.
-
Anne
Mrs B. is inviting those who do believe the McCann's are guilty of murdering Madeleine and concealing her body to provide the answers the Attorney General has asked. To explain - means, motive and opportunity.
-
Why is it an "extremely delicate" issue? Several posters seem to be of the firm opinion that the McCann ARE indeed responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, or even of her death, surely those who do must have some idea or scenario that explains the HOW, WHERE, WHEN & with the help of WHOM questions?
Sure ! If, then, if... and imo
Concerning the "help of whom" I can't figure out somebody helping somebody in such a senseless activity unless with a "come on !". Concerning "when", I don't buy the totally implausible freezer scenario. About how, witnesses saw a carrier, I've not doubt about that. There's a clue of where in "Madeleine".
-
Anne
Mrs B. is inviting those who do believe the McCann's are guilty of murdering Madeleine and concealing her body to provide the answers the Attorney General has asked. To explain - means, motive and opportunity.
I didn't understand that Mrs B. invited those who believe in murder. If so, then I'll erase my posts, because this is not my opinion.
-
I'm not sure anyone is capable to do a "better job", because Magalhaes e Menezes did no job on that respect. He doesn't say "he was unable", he says "if, hypothetically, one...., it would still have to be explained how, etc.".
This is an extremely delicate issue, and I wonder whether you'll get answers, Mrs B.
He says that no one (which I understand as being the police and forensics) has provided the explanation as "to how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and how they freed themselves of the body within the restricted time frame" while being watched 24/7. And because no one has provided answers to the above questions, it is his finding that the McCann's cannot be implicated in the assumption that they killed and disposed of Madeleine's body.
In short - He has ruled out the fact that Madeleine's parents are complicit in murdering and concealing of her body, because there is no evidence to support that assumption.
You're interpreting Magalhães e Menezes. Why do you "rewrite" him ? He clearly says that no evidence of any crime was found as no evidence was found the arguidos had committed any crime.
-
No Anne, I didn't say that. I mentioned that SOME people, apart from accusing the McCann couple of being involved in the disappearance of their child, have also accused them of MURDERING their child. All scenarios are welcome & so are potential questions & doubts relating to those possible scenarios.
-
Anne
Mrs B. is inviting those who do believe the McCann's are guilty of murdering Madeleine and concealing her body to provide the answers the Attorney General has asked. To explain - means, motive and opportunity.
I didn't understand that Mrs B. invited those who believe in murder. If so, then I'll erase my posts, because this is not my opinion.
Sorry let me rephrase that - Inviting those who believe the McCann's are responsible for Madeleine's death.
-
No Anne, I didn't say that. I mentioned that SOME people, apart from accusing the McCann couple of being involved in the disappearance of their child, have also accused them of MURDERING their child. All scenarios are welcome & so are potential questions & doubts relating to those possible scenarios.
Thank you, Mrs B.
-
Anne
Mrs B. is inviting those who do believe the McCann's are guilty of murdering Madeleine and concealing her body to provide the answers the Attorney General has asked. To explain - means, motive and opportunity.
I didn't understand that Mrs B. invited those who believe in murder. If so, then I'll erase my posts, because this is not my opinion.
Sorry let me rephrase that - Inviting those who believe the McCann's are responsible for Madeleine's death.
8((()*/
-
Anne
Mrs B. is inviting those who do believe the McCann's are guilty of murdering Madeleine and concealing her body to provide the answers the Attorney General has asked. To explain - means, motive and opportunity.
I didn't understand that Mrs B. invited those who believe in murder. If so, then I'll erase my posts, because this is not my opinion.
Sorry let me rephrase that - Inviting those who believe the McCann's are responsible for Madeleine's death.
Again I don't agree ! I certainly wouldn't say they're responsible for her death. I'm not in a superior position allowing me to make such a claim.
-
If you agree with Mo Stache's rectification, Mrs B., I'll edit my posts.
-
I'm not sure anyone is capable to do a "better job", because Magalhaes e Menezes did no job on that respect. He doesn't say "he was unable", he says "if, hypothetically, one...., it would still have to be explained how, etc.".
This is an extremely delicate issue, and I wonder whether you'll get answers, Mrs B.
He says that no one (which I understand as being the police and forensics) has provided the explanation as "to how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and how they freed themselves of the body within the restricted time frame" while being watched 24/7. And because no one has provided answers to the above questions, it is his finding that the McCann's cannot be implicated in the assumption that they killed and disposed of Madeleine's body.
In short - He has ruled out the fact that Madeleine's parents are complicit in murdering and concealing of her body, because there is no evidence to support that assumption.
You're interpreting Magalhães e Menezes. Why do you "rewrite" him ? He clearly says that no evidence of any crime was found as no evidence was found the arguidos had committed any crime.
I realise that language is a barrier here; I didn't "rewrite" what he said, I explained it so that it was easily understood. You are correct in saying he did say no evidence of any crime, that is why Mrs B. is inviting those who believe that the McCann's had some part to play in Madeleine's death, to come forward and provide the answers to the questions the Attorney General has said could not be answered.
-
OK Anne, what DO you think they're responsible for, what type of crime, if any, do you think they committed?
-
Anne
Mrs B. is inviting those who do believe the McCann's are guilty of murdering Madeleine and concealing her body to provide the answers the Attorney General has asked. To explain - means, motive and opportunity.
I didn't understand that Mrs B. invited those who believe in murder. If so, then I'll erase my posts, because this is not my opinion.
Sorry let me rephrase that - Inviting those who believe the McCann's are responsible for Madeleine's death.
Again I don't agree ! I certainly wouldn't say they're responsible for her death. I'm not in a superior position allowing me to make such a claim.
If you don't believe the McCann's are responsible for her death then this thread is not directed at you. There is no need to edit your posts either. You have demonstrated that you are not one of the posters who believe the parents had anything to do with her death therefore the thread is open to those who do.
-
OK Anne, what DO you think they're responsible for, what type of crime, if any, do you think they committed?
Something terrible happened, an enormous disaster, I don't know of which kind though I have some ideas. Mr Salcedas can't have invented the scream.
I'm not here to attribute responsibilities, but to understand, more than the McCanns, human nature. You could have observed this, Mrs B., through my answers to Shona yesterday.
-
Anne
Mrs B. is inviting those who do believe the McCann's are guilty of murdering Madeleine and concealing her body to provide the answers the Attorney General has asked. To explain - means, motive and opportunity.
I didn't understand that Mrs B. invited those who believe in murder. If so, then I'll erase my posts, because this is not my opinion.
Sorry let me rephrase that - Inviting those who believe the McCann's are responsible for Madeleine's death.
Again I don't agree ! I certainly wouldn't say they're responsible for her death. I'm not in a superior position allowing me to make such a claim.
If you don't believe the McCann's are responsible for her death then this thread is not directed at you. There is no need to edit your posts either. You have demonstrated that you are not one of the posters who believe the parents had anything to do with her death therefore the thread is open to those who do.
Or concealment of her body, if that's more "acceptable" scenario to some (for lack of a better word, of course).
-
I realise that language is a barrier here; I didn't "rewrite" what he said, I explained it so that it was easily understood. You are correct in saying he did say no evidence of any crime, that is why Mrs B. is inviting those who believe that the McCann's had some part to play in Madeleine's death, to come forward and provide the answers to the questions the Attorney General has said could not be answered.
No, Mo Stache, no language barrier here. Explaining is rewriting, unless you're the author !
-
OK Anne, what DO you think they're responsible for, what type of crime, if any, do you think they committed?
Something terrible happened, an enormous disaster, I don't know of which kind though I have some ideas. Mr Salcedas can't have invented the scream.
I'm not here to attribute responsibilities, but to understand, more than the McCanns, human nature. You could have observed this, Mrs B., through my answers to Shona yesterday.
OK, and then what? What happened after the "disaster"?
ETA With respect to the terrible screaming - which was heard AFTER the alarm was raised, I find it utterly natural. If I just realized my child had been abducted, chances are I'd scream like a wounded animal myself or I'd go catatonic. There are no rules on how to behave in moments of extreme panic & despair.
-
I realise that language is a barrier here; I didn't "rewrite" what he said, I explained it so that it was easily understood. You are correct in saying he did say no evidence of any crime, that is why Mrs B. is inviting those who believe that the McCann's had some part to play in Madeleine's death, to come forward and provide the answers to the questions the Attorney General has said could not be answered.
No, Mo Stache, no language barrier here. Explaining is rewriting, unless you're the author !
With respect Anne there is a huge language barrier here.
-
OK Anne, what DO you think they're responsible for, what type of crime, if any, do you think they committed?
Something terrible happened, an enormous disaster, I don't know of which kind though I have some ideas. Mr Salcedas can't have invented the scream.
I'm not here to attribute responsibilities, but to understand, more than the McCanns, human nature. You could have observed this, Mrs B., through my answers to Shona yesterday.
Who in your opinion was responsible for the "enormous disaster"?
-
With respect to the terrible screaming - which was heard AFTER the alarm was raised, I find it utterly natural.
Just before the alarm was raised, or rather when discovering, would make more sense to me.
Of course Mr Salcedas' varying testimonies turn difficult to know when the scream occurred.
-
With respect Anne there is a huge language barrier here.
Well, if you call it "barrier", then put it in the plural, because you're explaining a sentence that was translated, so you're interpreting, not the author, but the translator.
-
Who in your opinion was responsible for the "enormous disaster"?
I don't know, Mo Stache, and can't actually. A conjunction of factors likely.
-
With respect to the terrible screaming - which was heard AFTER the alarm was raised, I find it utterly natural.
Just before the alarm was raised, or rather when discovering, would make more sense to me.
Of course Mr Salcedas' varying testimonies turn difficult to know when the scream occurred.
Where do they vary, Anne?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/J-T-R-Salcedas.htm
At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine's father appeared, greatly agitated, looking for his daughter everywhere, obviously and immediately heading towards the pool and surrounding areas.
Shortly afterwards Luz Ocean Club was in a state of absolute commotion. Everyone was trying to help in the search for Madeleine which was multiplied in numerous search actions over a large perimeter. The witness immediately perceived the seriousness of the situation. Madeleine's mother was shouting desperately for her daughter. The witness told another chef at the Millenium restaurant so that he would also help in the searches.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
I went to find Ze and Ricardo to give them the news and to get their help in searching for the missing girl. I saw the head of the Milenium Restaurant in the Tapas and asked him to telephone the restaurant.
I ran out of the Tapas and noticed that some of the childcare works of the Mark Warner had begun to arrive. At the point I left the Tapas I heard a scream from a woman I did not know. I do not know who screamed, but I had never heard a similar cry. I cannot even describe it but thought it had come from the child's mother.
-
At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine's father appeared, greatly agitated, looking for his daughter everywhere, obviously and immediately heading towards the pool and surrounding areas.
Shortly afterwards Luz Ocean Club was in a state of absolute commotion. Everyone was trying to help in the search for Madeleine which was multiplied in numerous search actions over a large perimeter. The witness immediately perceived the seriousness of the situation. Madeleine's mother was shouting desperately for her daughter. The witness told another chef at the Millenium restaurant so that he would also help in the searches.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
I went to find Ze and Ricardo to give them the news and to get their help in searching for the missing girl. I saw the head of the Milenium Restaurant in the Tapas and asked him to telephone the restaurant.
-
8-)(--) Is it only me, but I still can't see where he states that he heard someone scream BEFORE the discovery that Madeleine was missing? 8()-000(
-
8-)(--) Is it only me, but I still can't see where he states that he heard someone scream BEFORE the discovery that Madeleine was missing? 8()-000(
Might be because, he didn't Mrs B. 8-)(--)
-
Thanks (I was just DYING to use that "embarrassed" smiley LOL)
-
At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
I wasn't speaking of the scream in particular, but Mr Salcedas' time localisation of the events.
-
At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
I wasn't speaking of the scream in particular, but Mr Salcedas' time localisation of the events.
With respect to the terrible screaming - which was heard AFTER the alarm was raised, I find it utterly natural.
Just before the alarm was raised, or rather when discovering, would make more sense to me.
Of course Mr Salcedas' varying testimonies turn difficult to know when the scream occurred.
Thats not what you said though. You were speaking of the screaming, being before the alarm was raised.
And as for the timing, it obvious that is a typing error. There's a few of those in different statements.
-
At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
If it's a typing error, what time could actually Mr Salcedas mean according to you?
Imo it's not a typing error, so I have no way to know when did occur the events Mr Salcedas describes, among them the scream.
-
At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
If it's a typing error, what time could actually Mr Salcedas mean according to you?
Imo it's not a typing error, so I have no way to know when did occur the events Mr Salcedas describes, among them the scream.
22.00 and 20.30. Perhaps?
-
The first testimony usually is the more accurate.
Yes, perhaps !
-
At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
If it's a typing error, what time could actually Mr Salcedas mean according to you?
Imo it's not a typing error, so I have no way to know when did occur the events Mr Salcedas describes, among them the scream.
He does say he doesn't remember the time with any certainty Ann - IOW another way of saying he could be mistaken?
Would Mrs Webster still be at the table at 10.30?
-
The first testimony usually is the more accurate.
Yes, perhaps !
True, although whoever interviewed him at Leicester HQ should have had a copy of his original statement.
-
The first testimony usually is the more accurate.
Yes, perhaps !
True, although whoever interviewed him at Leicester HQ should have had a copy of his original statement.
Yes and he might very well have read it before answering... I reckon that the way interviews are led whether in Portugal or in the UK is sometimes unexpected, at least for the layman..
-
Why is it an "extremely delicate" issue? Several posters seem to be of the firm opinion that the McCann ARE indeed responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, or even of her death, surely those who do must have some idea or scenario that explains the HOW, WHERE, WHEN & with the help of WHOM questions?
Sure ! If, then, if... and imo
Concerning the "help of whom" I can't figure out somebody helping somebody in such a senseless activity unless with a "come on !". Concerning "when", I don't buy the totally implausible freezer scenario. About how, witnesses saw a carrier, I've not doubt about that. There's a clue of where in "Madeleine".
Picking up on point, Anne. If you don't agree with the frozen/leaking theory, how does that fit in with Amaral's theory concerning the car?
-
Why is it an "extremely delicate" issue? Several posters seem to be of the firm opinion that the McCann ARE indeed responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, or even of her death, surely those who do must have some idea or scenario that explains the HOW, WHERE, WHEN & with the help of WHOM questions?
Sure ! If, then, if... and imo
Concerning the "help of whom" I can't figure out somebody helping somebody in such a senseless activity unless with a "come on !". Concerning "when", I don't buy the totally implausible freezer scenario. About how, witnesses saw a carrier, I've not doubt about that. There's a clue of where in "Madeleine".
Picking up on point, Anne. If you don't agree with the frozen/leaking theory, how does that fit in with Amaral's theory concerning the car?
Hi Carana. Do you wonder how I do interpret the reaction of Eddie to the car key?
-
Why is it an "extremely delicate" issue? Several posters seem to be of the firm opinion that the McCann ARE indeed responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, or even of her death, surely those who do must have some idea or scenario that explains the HOW, WHERE, WHEN & with the help of WHOM questions?
Sure ! If, then, if... and imo
Concerning the "help of whom" I can't figure out somebody helping somebody in such a senseless activity unless with a "come on !". Concerning "when", I don't buy the totally implausible freezer scenario. About how, witnesses saw a carrier, I've not doubt about that. There's a clue of where in "Madeleine".
Picking up on point, Anne. If you don't agree with the frozen/leaking theory, how does that fit in with Amaral's theory concerning the car?
Hi Carana. Do you wonder how I do interpret the reaction of Eddie to the car key?
Well, yes.
But not just that. There never was any "leakage" into a tyre well. Apparently, there never was one anyway in the boot of that car (just a small tool space), which wasn't one of the parts sent of for analysis.
-
But not just that. There never was any "leakage" into a tyre well. Apparently, there never was one anyway in the boot of that car (just a small tool space), which wasn't one of the parts sent of for analysis.
I'm not impressed at all by Keela in the boot where the presence of minute drops of blood doesn't seem unlikely. Deducing it was Madeleine's doesn't sound reasonable to me.
The car key might have been contaminated.
-
But not just that. There never was any "leakage" into a tyre well. Apparently, there never was one anyway in the boot of that car (just a small tool space), which wasn't one of the parts sent of for analysis.
I'm not impressed at all by Keela in the boot where the presence of minute drops of blood doesn't seem unlikely. Deducing it was Madeleine's doesn't sound reasonable to me.
The car key might have been contaminated.
I would say the car was comtaminated, before it even got to the garage.
It should not have been taken from outside a cafe. Sly move there!
It should not have been driven by a GNR officer, to the garage.
It should not have had Madeleine's photo all over it.
Levy should have been nowhere near anything.
-
Levy should not have been near anything? Was he there?
-
But not just that. There never was any "leakage" into a tyre well. Apparently, there never was one anyway in the boot of that car (just a small tool space), which wasn't one of the parts sent of for analysis.
I'm not impressed at all by Keela in the boot where the presence of minute drops of blood doesn't seem unlikely. Deducing it was Madeleine's doesn't sound reasonable to me.
The car key might have been contaminated.
I would say the car was comtaminated, before it even got to the garage.
It should not have been taken from outside a cafe. Sly move there!
It should not have been driven by a GNR officer, to the garage.
It should not have had Madeleine's photo all over it.
Levy should have been nowhere near anything.
Levy as in Morais' ex boyfriend?
-
Levy should not have been near anything? Was he there?
It was rumoured that journalists Paulo Reis and Levy Duarte had inside information on the case pre shelving. If you followed the Leveson Inquiry it wouldn't have been difficult to determine where that inside information came from.
The dogs search video footage of the apartment and the car was taken by Levy. Why a journalist was allowed to film an official police dog search and not the police or other law enforcement, is a question that needs to be addressed.
-
Where do they vary, Anne?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/J-T-R-Salcedas.htm
At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.
The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared. Seconds later Madeleine's father appeared, greatly agitated, looking for his daughter everywhere, obviously and immediately heading towards the pool and surrounding areas.
Shortly afterwards Luz Ocean Club was in a state of absolute commotion. Everyone was trying to help in the search for Madeleine which was multiplied in numerous search actions over a large perimeter. The witness immediately perceived the seriousness of the situation. Madeleine's mother was shouting desperately for her daughter. The witness told another chef at the Millenium restaurant so that he would also help in the searches.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.
I went to find Ze and Ricardo to give them the news and to get their help in searching for the missing girl. I saw the head of the Milenium Restaurant in the Tapas and asked him to telephone the restaurant.
I ran out of the Tapas and noticed that some of the childcare works of the Mark Warner had begun to arrive. At the point I left the Tapas I heard a scream from a woman I did not know. I do not know who screamed, but I had never heard a similar cry. I cannot even describe it but thought it had come from the child's mother.
The time of 21H30 - 22H00 in the second statement is clearly an error so just goes to show what cam happen. It is quite possible a typist put in the wrong time but it is very careless that this wasn't checked.
Jeronimo Salcedas' statements tie in exactly with statements by the creche staff who were out searching the grounds from around 10.15pm. It was just after that time that Jeronimo heard a scream from the apartment. No mystery Anne and no doubts whatsoever when this occurred and why.
-
Levy should not have been near anything? Was he there?
It was rumoured that journalists Paulo Reis and Levy Duarte had inside information on the case pre shelving. If you followed the Leveson Inquiry it wouldn't have been difficult to determine where that inside information came from.
The dogs search video footage of the apartment and the car was taken by Levy. Why a journalist was allowed to film an official police dog search and not the police or other law enforcement, is a question that needs to be addressed.
Very sloppy police work imo but this is Portugal we are talking about where anything goes including beating up suspects to obtain a confession and bribing judges to influence judgements. It is no secret that the GNR and the PJ leaked information when it suited them. Unfortunately for Amaral though this later came back to destroy his own career.
-
Thats fine- you're welcome.
Pointing this out was enough to get me banned from one board!
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
The above is from the AG's legal summary. I have put the relevant section in bold. As I understand it, the AG was unable to formulate a cohesive, credible or even possible scenario firmly implicate the McCann in Madeleine's disappearance. Anybody feel they can do a better job?
No responsible investigator would attempt to explain any crime without the full evidence - that's basic.
However, as we all can understand as human beings, we can have a conviction based on a few facts and intuition, even if we don't have all the necessary data to put a full frame together.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
The above is from the AG's legal summary. I have put the relevant section in bold. As I understand it, the AG was unable to formulate a cohesive, credible or even possible scenario firmly implicate the McCann in Madeleine's disappearance. Anybody feel they can do a better job?
No responsible investigator would attempt to explain any crime without the full evidence - that's basic.
However, as we all can understand as human beings, we can have a conviction based on a few facts and intuition, even if we don't have all the necessary data to put a full frame together.
Such 'convictions' are generally known as libellous fantasies.
-
I posted this a while back but one member doesn't like it and calls it libel. Note to member...something is only a libel if it is untrue.
"Very sloppy police work imo but this is Portugal we are talking about where anything goes including beating up suspects to obtain a confession and bribing judges to influence decisions. It is no secret that the GNR and the PJ leaked information when it suited them. Unfortunately for Amaral though this later came back to destroy his own career"
I have removed the word 'routinely' as I agree that may not be fair.
However, can I ask which part is untrue dear member?
-
Generalizations are always abusive, aren't they, dear admin ?
-
Levy should not have been near anything? Was he there?
It is an abiding (and deeply disturbing) mystery how on earth Levy got hold of so much he did, including rogatory statements, dog videos and much else ...
-
The dogs search video footage of the apartment and the car was taken by Levy. Why a journalist was allowed to film an official police dog search and not the police or other law enforcement, is a question that needs to be addressed.
Have you got a link for that? It's the first I've ever heard of it.
or any else??
-
I posted this a while back but one member doesn't like it and calls it libel. Note to member...something is only a libel if it is untrue.
Debunker ?
Are you not going to point out the glaring error in Angelo's statement ?
-
I posted this a while back but one member doesn't like it and calls it libel. Note to member...something is only a libel if it is untrue.
Debunker ?
Are you not going to point out the glaring error in Angelo's statement ?
I had not seen that.
The truth can amount to defamation, dependent on how it is phrased.
-
Of course facts can be libelous. If I was to state that "Mr. X has spent most of his adult life in prison", most sane, normal people would take that to mean that Mr. X is a hardened criminal.
But let's say Mr. X instead is a dedicated prison officer with a long service record in Her Majesty's prison service - my statement is still factually correct - but Mr. X would have a very good cause to sue me for libel.
-
Of course facts can be libelous. If I was to state that "Mr. X has spent most of his adult life in prison", most sane, normal people would take that to mean that Mr. X is a hardened criminal.
But let's say Mr. X instead is a dedicated prison officer with a long service record in Her Majesty's prison service - my statement is still factually correct - but Mr. X would have a very good cause to sue me for libel.
The claim would be false on two counts of course since Mr X would not have spent most of his adult life in prison having worked on average for only 40 hours out of a possible 168 hours every week.
-
Of course facts can be libelous. If I was to state that "Mr. X has spent most of his adult life in prison", most sane, normal people would take that to mean that Mr. X is a hardened criminal.
But let's say Mr. X instead is a dedicated prison officer with a long service record in Her Majesty's prison service - my statement is still factually correct - but Mr. X would have a very good cause to sue me for libel.
The claim would be false on two counts of course since Mr X would not have spent most of his adult life in prison having worked on average for only 40 hours out of a possible 168 hours every week.
Yes, true, but even if I had said "Mr. X has spent most DAYS of his adult life in prison", I'd most likely would still be sued.
-
I posted this a while back but one member doesn't like it and calls it libel. Note to member...something is only a libel if it is untrue.
Debunker ?
Are you not going to point out the glaring error in Angelo's statement ?
Which error would that be ica? The two elements which determine defamation or libel are truthfulness and intent to harm. Repeating the truth or that which is recognised as the truth cannot be construed as a libel.
Corruption of the truth as referred to be Debunker is another issue.
-
As an example of this:
Posting that the McCanns killed Madeleine is false and a libel but posting that they were responsible for her disappearance is not as it is in fact a truth by reason had she not been left alone that evening she would not have been abducted.
The fact that I have just posted this is again not a libel as it is an example and not a stated opinion.
I repeat, to have a libel you have to have the element of intent to harm or damage.
-
As an example of this:
Posting that the McCanns killed Madeleine is false and a libel but posting that they were responsible for her disappearance is not as it is in fact a truth by reason had she not been left alone that evening she would not have been abducted.
The fact that I have just posted this is again not a libel as it is an example and not a stated opinion.
I repeat, to have a libel you have to have the element of intent to harm or damage.
Angelo, you can't say that. There is passive responsibility (very common) and active one. I'm pretty sure Mr and Mrs McCann weren't actively responsible for what happened to their daughter.
-
As an example of this:
Posting that the McCanns killed Madeleine is false and a libel but posting that they were responsible for her disappearance is not as it is in fact a truth by reason had she not been left alone that evening she would not have been abducted.
The fact that I have just posted this is again not a libel as it is an example and not a stated opinion.
I repeat, to have a libel you have to have the element of intent to harm or damage.
IMO that would be threading a very fine line, clearly they weren't solely RESPONSIBLE, the person who took her was. Though I would think you could get away with claiming fair comment with a slightly different wording e.g "were partly responsible" or that they "bear some responsibility" for her disappearance.
-
I posted this a while back but one member doesn't like it and calls it libel. Note to member...something is only a libel if it is untrue.
Debunker ?
Are you not going to point out the glaring error in Angelo's statement ?
Which error would that be ica? The two elements which determine defamation or libel are truthfulness and intent to harm. Repeating the truth or that which is recognised as the truth cannot be construed as a libel.
Corruption of the truth as referred to be Debunker is another issue.
I was always of the same opinion as you Angelo ... that you can't libel with the truth
Debunker insists we are both wrong
-
You can't libel with the plain unadulterated truth Ica. If you corrupt the truth or promote it in such a way so as to cause mischief, harm or attempt to destroy someone's reputation by manipulating it then that is a libel.
Simply stating the truth precisely and accurately however will never see you in any court. 8(0(*
-
As an example of this:
Posting that the McCanns killed Madeleine is false and a libel but posting that they were responsible for her disappearance is not as it is in fact a truth by reason had she not been left alone that evening she would not have been abducted.
The fact that I have just posted this is again not a libel as it is an example and not a stated opinion.
I repeat, to have a libel you have to have the element of intent to harm or damage.
IMO that would be threading a very fine line, clearly they weren't solely RESPONSIBLE, the person who took her was. Though I would think you could get away with claiming fair comment with a slightly different wording e.g "were partly responsible" or that they "bear some responsibility" for her disappearance.
Yes...nicely put. 8@??)(
-
I posted this a while back but one member doesn't like it and calls it libel. Note to member...something is only a libel if it is untrue.
Debunker ?
Are you not going to point out the glaring error in Angelo's statement ?
Which error would that be ica? The two elements which determine defamation or libel are truthfulness and intent to harm. Repeating the truth or that which is recognised as the truth cannot be construed as a libel.
Corruption of the truth as referred to be Debunker is another issue.
Truth can be libel as I have noted and Justice Tugenhadt mentioned in the Tony Bennett case.
-
You can't libel with the plain unadulterated truth Ica. If you corrupt the truth or promote it in such a way so as to cause mischief, harm or attempt to destroy someone's reputation by manipulating it then that is a libel.
Simply stating the truth precisely and accurately however will never see you in any court. 8(0(*
It could, actually. Contempt of court, for example, prior to a trial by repeating someone's prior convictions or even by naming someone (even a victim) if that person has the right to anonymity.
-
That's true, there are of course several cases where freedom of expression is curtailed.
-
So has anyone been able to come up with a solution to the AG's dilemma yet?
"....it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. "
-
So has anyone been able to come up with a solution to the AG's dilemma yet?
"....it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. "
I touched on this point the thread on cadaver scents - I have yet to see a logical arguments that involve the parents in the disposal of a body - It just doesn't make any sense -
It makes far more sense that 3rd parties within the village could be involved - people who had transport - accommodation , a knowledge of the area , etc etc
I know that stats do point to people close to the victim as the most likely ie complete stranger abduction / murder is thank god rare - If you look at the last two high profile murders here in the UK - both were people who were very close to the family
This is a mystery though and one reason why 6 years later I am still posting about it
-
Yes, I agree, but it still remains a fact that this little girl was there at one moment, then she was gone. Yet nobody can come up with a reasonable, credible or even possible scenario that involves the parents. Surely, that's the least you can ask from those who feel they have the right to accuse others of committing horrendous crimes. Just my opinion, of course.
-
It makes far more sense that 3rd parties within the village could be involved - people who had transport - accommodation , a knowledge of the area , etc etc
Even paid millions, no way somebody would involve him/herself in disposing of a corpse. There are institutions for this.
If for some reason you need to do it, you do it yourself.
-
It makes far more sense that 3rd parties within the village could be involved - people who had transport - accommodation , a knowledge of the area , etc etc
Even paid millions, no way somebody would involve him/herself in disposing of a corpse. There are institutions for this.
If for some reason you need to do it, you do it yourself.
what I meant was that If you discount stranger abduction I think there it is far more likely that someone in the village who had means to hide / dispose could have been involved in the abduction - either an impulse snatch of a wandering maddie or a snatch themselves - someone who had detailed knowledge of the area and also transport as I don't believe for a minute that maddie was still in the local vicinity 24 hours later
It goes back to the SY investigation - one of the points they made more than once that the PJ might even had spoken to the people responsible - note the word might
-
I don't see any dilemma.
Magalhães e Menezes felt certainly sorry not to be able to "dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing child's parents", but he says clearly this fact is above his responsibility since "for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they (the TP) chose not to attend (the reconstruction)".
Doubts will remain for ever and the PGR is neither the victim nor the persecutor.
-
Doubts about the parents' innocence are confined to those with an intractable prejudice.
There's an English saying which goes: There's none so blind (or deaf) and those who will not see (or hear).
-
Yes, & why the aversion to post up complete quotes or at least full sentences, without inserted personal "opinions" in the middle to render the quotes completely useless? I assume the above is supposed to refer to the reconstruction & the damage done TO the McCann by the Tapas group for not agreeing to travel to Portugal, but who can tell?
-
what I meant was that If you discount stranger abduction I think there it is far more likely that someone in the village who had means to hide / dispose could have been involved in the abduction - either an impulse snatch of a wandering maddie or a snatch themselves - someone who had detailed knowledge of the area and also transport as I don't believe for a minute that maddie was still in the local vicinity 24 hours later
It goes back to the SY investigation - one of the points they made more than once that the PJ might even had spoken to the people responsible - note the word might
Someone in the village (it's not traditionally speaking a "village") having means to hide a stolen little girl in the first hours ?
-
It makes far more sense that 3rd parties within the village could be involved - people who had transport - accommodation , a knowledge of the area , etc etc
Even paid millions, no way somebody would involve him/herself in disposing of a corpse. There are institutions for this.
If for some reason you need to do it, you do it yourself.
what I meant was that If you discount stranger abduction I think there it is far more likely that someone in the village who had means to hide / dispose could have been involved in the abduction - either an impulse snatch of a wandering maddie or a snatch themselves - someone who had detailed knowledge of the area and also transport as I don't believe for a minute that maddie was still in the local vicinity 24 hours later
It goes back to the SY investigation - one of the points they made more than once that the PJ might even had spoken to the people responsible - note the word might
If she woke & wandered & then was snatched, surely that would be classed as stranger abduction, unless of course there's some evidence the McCann intimately knew people in PDL, which the AG made clear they could not find any proof of.
-
Doubts about the parents' innocence are confined to those with an intractable prejudice.
There's an English saying which goes: There's none so blind (or deaf) and those who will not see (or hear).
None so deaf as those that will not hear, it's a universal saying.
You can't manipulate opinion, everyone has the right to think for him/herself. If you believe something, it's ok, but don't pretend to make others to believe it as well.
-
5 - The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
in E - About the Interest of the Reconstitution
-
It makes far more sense that 3rd parties within the village could be involved - people who had transport - accommodation , a knowledge of the area , etc etc
Even paid millions, no way somebody would involve him/herself in disposing of a corpse. There are institutions for this.
If for some reason you need to do it, you do it yourself.
what I meant was that If you discount stranger abduction I think there it is far more likely that someone in the village who had means to hide / dispose could have been involved in the abduction - either an impulse snatch of a wandering maddie or a snatch themselves - someone who had detailed knowledge of the area and also transport as I don't believe for a minute that maddie was still in the local vicinity 24 hours later
It goes back to the SY investigation - one of the points they made more than once that the PJ might even had spoken to the people responsible - note the word might
If she woke & wandered & then was snatched, surely that would be classed as stranger abduction, unless of course there's some evidence the McCann intimately knew people in PDL, which the AG made clear they could not find any proof of.
yes of course anyone apart from family would be stranger abduction I was trying to distinguish from complete persons unknown to individuals in the vicinity that are already know to have been in the vicinity of the complex - that means staff , residents of the town , etc .
To be clear I don't think the McCann's were involved - It was either an opportune snatch by someone in the town who had inclination and also means to hide and dispose quickly ie knowledge and transport - or a more organised abduction from the room by persons from out of the town who planned it in a more structured way over a couple of days
-
Yes, so he's blaming the Tapas Group for having caused damage TO the McCann as they did not agree to travel to Portugal for a reconstruction. Thanks, we knew that.
Whether he was right or wrong in his assumption that a reconstruction would have been helpful to implicate OR clear the parents, is another question. As we know, Scotland Yard has already done a virtual forensic analysis of the timeline and they, apparently,found abduction by stranger the likely scenario.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call
-
It makes far more sense that 3rd parties within the village could be involved - people who had transport - accommodation , a knowledge of the area , etc etc
Even paid millions, no way somebody would involve him/herself in disposing of a corpse. There are institutions for this.
If for some reason you need to do it, you do it yourself.
what I meant was that If you discount stranger abduction I think there it is far more likely that someone in the village who had means to hide / dispose could have been involved in the abduction - either an impulse snatch of a wandering maddie or a snatch themselves - someone who had detailed knowledge of the area and also transport as I don't believe for a minute that maddie was still in the local vicinity 24 hours later
It goes back to the SY investigation - one of the points they made more than once that the PJ might even had spoken to the people responsible - note the word might
If she woke & wandered & then was snatched, surely that would be classed as stranger abduction, unless of course there's some evidence the McCann intimately knew people in PDL, which the AG made clear they could not find any proof of.
yes of course anyone apart from family would be stranger abduction I was trying to distinguish from complete persons unknown to individuals in the vicinity that are already know to have been in the vicinity of the complex - that means staff , residents of the town , etc .
To be clear I don't think the McCann's were involved - It was either an opportune snatch by someone in the town who had inclination and also means to hide and dispose quickly ie knowledge and transport - or a more organised abduction from the room by persons from out of the town who planned it in a more structured way over a couple of days
Ah, I see what you mean now - thanks for clarifying ?{)(**
-
" Scotland Yard has already done a virtual forensic analysis of the timeline and they, apparently,found abduction by stranger the likely scenario."
They'll have to prove it all the same, if doubts are do be dismissed.
-
Is there any specific law in Portugal that requires the dismissal of "doubt" that every Tom, Dick & Harry around may, or may not, have in order to be officially regarded as "innocent" in the eyes of the law?
If so, would someone please provide some type of link to it, I must have missed it.
-
" Scotland Yard has already done a virtual forensic analysis of the timeline and they, apparently,found abduction by stranger the likely scenario."
They'll have to prove it all the same, if doubts are do be dismissed.
Who is "they"? And prove what to whom?
-
Is there any specific law in Portugal that requires the dismissal of "doubt" that every Tom, Dick & Harry around may, or may not, have in order to be officially regarded as "innocent" in the eyes of the law?
If so, would someone please provide some type of link to it, I must have missed it.
No specific law in Portugal and nowhere else !
The eyes of the law aren't in question. The public opinion is. It's not a secret that many people have a doubt and will always have about the involvement of the Mr and Mrs McCann.
There's no evidence whatsoever that an abduction did or didn't occurred. Doubting is then absolutely legitimate.
-
" Scotland Yard has already done a virtual forensic analysis of the timeline and they, apparently,found abduction by stranger the likely scenario."
They'll have to prove it all the same, if doubts are do be dismissed.
Who is "they"? And prove what to whom?
Well, SY of course doesn't "have to", but you surely understand that it's not enough to claim that "abduction is a likely scenario" to turn abduction likely and erase people's doubts. Some kind of evidence is needed.
-
Doubting is not legitimate if you do it in public on the internet and your doubts as expressed in print make it clear that you believe the McCanns are liars who have covered up the death of their child. The latest ruling by Judge T in the Bercow case proves this beyond doubt!
Not believing is a right and it's certainly healthy to be critical. I never treated "liars" Mr and Mrs McCann, rather than believing them or not (which in itself has no interest whatsoever), I find Eddie's findings disturbing, among some other things.
-
Yes, and STILL has no explanation whatsoever HOW this supposed crime could have taken place given.
-
" Scotland Yard has already done a virtual forensic analysis of the timeline and they, apparently,found abduction by stranger the likely scenario."
They'll have to prove it all the same, if doubts are do be dismissed.
Who is "they"? And prove what to whom?
Well, SY of course doesn't "have to", but you surely understand that it's not enough to claim that "abduction is a likely scenario" to turn abduction likely and erase people's doubts. Some kind of evidence is needed.
Nothing - at this stage - will erase entrenched doubts.
How do you prove a negative, Anne?
There were no CCTV images which would have been objective data.
In my view, if a virtual reconstruction of the timeline (including variations) had concluded that there was NO opportunity for an abduction, then that would have been a big red flag. But this doesn't seem to be the case.
-
Let's be clear here, the ruling in the Bercow case is a simple fact, it's not something anyone has invented to cause upset to the McCann "doubters".
It dispels the misconception that you can write whatever you like about people online & not be held legally responsible. Clearly, it's a good idea to think through what we write before posting potentially libelous & deeply hurtful comments or accusations on social media or online.
Most of those who call themselves McCann skeptics would not change their minds if Madeleine turned up tomorrow, IMO. They would instead claim the abduction was a hoax, or a government conspiracy or it wasn't Madeleine at all, just a substitute clone or whatever. In the eyes of those people, the parents will ALWAYS be guilty of something or other. & I repeat, IMO.
-
So has anyone been able to come up with a solution to the AG's dilemma yet?
"....it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. "
Obviously they weren't able to do it Mrs B. Which doesn't surprise me in the least as they are so obviously innocent of anything more than being somewhat naïve where the security of their three children was concerned!
-
Yes, so he's blaming the Tapas Group for having caused damage TO the McCann as they did not agree to travel to Portugal for a reconstruction. Thanks, we knew that.
Whether he was right or wrong in his assumption that a reconstruction would have been helpful to implicate OR clear the parents, is another question. As we know, Scotland Yard has already done a virtual forensic analysis of the timeline and they, apparently,found abduction by stranger the likely scenario.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call
In my opinion that report is just bullshit for we haven't got a clue where to go from here so we will blame the tapas 7. They have all they need for a reconstruction not that it would serve any purpose in any event!
What would they reconstruct anyway? The Gerry, Jez and Jane event and the Jane and abductor event? The Smith and the mystery man carrying child event? What would any of this serve to accomplish anyway as it has all been done before at least twice?