The Cracked Mirror.

[Albertini]

Yes, perhaps so.  I certainly don't blame the others for not taking part - by then it had become clear that the PJ were trying to stitch up Kate and Gerry McCann.  This had become clear when the ridiculous allegation that Madeleine's remains had been in the boot of the car was put to them.

Were you aware that the group were all willing in those first days to do a recon, but the PJ put the kybosh on it? Some nonsense about having to close the airspace, I understand.

I don't understand how you can be fitted up in re-enacting what you said in a statement.

The T7 were allowed, subject to the Prosecutor's acceptance, legal representation.

Plus they were offered the chance for the Foreign office to be present and the Leicestershire Police had already been invited:

15 April 2008

Processos Volume XVI, pgs. 4190 to 4192

If it is their wish, the witnesses can be assisted by the Foreign Office and, in the proceedings, also by a legal representative, subject to the consent of the Public Prosecutor's Office. Within the scope of the cooperation that has been taking place, the Leicestershire Police has already been invited to be present in the proceedings;

How do you think the PJ could fit them up with the FO, their lawyers and Leicestershire Police in attendance?

[Rachel Granada]

We already know who played with the shutters and window.

None other than km herself.

I think the fingerprints business has already been discussed, a while ago?

[Rachel Granada]

I don't understand how you can be fitted up in re-enacting what you said in a statement.

The T7 were allowed, subject to the Prosecutor's acceptance, legal representation.

Plus they were offered the chance for the Foreign office to be present and the Leicestershire Police had already been invited:

How do you think the PJ could fit them up with the FO, their lawyers and Leicestershire Police in attendance?

Well they tried it with the lies about the forensics, so anything is possible.  The nub of the matter is that the PJ messed up by not staging the recon in the early days when all were present in PDL and willing.

[Benice]

Gosh so much importance attached to the sudden need for a reconstruction many months after the event  - but only after the Tapas 7 refused to take part it seems to me.

And yet in the days following the 3rd when everyone would have taken part  - there was so little importance attached to the need for a reconstruction  - that they didn't bother to have one.

Very odd.

[Rachel Granada]

Ok so counter the claims on the timeline.

Debunk the writing not the writer.

Why should anyone bother wasting their time on something that has been written by someone who has an agenda against Kate and Gerry McCann? It therefore has no credibility, unlike something penned from a neutral stance.

[Rachel Granada]

Gosh so much importance attached to the sudden need for a reconstruction many months after the event  - but only after the Tapas 7 refused to take part it seems to me.

And yet in the days following the 3rd when everyone would have taken part  - there was so little importance attached to the need for a reconstruction  - that they didn't bother to have one.

Very odd.

    

[Albertini]

Well they tried it with the lies about the forensics, so anything is possible.  The nub of the matter is that the PJ messed up by not staging the recon in the early days when all were present in PDL and willing.

Well you can think that if you like but i'm afraid that viewpoint does not pass muster when judged against the words of Rebelo and the protection he specifically offered them.

Irrespective of whether you believe 6 years later they messed up in 2007 the fact remains now and forever that the McCann's and their friends killed the investigation by not performing the reconstruction that Rebelo needed and asked for.

I cannot get my head around it. If they felt certain that their statements were true, what fear could they have by acting them out, with so much UK representation there with them?

Had they acted it out and satisfied the PJ they would have FORCED the PJ then to look at the abductor scenario.

As the archiving report states the main damaged parties were the McCann's themselves for they were unable to prove their innocence once and for all.

The question is if you are innocent why would you want to kill the investigation into your (friend's) missing child? What does that tell you about the group and their motives?

[Rachel Granada]

Well you can think that if you like but i'm afraid that viewpoint does not pass muster when judged against the words of Rebelo and the protection he specifically offered them.

Irrespective of whether you believe 6 years later they messed up in 2007 the fact remains now and forever that the McCann's and their friends killed the investigation by not performing the reconstruction that Rebelo needed and asked for.

I cannot get my head around it. If they felt certain that their statements were true, what fear could they have by acting them out, with so much UK representation there with them?

Had they acted it out and satisfied the PJ they would have FORCED the PJ then to look at the abductor scenario.

As the archiving report states the main damaged parties were the McCann's themselves for they were unable to prove their innocence once and for all.

The question is if you are innocent why would you want to kill the investigation into your (friend's) missing child? What does that tell you about the group and their motives?

I think it was Fiona Payne (I may be mistaken) who summed it up well in her E-mail to Prior: "They either believe our version of events or they don't".

Had I been one of the holiday party, and seen the horrendous press headlines that my two friends had been subjected to, many of which I believe were fuelled by leaks from the PJ, then I too would have refused to set foot in PT.  If it were my two friends that the PJ had deliberately lied to with worthless forensics, then I too would have refused to set foot in PT.

And perhaps Fiona and Co.  had done a bit of research into other PJ fit-ups, cock-ups and violence.

[Albertini]

Gosh so much importance attached to the sudden need for a reconstruction many months after the event  - but only after the Tapas 7 refused to take part it seems to me.

And yet in the days following the 3rd when everyone would have taken part  - there was so little importance attached to the need for a reconstruction  - that they didn't bother to have one.

Very odd.

Er no. Look at the timelines. Rebelo stated as follows:

15 April 2008

Processos Volume XVI, pgs. 4190 to 4192

14 – The PJ considers this re-enactment to be highly important, and hopes the witnesses show their total cooperation, as they have been doing so far, towards finding out the truth.

10 May 2008 10:14

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4312
From: Rachael Oldfield
Sent: 10 May 2008 10:14
To: Stuart Prior
Subject: RE:NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED:- RE: Re-enactment

Dear Stuart,

Further to our recent emails, Matthew and I have made the decision not to return to Portugal for the proposed re-enactment on 15th/16th May 2008.

We will respond to the formal notification when we receive it as well.

If you need anything further from us, please do not hesitate to give me a call.

Kind regards.

Rachael Oldfield

So it was made clear to the group BEFORE they decided to kill it of its importance.

In fact Rachel Oldfield mentioned it in an email of 23rd April BEFORE she eventually said no:

23 April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4225

From : Rachael Oldfield (<email address quoted>)
To : "Prior Stuart"
Cc : "Matthew Oldfield" (<email address quoted>)
Sent : Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008.
Subject : Re : Re-enactment questions

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for your e-mail and the attached response from the PJ.

We remain unconvinced that this reconstruction is necessary. Our most
significant question hasn't been answered, ie, how is it going to help find Madeleine/materially benefit the search for her?

Point 14 of the PJ's response says that they consider this re-enactment "highly important". Why is that? What are they really trying to get out of a reconstruction?

Either they believe our version of the events of May 3rd 2007, or they don't. If they do, why the need for a reconstruction? If they don't believe us, do they want a reconstruction so we can convince them otherwise?

If the purpose of a reconstruction is to convince the Prosecutor to lift Kate and Gerry's arguido status then we would consider taking part in it. If it is to properly focus the investigation on the person seen carrying a child away from the apartment, again, we would consider taking part because that would help to find Madeleine.

We just need to be properly convinced of the reasons for doing a re-enactment.

We know you are the middle man in all this but we are sorry for more questions !
Please give either of us a call if you would like to talk through the above. Also if you feel this e-mail should be forwarded to the PJ please could you let us know.

Many thanks,
Kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Rachael and Matthew Oldfield.

[Albertini]

I think it was Fiona Payne (I may be mistaken) who summed it up well in her E-mail to Prior: "They either believe our version of events or they don't".

Had I been one of the holiday party, and seen the horrendous press headlines that my two friends had been subjected to, many of which I believe were fuelled by leaks from the PJ, then I too would have refused to set foot in PT.  If it were my two friends that the PJ had deliberately lied to with worthless forensics, then I too would have refused to set foot in PT.

And perhaps Fiona and Co.  had done a bit of research into other PJ fit-ups, cock-ups and violence.

Well i gave you the other day the issue of the patio shutter being down as per Rachel's 15th May statement. No one had mentioned that before and it sent this forum into a bit of a tail spin, with some posts claiming someone must be wrong.

Don't you think a reconstruction could have resolved those kinds of issues once and for all?

Don't you also think it is not the place of a witness to state they do not know what benefit a recon will bring to the investigation?

Since when has a witness been able to dictate investigative leads and strategies?

It is simply outrageous that they should dictacte what the investigation should and should not do. If you read the full email exchanges you will see the sheer breathtaking arrogance of the way they tried to steer the course of the reconstruction.

In my mind, given the protection offered by the PJ, they never had any inclination to go back and perform what the PJ asked them to do.

Given the protections offered (lawyers, FO and Leicestershire Police in attendance) the "fit up" allegation is false, and the real question is why did they kill the reconstruction when they knew the PJ needed it to move the investigation forward?

Why did they not want to act out what they said? What were they afraid of being exposed?

[Rachel Granada]

Well i gave you the other day the issue of the patio shutter being down as per Rachel's 15th May statement. No one had mentioned that before and it sent this forum into a bit of a tail spin, with some posts claiming someone must be wrong.

Don't you think a reconstruction could have resolved those kinds of issues once and for all?

Don't you also think it is not the place of a witness to state they do not know what benefit a recon will bring to the investigation?

Since when has a witness been able to dictate investigative leads and strategies?

It is simply outrageous that they should dictacte what the investigation should and should not do. If you read the full email exchanges you will see the sheer breathtaking arrogance of the way they tried to steer the course of the reconstruction.

In my mind, given the protection offered by the PJ, they never had any inclination to go back and perform what the PJ asked them to do.

Given the protections offered (lawyers, FO and Leicestershire Police in attendance) the "fit up" allegation is false, and the real question is why did they kill the reconstruction when they knew the PJ needed it to move the investigation forward?

Why did they not want to act out what they said? What were they afraid of being exposed?

I don't believe they were trying to dictate anything  - just to gain some reassurances, as would anyone being asked to return to a foreign country where an attempt had been made to incriminate their friends on non-existent forensics.  Was it Paiva that was waving the piece of paper in Gerry McCann's face with the "concrete evidence" on it?

Anyroad, it is all a moot point now.  I would imagine that the Yard will have done a virtual reconstruction a very long time ago.

[faithlilly]

Yes sure from the final report:

It is interesting that when the McCanns ask several of their friends to take part in a reconstruction filmed for the Channel 4 documentary 'Madeleine Was Here' they were only too willing to take part.

Perhaps if the McCanns had asked their friends to also attend the police reconstruction, as they were allegedly so willing to go themselves, their daughters's whereabouts may have been discovered by now.

[DCI]

I don't believe they were trying to dictate anything  - just to gain some reassurances, as would anyone being asked to return to a foreign country where an attempt had been made to incriminate their friends on non-existent forensics.  Was it Paiva that was waving the piece of paper in Gerry McCann's face with the "concrete evidence" on it?

Anyroad, it is all a moot point now.  I would imagine that the Yard will have done a virtual reconstruction a very long time ago.

Reading these pages from the DVD's, puts this whole scenario into perspective.

Processos Volume XVI, pgs. 4129 to 4414

4216, 4218, 4224, 4225, 4229, 4231, 4232, 4235, 4237, 4241, 4243, 4245, 4248, 4252, 4372, 4374, 4377.

A lot of the emails are from Paiva, not Rebelo!

[Rachel Granada]

Reading these pages from the DVD's, puts this whole scenario into perspective.

Processos Volume XVI, pgs. 4129 to 4414

4216, 4218, 4224, 4225, 4229, 4231, 4232, 4235, 4237, 4241, 4243, 4245, 4248, 4252, 4372, 4374, 4377.

A lot of the emails are from Paiva, not Rebelo!

Cheers DCI, I will have a look later.

[DCI]

Ok so counter the claims on the timeline.

Debunk the writing not the writer.

When I'm desperate enough to read or reply to Blacksmiths rubbish, I'll pack up, altogether.