The Cracked Mirror.

[Rachel Granada]

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.

Several? I believe only Jane Tanner took part - although I may be mistaken and am willing to be corrected.

Once again, this is a moot point as I am confident that the Yard will have done a virtual reconstruction yonks ago.

[Chinagirl]

I am confident that the Yard will have done a virtual reconstruction yonks ago.

Indeed, Rachel, which is why the Yard have been able to say that they are investigating the abduction and not the parents or friends because they are not considered suspects in this case.

The sceptics use of the refusal to return for a reconstruction as a reason for the investigation being incomplete is a complete furphy.  There is no guarantee that such a re-enactment would have advanced the investigation one iota, particularly given the complexity of manoeuvering so many people in more than one location, and there would have been no confidence that the PJ would have handled such a reconstruction any better than they handled other aspects of this crime - they couldn't even do fingerprint ing adequately, or take proper crime scene photographs, for goodness sake!  Why would they have managed a complicated reconstruction an y more professionally?

If the Portuguese LE felt it was so important for a reconstruction in order to sort out anomalies in the timelines of the various statements, then they could have asked the UK authorities to use their resources to do a virtual reconstruction (the HOLMES system), in which all the variables can be put in, producing an accurate and dependable outcome.

[Albertini]

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.

Well, what a narrow perspective you have! I try to read as much as i can from all sides to get a handle on as much information as possible on the case.

I believe the theories and analyses are all referenced in this document, so i fail to see how you can simply dismiss it out of hand without at least reading it first.

[Albertini]

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

Well you need to get your hate figures straight.

If it was Petermac (Peter Macleod) he is not Blacksmith. Blacksmith has i believe several writers the main one being Anthony Sharples.

[Benice]

I am confident that the Yard will have done a virtual reconstruction yonks ago.

Indeed, Rachel, which is why the Yard have been able to say that they are investigating the abduction and not the parents or friends because they are not considered suspects in this case.

The sceptics use of the refusal to return for a reconstruction as a reason for the investigation being incomplete is a complete furphy.  There is no guarantee that such a re-enactment would have advanced the investigation one iota, particularly given the complexity of manoeuvering so many people in more than one location, and there would have been no confidence that the PJ would have handled such a reconstruction any better than they handled other aspects of this crime - they couldn't even do fingerprint ing adequately, or take proper crime scene photographs, for goodness sake!  Why would they have managed a complicated reconstruction an y more professionally?

If the Portuguese LE felt it was so important for a reconstruction in order to sort out anomalies in the timelines of the various statements, then they could have asked the UK authorities to use their resources to do a virtual reconstruction (the HOLMES system), in which all the variables can be put in, producing an accurate and dependable outcome.

Quite so Chinagirl.    In most recons. accurate and precise times down to the last minute would not be a requirement, but with the window of opportunity for an abduction being only a matter of minutes then precision with regard to times is vital.

If a physical recon. was attempted then how for instance would it work in the case of Jez Wilkins?  He says he spoke to Gerry for about 3 to 5 mins.  So which time would they use for a recon?    Would they do one with them standing in the street for 3 mins and then do another one for 4 mins and then another one for 5 mins.  Imagine the time this would take.

The same problem exists with anyone who could only give estimated times - which is everyone.  The only accurate time as far as I know is Gerry's 9.05  time.

The Holmes system would sort all that out in a fraction of the time and the expense which attempting a complicated physical reconstruction would incur.

Andy Redwood has intimated that this has already been done, and I presume the results will have been shared with their Portuguese counterparts.


 

[AnneGuedes]

What if Holmes concluded the best window of opportunity was between 9:45 and 10 pm (since Ms Tanner and Mr OB crossed the car park between 9:30 and 9:45), matching the best carrier (6 independent witnesses and moreover a girl) ?

[Albertini]

Quite so Chinagirl.    In most recons. accurate and precise times down to the last minute would not be a requirement, but with the window of opportunity for an abduction being only a matter of minutes then precision with regard to times is vital.

If a physical recon. was attempted then how for instance would it work in the case of Jez Wilkins?  He says he spoke to Gerry for about 3 to 5 mins.  So which time would they use for a recon?    Would they do one with them standing in the street for 3 mins and then do another one for 4 mins and then another one for 5 mins.  Imagine the time this would take.

The same problem exists with anyone who could only give estimated times - which is everyone.  The only accurate time as far as I know is Gerry's 9.05  time.

The Holmes system would sort all that out in a fraction of the time and the expense which attempting a complicated physical reconstruction would incur.

Andy Redwood has intimated that this has already been done, and I presume the results will have been shared with their Portuguese counterparts.

Sho how would a computer reconstruction account and explain Rachel's statement that on her way to the Tapas Gerry's patio shutter was down, when it is not mentioned in any of the other statements?

Is it not better to have them all there and then say to Rachel, did you see the shutters down as you stated on 15th May 2007? You did, ok Gerry, please explain this.

Getting the people involved to reconstruct is far more beneficial.

[Rachel Granada]

Well, what a narrow perspective you have! I try to read as much as i can from all sides to get a handle on as much information as possible on the case.

I believe the theories and analyses are all referenced in this document, so i fail to see how you can simply dismiss it out of hand without at least reading it first.

I have read some of it a while ago.  I believe that McLeod has used some links to newspaper reports as references in his writings?  We know how reliable those are.

I just hope that it has not been sent to the Grange Team - they have had enough to deal with already with the cranks and nutters sending things in to them.

[Benice]

Sho how would a computer reconstruction account and explain Rachel's statement that on her way to the Tapas Gerry's patio shutter was down, when it is not mentioned in any of the other statements?

Is it not better to have them all there and then say to Rachel, did you see the shutters down as you stated on 15th May 2007? You did, ok Gerry, please explain this.

Getting the people involved to reconstruct is far more beneficial.

Why on Earth would they need a reconstruction to ask those questions?   They could do that anytime.

[DCI]

Well you need to get your hate figures straight.

If it was Petermac (Peter Macleod) he is not Blacksmith. Blacksmith has i believe several writers the main one being Anthony Sharples.

Why is there such an undercurrent of anger in every post you make in response to Me, and to those posters who do believe the abduction theory?

I don't get it.

[stephen25000]

Why is there such an undercurrent of anger in every post you make in response to Me, and to those posters who do believe the abduction theory?

I don't get it.

The only anger visible, is exhibited by those who can't comprehend why people won't swallow the abduction thesis.

You should really stay on ....., where cobblers is the rule of thumb.

[DCI]

Not worth it!

[Albertini]

Why is there such an undercurrent of anger in every post you make in response to Me, and to those posters who do believe the abduction theory?

I don't get it.

I note you also display a tendency to copy the posts of others in reply to their posts.

Why do you do that?

Seems more than a little childish and "flouncy" to me.

Ties in with the undercurrent of anger i mentioned the other day.

How strange.

[Albertini]

Why is there such an undercurrent of anger in every post you make in response to Me, and to those posters who do believe the abduction theory?

I don't get it.

Let's actually discuss it. Go on i will bite.

Let me tell you the difference between you and I.

I am perfectly able to accept abduction when (or if) clear and unequivocal evidence is put forward by the Yard to support that.

My position on the disappearance is that having read the files and the gathered information i do not believe there was a sufficient window of opportunity for abduction, i do not believe the Tanner sighting, i do not believe the shutter was opened by an abductor and i do not believe a key was borrowed, copied or stolen and i find the group's decision not perform a recon suspicious coupled with severe doubts i harbour over the veracity of their statements.

Now if there is evidence that SY brings to the table that i haven't seen then i am perfectly happy to evaluate that evidence and if it points to abduction i will be able to accept it on the basis that i had arrived at a conclusion based only on the information i had to hand at the time.

You on the other hand, will be until your dying day a true believer in the McCann's, even, i suspect, if one or both of them admitted  their involvement in the disappearance.

Let me explain the difference. I am well rounded enough to look at the facts, make an assumption, look at more facts and then to change my assumptions if more information comes to light.

I am not so arrogant or insecure to think i know everything or that i cannot be wrong about anything.

This is, unfortunately, and from what i can see in our exchanges over recent days, not a trait you appear to share.

You are therefore, and i repeat i can only base this on our exchanges,  a zealot, fixated in your belief of one thing and one thing only, and not prepared to concede one inch on any aspect of any fact that would suggest the McCann's and their friends did anything wrong at all ever.

And that's a huge shame as it detracts from the quality of debate we can have on this forum with you flouncing in the corner like a moping teenager, slinging arrows from afar every now and again.

Whilst i do not agree with the theories put forward by the likes of Rachael or Lace (just as examples) we have been exchanging posts and points in a civil manner without this constant undercurrent of seething rage, anger or obsessiveness that appears to seep through your every post.

This is an internet forum, i do not know you but i would like to think that we can have different viewpoints and still all get along without the snideyness, the flouncing or the attempts at intellectual superiority by repeating or inverting people's posts back to them.

It's tiresome, non productive, does your argument no good and makes you come across as a bit of an arse.

[faithlilly]

I have read some of it a while ago.  I believe that McLeod has used some links to newspaper reports as references in his writings?  We know how reliable those are.

I just hope that it has not been sent to the Grange Team - they have had enough to deal with already with the cranks and nutters sending things in to them.

What, like this from Chinagirl ?

http://stopthemyths.prophpbb.com/topic1073.html