The tapas group and the 'reconstitution' that was never to take place.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Admin/Mods

Eleanor has said the McCanns offered to take part in a reconstruction and that the Portuguese police   rejected that offer  ...  and a second member,  Sadie,  makes the same claim

Eleanor now guarantees that it is only a matter of time until someone  (  other than she and Sadie,  who are unable to  )  provides evidence of the claim

Until  'someone'  does   I would like to request   the claim is lodged in the  Myth  section of the board

Well let's try to push a little more for evidence first before elevating it to mythical status.

There's  no mention of it in Kate's book, but perhaps they have spoken of it elsewhere?

Sometimes the evidence is there but we just gloss over it. Take this tread, for example. It is crystal clear in many letters going between T9 and police that their lawyers advised them not to take part in a reconstruction. Yet it seems to be being treated as 'news' to us.

[Anna]

Well it doesn't mention a request from the McCanns but it was abandoned because he would be in the limelight (watched) Could this be where it came from. It was to suit them (PJ), but would have been easier for the McCanns and friends surely
--------------------------------------------------------
In the Portuguese criminal justice system, reconstructions of events surrounding a murder or disappearance or other crime are used to test the validity of the witnesses’ statements. The actual persons involved in such events are the witnesses themselves. They will be invited to the scene of the crime. Such reconstructions are commonly video-recorded for the benefit of the criminal investigation. This is especially true where there are obvious contradictions between the witnesses’ statement, as is manifestly the case regarding Madeleine’s disappearance. Your researchers must be fully aware of these. They have been extensively catalogued and analysed (a) in the interim report of Tavares de Almeida (b) in the Attorney-General’s final report (c) in Dr Gonçalo Amaral’s book and (d) on numerous Madeleine McCann information and discussion sites on the internet.

This type of ‘reconstruction’ is very different from a ‘Crimewatch’-style televised reconstruction.

Dr Amaral wanted to do such a reconstruction as it was clear in the first days of the investigation that there were significant inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements, even between various statements made by the same witness. As he explains in his book, he decided not to do one because of the intense media spotlight he and his team were under.

A reconstruction of some of the events of 3 May 2007 was shown on the BBC’s Panorama programme on 19 November 2007.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=258131

[icabodcrane]

Well let's try to push a little more for evidence first before elevating it to mythical status.

There's  no mention of it in Kate's book, but perhaps they have spoken of it elsewhere?

Sometimes the evidence is there but we just gloss over it. Take this tread, for example. It is crystal clear in many letters going between T9 and police that their lawyers advised them not to take part in a reconstruction. Yet it seems to be being treated as 'news' to us.

OK  ...  what time limit shall we put on it  ? 

The fact  that neither of  the two members who have made  the claim are able to provide any evidence at all to support it is an indication that the claim is false 

So why are you giving it credence  ?  ...  based on  what  ?

[John]

The default excuse given as a reason for the tapas-9 not taking part in a reconstitution is that it was futile but that was not for them to decide.  This was a police investigation so it was for the police to decide what was futile and what was not.  The author of the archiving report was crystal clear when he stated that the investigation was impeded in part because the witnesses refused to take part in the reconstitution.  Impeded it was which by implication also impeded the search for Madeleine. 

Blaming Amaral for this in the circumstances therefore can only be seen as a prize act of hypocrisy.

[Albertini]

No, sorry.  I don't want to play that game.  I would much rather leave it to the professionals, who incidentally, happen to believe that The McCanns are innocent and are searching for The Abductor.  Or did you miss that bit?

What a cop out. You're quite prepared to sling rocks at the PJ but not prepared to state what you would have done in their position. That won't do. It's bad debating. You can't criticise the PJ if you aren't prepared to state what you would have done yourself. It makes your arguments and you lose credibility.

You've even managed to throw in the fallback line of a McCann supporter who's lost the argument.

"But Mr Redwood says they're innocent and looking for an abductor".

For the record when nice Mr Redwood brings us an abductor with incontrovertible evidence that Madeleine was abducted by this person then I'll believe him. Until then I'm relaxed enough to see how his investigation plays out.

[sadie]

The default excuse given as a reason for the tapas-9 not taking part in a reconstitution is that it was futile but that was not for them to decide.  This was a police investigation so it was for the police to decide what was futile and what was not.  The author of the archiving report was crystal clear when he stated that the investigation was impeded in part because the witnesses refused to take part in the reconstitution.  Impeded it was which by implication also impeded the search for Madeleine. 

Blaming Amaral for this in the circumstances therefore can only be seen as a prize act of hypocrisy.

Why didn't Amaral do this earlier when it was fresh in peoples minds ... and wanted, cos it might have helped find Madeleine.  JUST WHY didn't he do it THEN?


Thank God they didn't go.  After the Cipriano Case no sane person would. 

Reasons:

1.  Please dont forget that by this time Amaral had been charged with perjury in the Cipriano Torture Trial, so he had a big question mark over his name and honesty already.


2.  Then Leandro had warned them about the goings on in Joana Cipriano case. 
i)  He was allegedly beaten up by Amaral himself to force him to give a false witness statement ... and
ii) That is apart from the absolutely appalling torture of Leonor... and
iii)  A trial that should have never happened


3.  Also the Michael Cook trial was a big wake up call

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199293/cmhansrd/1992-06-09/Debate-20.html 
..Scroll down Column 282

The above publication is from Hansard, the Official UK Government report of proceedings


4.  And some of the tapas group, were I believe, already getting vibes that they were wrongly suspected of something.  I dont remember the details but it was on here in the past few days.  They would have felt they were being fitted up


5.  THe FO and solicitors would have warned them not to go back with the history and the writing already on the wall


6.  That reconstruction reconstitution was NOT about finding Madeleine; it was about indicting The Mccanns and possibly some of the Tapas group, imo.   Amarals mind was already made up from day one; he was NOT even looking for a living Madeleine.
 
He was purely wanting to find any "reason" to clap the "British 'swingers'" in jail.  Only my opinion, but pointers.


7)  On that fateful Arguido day, Gerry had been lied to and told that Madeleines cadavar odour was in their hire car.  He KNEW they had NOT carried Madeleines body anywhere in that car. 
At that stage he knew exactly what Amaral and Co were up to
 


Thank God, they individually and collectively heeded advice and didn't go.

[jassi]

What does any British holidaymaker do when they find themselves in trouble with the law in another country or at the very least something has occurred to necessitate the local law being involved?   Call the Embassy or the nearest Consulate- all on 24/7 standby - which in this case is the one located in Portimao less than half an hour’s drive from PdL and all of whom would have known about both the Cook and Cipriano cases.

As for OC while they may not have known about the Cook case would certainly have known about the Cipriano.  Did somebody I wonder at OC tip the McCanns about the latter.

Whatever if there were a call to the Consulate the alarm bells would have gone off immediately and people wonder why the Ambassador put in a midnight call to Alpiro Ribeiro.

It’s nothing to do with conspiracy- it’s just part and parcel of what the diplomatic service do.

Not sure it would be normal practice for an ambassador to be alerted or to have taken action so quickly after a report of a missing child, who might have turned up at any minute.

No doubt if there are similar examples of ambassadorial involvement, someone will be along with chapter and verse.

[sadie]

Well it doesn't mention a request from the McCanns but it was abandoned because he would be in the limelight (watched) Could this be where it came from. It was to suit them (PJ), but would have been easier for the McCanns and friends surely
--------------------------------------------------------
In the Portuguese criminal justice system, reconstructions of events surrounding a murder or disappearance or other crime are used to test the validity of the witnesses’ statements. The actual persons involved in such events are the witnesses themselves. They will be invited to the scene of the crime. Such reconstructions are commonly video-recorded for the benefit of the criminal investigation. This is especially true where there are obvious contradictions between the witnesses’ statement, as is manifestly the case regarding Madeleine’s disappearance. Your researchers must be fully aware of these. They have been extensively catalogued and analysed (a) in the interim report of Tavares de Almeida (b) in the Attorney-General’s final report (c) in Dr Gonçalo Amaral’s book and (d) on numerous Madeleine McCann information and discussion sites on the internet.

This type of ‘reconstruction’ is very different from a ‘Crimewatch’-style televised reconstruction.

Dr Amaral wanted to do such a reconstruction as it was clear in the first days of the investigation that there were significant inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements, even between various statements made by the same witness. As he explains in his book, he decided not to do one because of the intense media spotlight he and his team were under.

A reconstruction of some of the events of 3 May 2007 was shown on the BBC’s Panorama programme on 19 November 2007.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=258131

Oh, just noticed this.  Well done Anna

This is not what I read but it illustrates that reconstructions were on the "books" but Amaral himself refused and did not want one because he says " of the intense media spotlight he and his team were under"

I actually read that the Mccanns had requested one but the above quote found by our master searcher Anna illustrates the point just as well.  Amaral did NOT want one at the best time ... immediately after Madeleine disappeared ... and the excuse sounds a bit weak.



Can anyone think why he might be so keen to have one later ?    Ooooooooo, that's a difficult one, aint it?

Thank you Anna.

[jassi]

There are.  Why don't you contact the FCO about it?

Why should I? - I'm not that interested.

[Mr Gray]

So why would the lawyers advise the tapas not to return to Portugal?  you can't blame them for taking the advice of experts.

[John]

So why would the lawyers advise the tapas not to return to Portugal?  you can't blame them for taking the advice of experts.

You'll have to ask the lawyers that question Dave.  You know what they say about lawyers and vested interest.

[Albertini]

Oh, just noticed this.  Well done Anna

This is not what I read but it illustrates that reconstructions were on the "books" but Amaral himself refused and did not want one because he says " of the intense media spotlight he and his team were under"

I actually read that the Mccanns had requested one but the above quote found by our master searcher Anna illustrates the point just as well.  Amaral did NOT want one at the best time ... immediately after Madeleine disappeared ... and the excuse sounds a bit weak.



Can anyone think why he might be so keen to have one later ?    Ooooooooo, that's a difficult one, aint it?

Thank you Anna.

Really, or in truth another myth.

Here's from the book:

In mid-May, we had already submitted the nine friends of the McCanns to a second round of interviews. In spite of its importance, - too upset seemingly to countenance the exercise - Kate Healy's was left until later. In view of the number of inconsistencies raised by cross-checking the statements, we are thinking of going ahead with a reconstruction. This is a routine procedure, above all when contradictory details pile up. Most of the time, it helps to make rapid headway with the investigation. By placing the various players in the drama - in this case the group of friends, employees of the restaurant, play leaders and other witnesses - into a situation that is identical to what they experienced, differences between the versions become obvious. When an improbability is noticed, the protagonists must then explain immediately.

The reconstruction was never to take place. The reasons put forward to justify that decision - in spite of opinions to the contrary - are multiple. There are lots of holiday-makers at this time and sealing off the perimeter would ruin their stay; the airspace would have to be closed; the hotel complex would be overrun with hordes of journalists; people might think that the parents and their friends were suspects and, of course, the field mustn't be left open for that kind of deliberation. For all that, a more discreet reconstruction, even partial, with only the couple present, might provide useful information. No a prior judgment is implied, quite the contrary. It's quite simply the co-operation that we have the right to expect on the part of parents faced with such a situation.

I am convinced that there is still a need for a reconstruction, whatever form it takes. The staging of the events of May 3rd from the details gathered from numerous witness statements would help to revive memories. It is difficult to understand why that is not possible.

[Mr Gray]

So the mccanns did want to do a construction early on when it would have helped

[John]

So the mccanns did want to do a construction early on when it would have helped

If that was true it would have happened.  There is no disputing it never happened and has been thwarted for nearly seven years.

[Estuarine]

If that was true it would have happened.  There is no disputing it never happened and has been thwarted for nearly seven years.

That dinna matter John. It don't fit in with the Orwellian "Four legs good, two legs bad" approach.
Lets face it if TM said the sun rose in the west we would be w**k**s if we said it rose in the east even were we to prove it with instruments certified and calibrated by a UKAS accredited organisation.