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

[John]

A reconstruction will not show any more than, what is already in the statements IMO. How could they get all of the OC workers etc. etc. to attend anyway.

Interesting bit I recently read.......

Portimão, 20th of June 2008"
It is a notable summary and while the strangulated prose of the original testifies to the bitter experience of confessing failure its conclusions are significant. Reading from the final sentence back:

They state that they are pursuing no new lines of enquiry and nor do they envision any.

That their investigation was hampered by unprecedented media exposure and "commotion".

That the UK "rogatory letter" interviewees, principally the "Tapas 7" , provided no additional information.

That they are still lacking information about what happened within the holiday group between 5.30 & 10PM on May 3.

That the "timeline" provided by the holiday group makes it "at the least very difficult" for an abductor to have entered and left.

That the information (provided by Kate McCann) that a draught had alerted her to a previously unopened window needed clarification or replication.

That the circumstances of the Jane Tanner sighting were hard to reconcile with the geography of the location and the close proximity of others.

And that clarification of these and other matters could not be obtained due to the "refusal" of members of the holiday group to return to Portugal for the necessary reconstruction of events.



http://madeleinemccannaffair.blogspot.co.uk/

Very true.  The Portuguese example of using a reconstitution (not actors) instead of a reconstruction (using actors) is something we in the UK could learn from.  The confrontation when Robert Murat faced his accusers is also unique to Portugal.

The whole point of a reconstitution is to find the liars and identify those who have for some reason or other been less than forthcoming where the true nature of events are concerned.  You only need to look at the accidental confrontation when Jane Tanner was intentionally usurped by Gerry McCann when she attempted to show how he got his recollection wrong as to where he and Jez were situated that fateful night.  Question is, what else did he get WRONG?

A full reconstitution would reveal the sequence of events on the night Madeleine disappeared.  Who was where, when and why.  It wouldn't take long for any fabricated timeline to fall apart in such circumstances.

Every single person who was known to have been there that night should have been forced to take part in the reconstitution, anyone failing to do so should have been charged with the Portuguese equivalent of attempting to pervert the course of justice.  Had this been done I bet nobody would have refused to take part!

[John]

Reconstructions have only one legitimate purpose; to prompt memories, and generate new leads.

An attempt to recreate events of an actual crime to attempt to determine questions of guilt or innocence are doomed to failure, because you can never recreate things second time around exactly the same as they actually happened.

Oh indeed you can.  Except of course when the witness or witnesses lied.

[Mr Gray]

Oh indeed you can.  Except of course when the witness or witnesses lied.

At last you accept that the recon had nothing to do with finding Maddie and was just to try and prove the parents had lied...

[Alfred R Jones]

Oh indeed you can.  Except of course when the witness or witnesses lied.

If that is indeed the case perhaps you could answer the question posed by Bernice about Jez's response when asked by the police in a potential reconstruction regarding what time he set off on his walk.

[jassi]

At last you accept that the recon had nothing to do with finding Maddie and was just to try and prove the parents had lied...

Or to demonstrate that they hadn't. Clarification is what they were searching for.

[Mr Gray]

Or to demonstrate that they hadn't. Clarification is what they were searching for.

That's right..to see if the parents were lying or not...that's what the recon could establish....nothing more

[pathfinder73]

That's right..to see if the parents were lying or not...that's what the recon could establish....nothing more

The McCanns are not in charge of the investigation but their supporters seem to think they are and can do what they please. They have questions to answer and remember they aren't suspects now so they should agree but they wouldn't

[faithlilly]

That's right..to see if the parents were lying or not...that's what the recon could establish....nothing more

And if they had proved that they weren't the investigation could have been refocused. What is wrong with that ?

[Anna]

Very true.  The Portuguese example of using a reconstitution (not actors) instead of a reconstruction (using actors) is something we in the UK could learn from.  The confrontation when Robert Murat faced his accusers is also unique to Portugal.

The whole point of a reconstitution is to find the liars and identify those who have for some reason or other been less than forthcoming where the true nature of events are concerned.  You only need to look at the accidental confrontation when Jane Tanner was intentionally usurped by Gerry McCann when she attempted to show how he got his recollection wrong as to where he and Jez were situated that fateful night.  Question is, what else did he get WRONG?

A full reconstitution would reveal the sequence of events on the night Madeleine disappeared.  Who was where, when and why.  It wouldn't take long for any fabricated timeline to fall apart in such circumstances.

Every single person who was known to have been there that night should have been forced to take part in the reconstitution, anyone failing to do so should have been charged with the Portuguese equivalent of attempting to pervert the course of justice.  Had this been done I bet nobody would have refused to take part!

If they had been forced to attend, they couldn't have refused, as you so rightly say, John, but although the McCanns agreed to attend, others that were necessary, to carry out the re-con, did refuse and the whole thing was cancelled by PT.
What is the point of discussing, what could have been or what should have been, when it wasn't and there is nothing more can be done about it, except to do a re-con now.
I should think since it would have been difficult enough back then, to recall all of what happened at the time, it would be near impossible now.

[John]

At last you accept that the recon had nothing to do with finding Maddie and was just to try and prove the parents had lied...

It had everything to do with finding out the truth and a very good tool it is to for doing so.  No wonder it is feared by those with something to hide.

[pathfinder73]

Email sent to PJ from Graham Michael / Stuart Prior

28 March 2008

As a group, they are waiting to see if Gerry and Kate McCann will be invited to attend and participate in the re-enactment. It is my understanding that if Gerry and Kate do not participate in this process, then the decision will be that they will not attend.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm

[John]

If that is indeed the case perhaps you could answer the question posed by Bernice about Jez's response when asked by the police in a potential reconstruction regarding what time he set off on his walk.

Asking someone a question in an interview room will often provoke a different response to taking them physically back to the scene and have them reenact what occurred.  When confronted by another participant it is wonderful how they often remember things which they thought they had forgotten.  I believe its called photographic memory recall or something like that.

[John]

Or to demonstrate that they hadn't. Clarification is what they were searching for.

Spot on!  As the AG reported in his final report, they lost the opportunity to establish their innocence.

[John]

If they had been forced to attend, they couldn't have refused, as you so rightly say, John, but although the McCanns agreed to attend, others that were necessary, to carry out the re-con, did refuse and the whole thing was cancelled by PT.
What is the point of discussing, what could have been or what should have been, when it wasn't and there is nothing more can be done about it, except to do a re-con now.
I should think since it would have been difficult enough back then, to recall all of what happened at the time, it would be near impossible now.

I have answered this already in my responses to other posts but safe to say anyone who lived through that night will have events imprinted in their memory.  Do you realise how embarrassing it is to take part in a reconstitution only to be shown to have been mistaken?  Had Jez been there when the documentary was being made, when Jane was left in tears by Gerry, I wonder what his reaction would have been to have had both of them establish it was he who was mistaken?

[Alfred R Jones]

Asking someone a question in an interview room will often provoke a different response to taking them physically back to the scene and have them reenact what occurred.  When confronted by another participant it is wonderful how they often remember things which they thought they had forgotten.  I believe its called photographic memory recall or something like that.

So the police would allow the reconstruction to basically be a bunch of people all re-writing the timeline a little bit here a little bit there until it all fitted into place, a process which could take days potentially and that would help find Madeleine's abductor how, exactly?  Or would it simply be an exercise to prove that the McCanns and their friends and the other witnesses who gave statements about the evening were all more or less correct in their original statements?