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

[John]

Bottom line is...

If they had nothing to hide they had nothing to fear by taking part in anything the Portuguese felt was necessary.  Madeleine deserved no less. 

[John]

Not really no. When it became apparent to them that the investigation was going nowhere then what motivation would they have? The people looking for Madeleine were not in fact, they had become too preoccupied with trying to blame the McCanns even when to the casual observer this was wasting precious time in finding Madeleine.

If one empathises with them its far easy to understand their frustrations at realising Madeleine didn't stand a chance to be found at that time, Snr Amaral had written her off as dead when there was no evidence to support his theory. This lack of critical thinking by Snr Amaral has become his stock and trade now though. Considered in this context it’s not all hard to understand why lack of enthusiasm for many things became evident.

Considering 'the parents dun it' was only part of the scenario.  Amaral and his team and lets not forget LC were quite prepared to consider the unthinkable.  Remember, this is why Harrison brought PC Grime and the dogs in. 

[Albertini]

It's not arrogance, it frustration, desperation and lack of confidence in the people who have been given responsibility to find their missing daughter. Faced with that, their patience naturally was tested when all it seemed to them was to be constantly under scrutiny and being wildly accused of something they clearly didn’t have any involvement with. Then when the PJ started unofficially talking to the press, well that just killed off any confidence either of Madeleine’s parents had in the investigation. That must have been a horrible day for both of them to realise this.

The reconstruction at that time would have provided very little on what was already recorded at the time by the PJ, it certainly wouldn’t have incriminated the McCanns as some people obsess over and tout around the internet as evidence of guilt.

Utter hogwash to be honest.

The fact is that the contradictions in the statements of the last people to see the child before she disappeared and the witnesses to the events of the night (later described by a Judge in a Court as "incongruent even contradictory") warranted further examination and the testing of the veracity of the their claims.

Had the PJ not sought to clarify these issues they would have been negligent in their duties in investigating the disappearance of Madeleine.

Who knows what conclusions it would have come to. It may have found for example that the parents and their friends checking routines were not correct and opened a larger window of opportunity which could have altered the course of the investigation.

It may have course heaped further suspicion on the parents if their statements were proven to have been impossible to act out.

As much as that goes against the interests of the McCann's it would not be the PJ's fault if it was proven by re-enacting the statements that they had not told the truth in their accounts.

Isn't that what a police investigation should do? Discover the truth, however unpalatable for witnesses and suspects?

The only reason the reconstruction did not happen is because the parents did not want it to happen. The only same conclusion one can draw is that they must have reasons why they did not want to act out their statements.

And that then raises the question why would innocent parties not want to act out their statements if they had nothing to hide?

The drivel about being fitted up doesn't wash but is the only line they could use to defend their actions in killing it.

[John]

Had they taken part as requested in 2008 we might have learned six years ago that the Tanner sighting of Bundleman was an innocent occurrence and that it was the Smiths who saw him as SY appear to believe.

What else has now been lost to history?   Madeleine's abductor(s), if there is one/any, will be pleased!

[Cariad]

Not really no. When it became apparent to them that the investigation was going nowhere then what motivation would they have? The people looking for Madeleine were not in fact, they had become too preoccupied with trying to blame the McCanns even when to the casual observer this was wasting precious time in finding Madeleine.

If one empathises with them its far easy to understand their frustrations at realising Madeleine didn't stand a chance to be found at that time, Snr Amaral had written her off as dead when there was no evidence to support his theory. This lack of critical thinking by Snr Amaral has become his stock and trade now though. Considered in this context it’s not all hard to understand why lack of enthusiasm for many things became evident.

The best possible thing they could've done in those circumstances would be to do absolutely everything in their power to eliminate themselves from the inquiry.

If, as you say, they believed that the police weren't looking for Madeleine because they were hung up on the Mccanns, cooperation with the police might've got the investigation back on track.

If getting Madeleine back was the most important thing, why not do anything asked of you? I would've crawled on my knees to Portugal if I thought there was the slightest chance that my child would be returned to me. I would've begged, pleaded, threatened and emotionally blackmailed my friends to help me.

[John]

The best possible thing they could've done in those circumstances would be to do absolutely everything in their power to eliminate themselves from the inquiry.

If, as you say, they believed that the police weren't looking for Madeleine because they were hung up on the Mccanns, cooperation with the police might've got the investigation back on track.

If getting Madeleine back was the most important thing, why not do anything asked of you? I would've crawled on my knees to Portugal if I thought there was the slightest chance that my child would be returned to me. I would've begged, pleaded, threatened and emotionally blackmailed my friends to help me.

My sentiments exactly...good post Cariad.

[Benice]

You know one of the things which sticks in my mind is what Edgar said during the Ch4 reconstruction when Jane and Gerry disagreed over what happened.  He said that these things happen!!!!!

Yes, they happen when stories don't add up!   If they couldn't even get that right... 

But what he says is true John.   The police confirmed to JT  that people do have different recollections of the same incident.    It's commonplace.   

I once saw a TV programme showing how vastly different a number of 'eye-witnesses' recollections of the same incident - (which unknown to them was 'staged') were -  when they were asked to describe what they had seen.  The 'differences' in their individual memories of the event were immense.

[Albertini]

But what he says is true John.   The police confirmed to JT  that people do have different recollections of the same incident.    It's commonplace.   

I once saw a TV programme showing how vastly different a number of 'eye-witnesses' recollections of the same incident - (which unknown to them was 'staged') were -  when they were asked to describe what they had seen.  The 'differences' in their individual memories of the event were immense.

So why are witness statements relied on so heavily in every police investigation in every police force in the world.

At what point to you do witness contradictions become suspicious?

[The Singularity]

The best possible thing they could've done in those circumstances would be to do absolutely everything in their power to eliminate themselves from the inquiry.

If, as you say, they believed that the police weren't looking for Madeleine because they were hung up on the Mccanns, cooperation with the police might've got the investigation back on track.

If getting Madeleine back was the most important thing, why not do anything asked of you? I would've crawled on my knees to Portugal if I thought there was the slightest chance that my child would be returned to me. I would've begged, pleaded, threatened and emotionally blackmailed my friends to help me.

How would focusing the search for Madeleine advance at all if all the PJ were doing were trying to find any evidence with which to detain Kate?

It doesn't really does it. Snr Amaral assumed she was dead so the search was secondary to finding someone, anyone to convict.

[jassi]

How would focusing the search for Madeleine advance at all if all the PJ were doing were trying to find any evidence with which to detain Kate?

It doesn't really does it. Snr Amaral assumed she was dead so the search was secondary to finding someone, anyone to convict.

After the first few days, I imagine the emphasis  of the PJ was to find  the perpetrator(s), rather than  Madeleine, herself, who could in theory have been out of the country by then.

Do you think that unreasonable ?

[Benice]

So why are witness statements relied on so heavily in every police investigation in every police force in the world.

At what point to you do witness contradictions become suspicious?

Impossible to say as each case is different involving different numbers of witnesses.  The more witnesses the more discrepancies are likely to occur.

IMO In this case the police would only be interested in establishing whether or not JT walked up that road and saw a man carrying a child.   The fact that she could describe Jez and Gerry talking - and  knew Jez had a buggy with him would be far more pertinent to the police in respect of that imo   - rather than the exact spot they were standing at the time she saw them. 

(must dash now)

[pathfinder73]

Had they taken part as requested in 2008 we might have learned six years ago that the Tanner sighting of Bundeman was an innocent occurrence and that it was the Smiths who saw him as SY appear to believe.

What else has now been lost to history?   Madeleine's abductor(s), if there is one/any, will be pleased!

The most revealing part was Jane's unscripted comment about Kate saying Gerry was away so long because he was probably watching football on tv.

1. Jez and Gerry are standing and talking on the opposite side of the road to where Jane and Jez both said they were.

2. The Smith sighting is put at 9:50 (the earliest  time and more importantly to finally rule Gerry out of the sighting!)

I rest my case my lord!

[Albertini]

Impossible to say as each case is different involving different numbers of witnesses.  The more witnesses the more discrepancies are likely to occur.

IMO In this case the police would only be interested in establishing whether or not JT walked up that road and saw a man carrying a child.   The fact that she could describe Jez and Gerry talking - and  knew Jez had a buggy with him would be far more pertinent to the police in respect of that imo   - rather than the exact spot they were standing at the time she saw them. 

(must dash now)

Absolute hokum. Your entire premise rests on the fact that the investigation, with no evidence of non involvement, has somehow excluded the parents from their suspicions or enquiries and moved on to Bundleman.

That's bad policing given that statistically family members or friends are more likely to be involved in a child's disappearance that a stranger. 

It would be remiss of the Portuguese Police NOT to suspect and attempt to rule out the group.

Your belief is that they SHOULD be ruled out, but that's just because you happen to believe or like the Mccann's,  but that isn't how investigations should or do work. Investigations cannot discriminate and rule people out just because potential perpetrators say they are innocent!

They have to provide the investigation with cast iron reasons why they should be ruled out. They hadn't done so, indeed their statements were so contradictory it added to the suspicion.

Hence the reconstruction, which would have served to either remove the doubt or increase it depending on what was shown to be true about what they said. 

Further to that of course in relation to contradictions and it being normal for discrepancies. It is not normal for their to be wholesale changes to timelines IN UNISON between members of the group as there was regarding the Paraiso dinner and tennis match.

That is not normal.

Given all this it was and remains now perfectly correct for the PJ to try and get a handle on the truthfulness of the group's statements and actions by way of testing their version of events against real world conditions to attempt to discover if they were involve din the child's disappearance or not, as the people, statistically more likely to have carried out the crime.

[The Singularity]

After the first few days, I imagine the emphasis  of the PJ was to find  the perpetrator(s), rather than  Madeleine, herself, who could in theory have been out of the country by then.

Do you think that unreasonable ?

It’s not unreasonable at all because in this scenario Madeleine is still being treated as someone who is finable as opposed to writing her off as dead.

[Cariad]

How would focusing the search for Madeleine advance at all if all the PJ were doing were trying to find any evidence with which to detain Kate?

It doesn't really does it. Snr Amaral assumed she was dead so the search was secondary to finding someone, anyone to convict.

the PJ trying to find any evidence with which to detain Kate is not a fact. you're assuming that. Still, the best way to deal with that situation would've been to cooperate. If she was entirely innocent, there would be no evidence to find, hence moving the case forward in the direction the Mccanns wished.

I can not think of an innocent reason not to cooperate with the police force trying to find your child. Even if you assume that they're trying to 'frame' you for the crime, showing willingness to work with them would've helped dispel any doubts. Performing the reconstruction/reconstitution would have helped to back up their story. What would an innocent person have to lose by doing it? Put that in the scale next to 'possibly find my child' and it just doesn't make sense!