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

[stephen25000]

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.

Findable ?

Pray tell where exactly ?

Courtesy of Mr. Edgar.................

'In a lawless village 10 miles from PDL' ?

[Wonderfulspam]

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.

It's just wishful thinking really though isn't it.

Kate believed Maddie was likely to be found inside a big dumpster type bin less than 24hrs after Jane Tanner hadn't seen the abductor.  And then let's not forget Krugels corpse locator.

That's a big vote for not very alive right there.

[The Singularity]

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!

No I dont agree with you I'm afraid. It gets to a stage where distraught parents get fed up with police wasting their time and I would imagine this is how they would see it. A good case in point is John and Patsy Ramsey. When it became clear to them that their daughters killer was never likely to be found because the Boulder police were not looking at anyone other than them it must have been desperate for them and to be fair to them, why would anyone engage with a police force that are just looking for any reason to detain you

[jassi]

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.

You don't think they were able to multi-task and do both?

I don't suppose it was the PJ's function to actually look for Madeleine, anyway, that would be another branch of the police  - their function is to catch criminals.

[Cariad]

No I dont agree with you I'm afraid. It gets to a stage where distraught parents get fed up with police wasting their time and I would imagine this is how they would see it. A good case in point is John and Patsy Ramsey. When it became clear to them that their daughters killer was never likely to be found because the Boulder police were not looking at anyone other than them it must have been desperate for them and to be fair to them, why would anyone engage with a police force that are just looking for any reason to detain you

Well I'd probably start with "please help me find my daughter. I know you think I did this. I know that parents are always suspect. Let me help you eliminate me as quickly as possible so you can find the person who did this and maybe get her back. Tell me what to do."

Then I'd do what they told me to. Whether that's answer awkward questions or take part in something I felt was a pointless exercise.

Parents will always be among the first suspects in a case involving a child. The absolute best thing to do would be to cooperate as fully as possible so that you can be eliminated.

If I thought that my child was being held by paedophiles, which is what the Mccanns professed to believe, I can't imagine what I wouldn't do to assist in the investigation to find her.

I don't think I'd get 'fed up' enough to just give up.

[Wonderfulspam]

Well I'd probably start with "please help me find my daughter. I know you think I did this. I know that parents are always suspect. Let me help you eliminate me as quickly as possible so you can find the person who did this and maybe get her back. Tell me what to do."

Then I'd do what they told me to. Whether that's answer awkward questions or take part in something I felt was a pointless exercise.

Parents will always be among the first suspects in a case involving a child. The absolute best thing to do would be to cooperate as fully as possible so that you can be eliminated.

If I thought that my child was being held by paedophiles, which is what the Mccanns professed to believe, I can't imagine what I wouldn't do to assist in the investigation to find her.

I don't think I'd get 'fed up' enough to just give up.

I'd swim back to Portugal and repeatedly jump through an effing hoop for the sake of my kids lives, they wouldn't even get on plane.

[jassi]

I'd swim back to Portugal and repeatedly jump through an effing hoop for the sake of my kids lives, they wouldn't even get on plane.

Well, they did - when it was to fly them off to a chat-show

[Albertini]

No I dont agree with you I'm afraid. It gets to a stage where distraught parents get fed up with police wasting their time and I would imagine this is how they would see it. A good case in point is John and Patsy Ramsey. When it became clear to them that their daughters killer was never likely to be found because the Boulder police were not looking at anyone other than them it must have been desperate for them and to be fair to them, why would anyone engage with a police force that are just looking for any reason to detain you

Or alternatively the suspects could be trying to frustrate the investigation for their own nefarious benefit, which is an equally (if not more so) vaild option that the police also have to look at.

How are the police supposed to know which is the correct choice without investigating all suspects properly? Do you think the police should have ruled the McCann's out simply because they told the PJ they were innocent??

You do accept i presume that people lie, and that it is the police's job to cut through the lies relating to the  investigation?

[The Singularity]

You don't think they were able to multi-task and do both?

I don't suppose it was the PJ's function to actually look for Madeleine, anyway, that would be another branch of the police  - their function is to catch criminals.

The point I'm making is that being constantly accused of something that you didn't do is bound to demoralise even the strongest person. Given that this was the case and Snr Amaral continues to think so to the point of jeopardising his own health and future is it any wonder why Mr and Mrs McCann, and or their friends declined the invitation of a reconstruction because in reality it would be next to useless.

It’s quite clear that some people don’t share this point of view and have suggested that the reconstruction was necessary to query statements and timelines. However it is my belief that in this particular case it wouldn’t have highlighted anything new or indeed, as some firmly believe with a religious fervor, that it would be proof positive of the McCanns involvement in a crime relating to Madeleine’s disappearance.

The statements from those in the immediate area were closely considered and scrutinised, in fact as I understand the Grange review team did exactly that for some considerable time. Questioning the timeline in this way and additionally firing off questions like “where was Gerry at so and so a time” really are granular issues. If one goes close enough to something then of course holes can be picked in almost anything. Good case in point is that no one I hope doubts the Yorkshire Ripper was Peter Sutcliffe yet if you look closely at some witness testimony you can drive a bus through the holes and inconsistencies. (If anyone doesn’t believe it was Sutcliffe then please don’t bother telling me about it, I’ve heard them all from it was a copper that framed him right up to former Gestapo head Heinrich Müller harvesting body parts)

Whatever the reason they decided to turn down the invitation to the reconstruction was, from my perspective it was probably for the best.   

[Wonderfulspam]

The point I'm making is that being constantly accused of something that you didn't do is bound to demoralise even the strongest person. Given that this was the case and Snr Amaral continues to think so to the point of jeopardising his own health and future is it any wonder why Mr and Mrs McCann, and or their friends declined the invitation of a reconstruction because in reality it would be next to useless.

It’s quite clear that some people don’t share this point of view and have suggested that the reconstruction was necessary to query statements and timelines. However it is my belief that in this particular case it wouldn’t have highlighted anything new or indeed, as some firmly believe with a religious fervor, that it would be proof positive of the McCanns involvement in a crime relating to Madeleine’s disappearance.

The statements from those in the immediate area were closely considered and scrutinised, in fact as I understand the Grange review team did exactly that for some considerable time. Questioning the timeline in this way and additionally firing off questions like “where was Gerry at so and so a time” really are granular issues. If one goes close enough to something then of course holes can be picked in almost anything. Good case in point is that no one I hope doubts the Yorkshire Ripper was Peter Sutcliffe yet if you look closely at some witness testimony you can drive a bus through the holes and inconsistencies. (If anyone doesn’t believe it was Sutcliffe then please don’t bother telling me about it, I’ve heard them all from it was a copper that framed him right up to former Gestapo head Heinrich Müller harvesting body parts)

Whatever the reason they decided to turn down the invitation to the reconstruction was, from my perspective it was probably for the best.

Sutcliffe, totally off topic but anyway,
I am friends with the son of one of Sutcliffe's victims. The poor guy had horrible start to life, but he has turned out to be a pretty decent guy.

[The Singularity]

Or alternatively the suspects could be trying to frustrate the investigation for their own nefarious benefit, which is an equally (if not more so) vaild option that the police also have to look at.

How are the police supposed to know which is the correct choice without investigating all suspects properly? Do you think the police should have ruled the McCann's out simply because they told the PJ they were innocent??

You do accept i presume that people lie, and that it is the police's job to cut through the lies relating to the  investigation?

That is why generally they look to supporting evidence and collect witness statements to collaborate accounts as they did with the McCanns. I understand your point that people do lie to evade being suspected however they did cooperate with the initial investigation, they were in contact with the police however once it became clear to them that they were still suspected even though they had cast iron alibis it’s not hard to understand why they would turn down the invitation for a reconstruction.

To be fair to them and the PJ there could have been a whole host of mitigating circumstances as to why a reconstruction was pointless, I can only point out the obvious one which is that it served no purpose in bringing Madeleine home. The only advantage I can possibly see is if they had done one it would have silenced the conspiracy theorists until they found something else to latch on to and throw back in their faces. The nature of any accomplished and polished conspiracy theorist is the ability to go in at a granular level and study something in total isolation and to the of contrary supporting evidence in which to hatch a new myth. 

The best they could achieve from the reconstruction was determining what possible route the person who took Madeleine went based on view points and line of sight. Other than that, it’s a futile exercise I reckon. 

[jassi]

The point I'm making is that being constantly accused of something that you didn't do is bound to demoralise even the strongest person. Given that this was the case and Snr Amaral continues to think so to the point of jeopardising his own health and future is it any wonder why Mr and Mrs McCann, and or their friends declined the invitation of a reconstruction because in reality it would be next to useless.

It’s quite clear that some people don’t share this point of view and have suggested that the reconstruction was necessary to query statements and timelines. However it is my belief that in this particular case it wouldn’t have highlighted anything new or indeed, as some firmly believe with a religious fervor, that it would be proof positive of the McCanns involvement in a crime relating to Madeleine’s disappearance.



The statements from those in the immediate area were closely considered and scrutinised, in fact as I understand the Grange review team did exactly that for some considerable time. Questioning the timeline in this way and additionally firing off questions like “where was Gerry at so and so a time” really are granular issues. If one goes close enough to something then of course holes can be picked in almost anything. Good case in point is that no one I hope doubts the Yorkshire Ripper was Peter Sutcliffe yet if you look closely at some witness testimony you can drive a bus through the holes and inconsistencies. (If anyone doesn’t believe it was Sutcliffe then please don’t bother telling me about it, I’ve heard them all from it was a copper that framed him right up to former Gestapo head Heinrich Müller harvesting body parts)

Whatever the reason they decided to turn down the invitation to the reconstruction was, from my perspective it was probably for the best.

Amaral was long gone by the time a reconstruction was proposed.

[John]

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.

Not to the extent they couldn't even remember what side of the road they were on the next day. 

[John]

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)

It quite simple really.  If she couldn't even remember which side of the road Gerry and Jez were on do you think they would believe she saw an abductor 10 seconds later?  It is all to do with credibility.

[Albertini]

That is why generally they look to supporting evidence and collect witness statements to collaborate accounts as they did with the McCanns.

And those accounts did not corroborate though did they? Look at the number of discrepancies and the changes of stories, the shoe horning in of Bundleman and the Payne visit. Look at the Rog interviews and the men's changed timings for when they left the tennis match. It was a  whole series of huge contradictions and apparent collusion  which necessitated further more detailed investigation.

I understand your point that people do lie to evade being suspected however they did cooperate with the initial investigation, they were in contact with the police however once it became clear to them that they were still suspected even though they had cast iron alibis it’s not hard to understand why they would turn down the invitation for a reconstruction.

What cast iron albi's? There are none that removes the possibility of involvement. What co-operation? They gave witness statements which didn't tally with the evidence indications or each other.

To be fair to them and the PJ there could have been a whole host of mitigating circumstances as to why a reconstruction was pointless, I can only point out the obvious one which is that it served no purpose in bringing Madeleine home. The only advantage I can possibly see is if they had done one it would have silenced the conspiracy theorists until they found something else to latch on to and throw back in their faces. The nature of any accomplished and polished conspiracy theorist is the ability to go in at a granular level and study something in total isolation and to the of contrary supporting evidence in which to hatch a new myth.

No it wasn't pointless it was trying to see if what the parents claim happened could physically happen. If it could not then they needed to explain why their statements didn't tally with the reality.

It's nothing to do with conspiracy theories, it's to do with making sense of the accounts of the last  people and witnesses to see the missing child and to see how those accounts tallied with the evidence collected and if they didn't tally for those witnesses, like any witness in any investigation in the world, to explain why their accounts did not match up to what was shown in the reconstruction.

The best they could achieve from the reconstruction was determining what possible route the person who took Madeleine went based on view points and line of sight. Other than that, it’s a futile exercise I reckon.

No you have also made the mistake of presuming the reconstruction was to be taken from the point after the parents had been ruled out. \They hadn't, they had to rule themselves out by showing the PJ that their sworn statements were viable and corr3ect in real world conditions.