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

[Mr Gray]

In the email's  which were used as a corresponding method regarding the request from Portugal, there is no reference to them seeking "accurate" accounts- the words used are- approximate.

(emails to be found in McCannfiles).

Of course we can look at what the real reason was, but that is hidden behind this fascade:

quote"When the PJ finally requested a reconstruction to take place in 2008, Gerry and I were still arguidos and as such would have attended for a reconstruction.
( They knew why they were being asked)Some key witnesses (including some of our friends)declined to attend the planned reconstruction as they were not convinced of the aims and usefulness of it. In particular, as the reconstruction was not to be shown to the media (and hence the general public), they did not feel it would help to find Madeleine" unquote. -

They didn't feel it would help Madeleine? If this wasn't so serious It would be funny, how can unskilled investigators 'feel' it wont help?

The real reason  is in the first line: Kate and Gerry KNEW they would have to evidence their time line without contradiction.  Thus eliminating the suspicion placed upon them if that were the case. It was in their interest also to take part-if they were innocent. The excuse used that it wouldn't help the search is a red herring-this was a police investigation to find out what happened.

http://madeleinemccann.org/official-mccann-updates-jan-dec-2010/#sthash.SE6[Name removed]TnB.dpuf

My words in Italics

I would call the pj unskilled investigtors...when you go to your doctor do you always agree and accept everything that is said or sometimes do you research things yourself or get a second opinion

[Carana]

I have yet to find anyone who can explain to me how a reconstruction as proposed in this case a year later would have eliminated the McCanns.

[Eleanor]

I have yet to find anyone who can explain to me how a reconstruction as proposed in this case a year later would have eliminated the McCanns.

I would like to know why a reconstruction was refused by The PJ, in the beginning, when it could have been of some use.

[Bert Singe]

I have yet to find anyone who can explain to me how a reconstruction as proposed in this case a year later would have eliminated the McCanns.

How would you ever know without the reconstruction being done? As it was not, then we shall never know via a reconstruction.

From the same blog

a sense of inevitability foretold in the measured words of the Archiving Summary and its catholic author  Menezes, whose phrases are, after all, only a repetition in legalese of an ancient message: the truth can set you free if you let it.

[Alfred R Jones]

How would you ever know without the reconstruction being done? As it was not, then we shall never know via a reconstruction.

From the same blog

a sense of inevitability foretold in the measured words of the Archiving Summary and its catholic author  Menezes, whose phrases are, after all, only a repetition in legalese of an ancient message: the truth can set you free if you let it.

Perhaps you could describe a scenario in which a reconstruction of the events of the night of 3rd May would prove the McCanns' innocence?

[Bert Singe]

Perhaps you could describe a scenario in which a reconstruction of the events of the night of 3rd May would prove the McCanns' innocence?

Perhaps I could? I could also say if you do nothing then you most definitely get nothing.

[Jean-Pierre]

Perhaps I could? I could also say if you do nothing then you most definitely get nothing.

The time to do a reconstruction is shortly after the event - when things are fresh in the mind and all or most of the main players are still around.

To request a reconstruction AFTER the direction of the enquiry was plain, and McCanns had been made Arguidos, was plainly with one end in mind.  And it had sod all to do with finding Madeleine.  The McCanns would probably not have much choice - but the others would have been mad to go IMO.

Why was a reconstruction not carried out soon after (within a few days) of Madeleine's disappearance?  That would have been the obvious time to do it.     

[Carana]

I would like to know why a reconstruction was refused by The PJ, in the beginning, when it could have been of some use.

It might have led to press questions on the conditions leading up to and during the so-called reconstruction with João in the Cipriano case... If the press had dug into that, oh, dear... That wouldn't do.

[Alfred R Jones]

Perhaps I could? I could also say if you do nothing then you most definitely get nothing.

Well can you or can't you?  Personally I can't think of anything the McCanns could have said or done in a reconstruction which would have categorically proven their innocence, perhaps I'm just not trying hard enough?  I'm sure you'd relish the opportunity to tell us how they could have done so, so please don't hold back now...

[Bert Singe]

Well can you or can't you?  Personally I can't think of anything the McCanns could have said or done in a reconstruction which would have categorically proven their innocence, perhaps I'm just not trying hard enough?  I'm sure you'd relish the opportunity to tell us how they could have done so, so please don't hold back now...

Maybe you're concentrating too much on the McCanns? Do they not say seeing is believing? Perhaps the authorities may have seen things they could not see without the reconstruction? As I said earlier, doing nothing gets you nothing so why not do something and then see who it helps?

[Alfred R Jones]

Maybe you're concentrating too much on the McCanns? Do they not say seeing is believing? Perhaps the authorities may have seen things they could not see without the reconstruction? As I said earlier, doing nothing gets you nothing so why not do something and then see who it helps?

Well perhaps you could give me an example of something the authorities would have been able to see that they wouldn't have been able to see without a reconstruction.  And - whilst you're at it, perhaps you could address the point that has been raised many times on this board without any sensible reply from anyone and that is - whose timeline would the reconstruction have relied on?  As most of the people involved have slight variations in their recall of the times that events occurred how would a reconstruction actually work?  Would they have need to do 9 or 10 reconstructions based on each individual's memory of events, and if so, what would that allow the authorities to rule out? 

Doing nothing may get you nothing, but doing something pointless and / or half-arsed often gets you less than nothing, in my opinion of course. 

[Bert Singe]

Well perhaps you could give me an example of something the authorities would have been able to see that they wouldn't have been able to see without a reconstruction.  And - whilst you're at it, perhaps you could address the point that has been raised many times on this board without any sensible reply from anyone and that is - whose timeline would the reconstruction have relied on?  As most of the people involved have slight variations in their recall of the times that events occurred how would a reconstruction actually work?  Would they have need to do 9 or 10 reconstructions based on each individual's memory of events, and if so, what would that allow the authorities to rule out? 

Doing nothing may get you nothing, but doing something pointless and / or half-arsed often gets you less than nothing, in my opinion of course.

How do reconstructions usually deal with witnesses and timelines? Do not all reconstructions face the same obstacles?

If 7 foreign nationals had baled out of the reconstruction of a serious incident on UK soil then would you be of the same view? Why should anybody obstruct any investigation by refusing to fully cooperate?

[ferryman]

How do reconstructions usually deal with witnesses and timelines? Do not all reconstructions face the same obstacles?

If 7 foreign nationals had baled out of the reconstruction of a serious incident on UK soil then would you be of the same view? Why should anybody obstruct any investigation by refusing to fully cooperate?

In the UK, there would be no attempt to conduct a reconstruction to determine questions of guilt or innocence -- only to jog memories and encourage new witnesses to come forward, an entirely different purpose.

The example I have used before is the shooting dead of Jean-Paul de Menezes at Stockwell London Underground.

Eye-witnesses "saw" Mr Demenezes wearing a knee-length heavy-weight coat with leads trailing underneath.  They "saw" him pole-volt barriers, sprint onto the train, be nailed to the floor and shot.

The only true bit was the last.  He was wearing a light-weight denim jacket, he sauntered casually onto the platform, stopped to pick up a paper, sauntered  onto the train, was pinned to the floor and was shot.

The truth was revealed, not by a reconstruction, but by analysis of close-circuit TV footage of actual events as they unfurled.

A Portuguese-style "reconstitution" would never have got to the truth ...

[Alfred R Jones]

How do reconstructions usually deal with witnesses and timelines? Do not all reconstructions face the same obstacles?

If 7 foreign nationals had baled out of the reconstruction of a serious incident on UK soil then would you be of the same view? Why should anybody obstruct any investigation by refusing to fully cooperate?

I'm not aware that reconstructions are done using the victims of crime to re-enact traumatic events they have been involved in to produce a timeline of events in this country- is this common practise do you know?

[Montclair]

How do think that criminal investigations are carried out in other countries? Do you think asking for an alibi is fascist?