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

[Eleanor]

Are there any recorded incidents of a group of people who were actually at the scene, doing a reconstruction?

[pathfinder73]

"And almost I think as soon after Dave and Fi arrived Gerry went to do his check, because they’d already been there since sort of half past eight, so, you know, sort of like it was half an hour, a half an hour check for them.  So he, yeah, he, he went off to his check and he was longer than a bit, because I can remember Kate sort of saying ‘Oh bet he’s put the footy on’, because I think there was a football match that night and she sort of said ‘Oh I think he’s probably’, erm, you know, ‘got side tracked and put the telly on and catch up on the score’, so he was gone a bit longer than normal.  Erm, and then I think we thought ‘Oh well the starters are going to appear any minute’." (JT)

Gerry McCann would never do a reconstruction unless his proud father moment lasted for 5 minutes. You don't have conversations about somebody being gone for a long time unless it's at least 5 minutes. Jane leaves to check at least 7 minutes after him at 9:10. She claims he is seen talking to Jez but they only spoke for 3 or 4 minutes. So they were probably only talking for 2 minutes at the most before Jane saw them. So 7-2 = 5 minutes at least doing what Gerry? Yeah watching football Kate. But Smithman could get to the wasteland and back with a child in 4 minutes.

4078 'Okay. So take me through from there then, what happened after that''
Reply 'So, erm, back to the table, erm, we have, oh, back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me, but, erm, I just thought, oh, you know, I've just checked you don't really need to check and sort of, you know, sort of go back, but, erm, he sort of got up and went back to check on, erm, on his kids. But, you know, you don't, you know, we're all sort of responsible for our own children and you wouldn't sort of say, you know, you don't need to do that, I just sort of felt, oh I've listened, you don't need to do that because I've kind of just done it, but I hadn't gone into the apartment, so, erm'.
 
4078 'Did you actually say that or you just thought that to yourself''
Reply 'Yeah, I thought that, you know, I'd said that everything was sort of quiet, I listened outside the shutters, but, you know, they went back up, erm, and said he was going to check. (MO)

[Brietta]

Of course it matters.   If the incorrect times were used then JT could still be at the table when Gerry returned and Jez Wilkins could have walked up the street and be gone before Gerry left the apartment.   Apart from proving that Jez and Jane had guessed at the wrong times they set off  - how could that assist with anything?

You haven't said how the PJ would address this obvious problem.

IMO The bottom line is that it simply wouldn't work and I do not believe that the PJ were so stupid that they didn't aready know that when they made the requests for a recon.

(must go now)

It is my understanding that it became known that the PJ were reinvestigating Madeleine McCann’s disappearance when they were observed to be pacing out and timing movement in areas of interest in PDL. 

No doubt this diligence was conducted in conjunction with modern policing methods which may possibly employ computer models of all witness statements, events and phone records thereby dismissing the need for a physical reconstruction of events.

Going back seven years and bearing in mind that the then PJ investigators were painfully aware of the inadequacies of the initial investigation, it is my belief they were anxious to exit without losing face, and this was the vehicle of choice. 
They knew that the climate of the times dictated that any rational person would question the necessity of participating in such an event or media scrum unless it was directed at finding out exactly what had happened to Madeleine McCann and not as a vehicle to incriminate her parents. 

It is indicative that Jez Wilkins was astute enough to decline a return. 

That the CW programme seven years down the line has apparently turned up new witnesses makes one wonder what witnesses might have responded to an appeal in 2007 from a programme of that type. 

However, that was never what the proposed reconstruction was about. 

I think the question should be why Dr Amaral declined to carry out a reconstruction in the early days of the inquiry when there was some chance new information which might have led to Madeleine's return or at least finding what happened to her might have been forthcoming.

[Wonderfulspam]

Just wanted to stitch them up didn't he.

Get real.

[Alice Purjorick]

It is my understanding that it became known that the PJ were reinvestigating Madeleine McCann’s disappearance when they were observed to be pacing out and timing movement in areas of interest in PDL. 

No doubt this diligence was conducted in conjunction with modern policing methods which may possibly employ computer models of all witness statements, events and phone records thereby dismissing the need for a physical reconstruction of events.

Going back seven years and bearing in mind that the then PJ investigators were painfully aware of the inadequacies of the initial investigation, it is my belief they were anxious to exit without losing face, and this was the vehicle of choice. 
They knew that the climate of the times dictated that any rational person would question the necessity of participating in such an event or media scrum unless it was directed at finding out exactly what had happened to Madeleine McCann and not as a vehicle to incriminate her parents. 

It is indicative that Jez Wilkins was astute enough to decline a return. 

That the CW programme seven years down the line has apparently turned up new witnesses makes one wonder what witnesses might have responded to an appeal in 2007 from a programme of that type. 

However, that was never what the proposed reconstruction was about. 

I think the question should be why Dr Amaral declined to carry out a reconstruction in the early days of the inquiry when there was some chance new information which might have led to Madeleine's return or at least finding what happened to her might have been forthcoming.

Indicative of what?
His reasons are recorded in here.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm

[faithlilly]

Are there any recorded incidents of a group of people who were actually at the scene, doing a reconstruction?

There was a reconstruction in the Cipriano case and the men accused of killing the British backpackers took part in one in Thailand just last week.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/518336/Burmese-men-killing-British-backpackers-reconstruction-murder-scene-Thailand

[Alfred R Jones]

The reconstruction removes the minor inconsistencies. The police would know more after a reconstruction than before.

...or is that the problem?

No it's not a problem, as the Met has already proved with its forensic examination of the timeline and having identified a window of opportunity for an abductor to strike. 

[Alice Purjorick]

The bit I really love is Jez Wilkins being quite adamant he could only fix the time he met Gerry that night within half an hour (20:45 to 21:15) .....he being kind of like the only independent witness and all  &%+((£
That might part way explain the reluctance to have a reconstitution

[lordpookles]

They are all possibilities I guess... Amazing they weren't forced to do a reconstruction. wouldn't that be seen as obstructing a potential murder enquiry? though the Portuguese allowed them to leave the country without doing a reconstruction?

[faithlilly]

Still the myth is repeated that Amaral was behind the decision not to have a reconstruction, he was not.

[Alice Purjorick]

They are all possibilities I guess... Amazing they weren't forced to do a reconstruction. wouldn't that be seen as obstructing a potential murder enquiry? though the Portuguese allowed them to leave the country without doing a reconstruction?

There is a thread on that very subject on here.
The general consensus of the "experts" is that it was perfectly permissible for them to not cooperate  because Portugal is a third world country (?) (indeed one "expert" described Portugal as being a "banana republic" I believe) and they would have been "fitted up" by the most bent police force in the world. I thought Portugal was a member of the EU but clearly it can't be.
Fitted up? sounds like a rerun of The Sweeney oh well.......

[Brietta]

I always knew it was full of Myths and fantasies ... so nice to have it confirmed that ... the book ... is a tissue of lies.

Check out Chapter five

"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."

May 2007.

[misty]

They are all possibilities I guess... Amazing they weren't forced to do a reconstruction. wouldn't that be seen as obstructing a potential murder enquiry? though the Portuguese allowed them to leave the country without doing a reconstruction?

Due to their judicial secrecy laws, any reconstruction could not be televised to acquire potential new evidence, unlike our own Crimewatch. So, a reconstruction which only involved the Tapas 9 & Jez Wilkins would have served what purpose, exactly?
Perhaps it would have been more useful for the police to work out which people were actually out on the streets after 7pm that night, and what they noticed, who they were with, etc. Instead, the only concerted line of enquiry seems to have been to eliminate someone's presence.

[faithlilly]

I always knew it was full of Myths and fantasies ... so nice to have it confirmed that ... the book ... is a tissue of lies.

Check out Chapter five

"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."

May 2007.

Thank you Brietta, you prove my point.

Nowhere in the above quote does Amaral say the decision not to stage a reconstruction was his fault. In fact the comment ' in spite of opinions to the contrary' suggests that he and others weren't at all happy with the decision.

[faithlilly]

Due to their judicial secrecy laws, any reconstruction could not be televised to acquire potential new evidence, unlike our own Crimewatch. So, a reconstruction which only involved the Tapas 9 & Jez Wilkins would have served what purpose, exactly?
Perhaps it would have been more useful for the police to work out which people were actually out on the streets after 7pm that night, and what they noticed, who they were with, etc. Instead, the only concerted line of enquiry seems to have been to eliminate someone's presence.

It would certainly have established whether Tanner could have passed by Jez and Gerry without being seen.