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

[Brietta]

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.

A proper translation from the Portuguese should actually read as follows ...

"The reconstruction never happened.

Why?

Given the large number of tourists in the village whose holidays would be affected if it were closed for several hours, the necessity to close the airspace, the large number of journalists in such a small area and the fear that the parents of Maddie and their friends were coming under suspicion and naturally we did not wish to see a trial in a public arena. 

The team of investigators discussed the possibility but a decision was taken that there would be no reconstruction in spite of some dissenting voices."

The PJ themselves ... not magistrates - judges - or politicians - discussed and took the decision.

The PJ and no-one else.

Now if I could only remember the name of the person who was leading the investigation and whose word, as we have had confirmed by Ricardo Paiva, carried a lot of weight ... oh bother ... I'm sure it will come to me ... I think he may have been the coordinator ie the big boss ...

I know ... Dr Amaral

[lordpookles]

A reconstruction would just help to construct a more accurate timeline perhaps? also it may help jog people's memories... Unfortunate their laws do not allow timewatch style tv reconstruction, but would have thought a reconstruction was simply routine here...

[lordpookles]

So the PJ at no point asked to do a reconstruction?

[Anna]

excerpts from the portuguese reconstruction programme

He affirmed any (previous) public interventions of his have always been done in the ambit of thesearch for Madeleine and, therefore his contributions to this debate would add nothing to those already made by the Portuguese and English authorities.
So, I will start our conversation here in the studio, with Gonçalo Amaral.
Gonçalo Amaral, we have just watched about eight minutes of video footage – a reconstruction of part of the day (3td May), and most of the evening when this little girl disappeared. How come the Portuguese police (PJ) never made a reconstruction (of these events)?
practical! As someone then remarked - to go ahead with a reconstruction it would have been necessary to close the air space!(Gonçalo Amaral): Good evening! The reconstruction was never made, because we kept waiting for a better opportunity (to carry it out).
Everything was happening then. We did think about a reconstruction; it is the normal thing to do under the circumstances but (because) there were (at the time) so many journalists in Praia da Luz, we decided it was not convenient. All that (media) circus; all that spectacle! It was not practical! As someone then remarked - to go ahead with a reconstruction it would have been necessary to close the air space!
++++++++
[/b

So, for this reason we left the reconstruction for a later date but, by then, the couple had left Portugal and did not wish to come back. I mean, their friends – who were not defendants, but mere witnesses - did not wish to come back. They refused – and the couple (perhaps) for convenience, went along with them.Also, the Public Ministry (Prosecutor) decided the reconstruction was not worth doing; but the fact is, it could still have gone ahead just with the couple since they were still defendants (suspects) at the time.
(P): Interrupts briefly to say something (unclear)
(GA): Yes, it could have gone ahead! Because if you pay attention (to the video), all we have seen so far, are just moments in time. A reconstruction is built upon of a series of moments. Each person (involved) has to explain what he or she had done or was doing at the time. Simple.
I would not need to have all of them together, simultaneously, even (assuming) that would have been convenient. If I had only the couple, I could have done that bit extra . I could have advanced a bit further with the investigation. Also, there was a witness, Jeremy (Wilkins) – a BBC TV producer – who was willing to come to Portugal.As it happened, on that (fateful) evening (of 3td of May) Mr. Wilkins was walking about, pushing a pram with his baby son; trying to lull him into sleep, when he encountered Gerry McCann, leaving his apartment, around 21:30 hours.
Therefore, at least these three persons could have come (McCanns’ and Jeremy Wilkins) not to mention an Irish family (Martin Smith’s) and possibly others.

[faithlilly]

A proper translation from the Portuguese should actually read as follows ...

"The reconstruction never happened.

Why?

Given the large number of tourists in the village whose holidays would be affected if it were closed for several hours, the necessity to close the airspace, the large number of journalists in such a small area and the fear that the parents of Maddie and their friends were coming under suspicion and naturally we did not wish to see a trial in a public arena. 

The team of investigators discussed the possibility but a decision was taken that there would be no reconstruction in spite of some dissenting voices."

The PJ themselves ... not magistrates - judges - or politicians - discussed and took the decision.

The PJ and no-one else.

Now if I could only remember the name of the person who was leading the investigation and whose word, as we have had confirmed by Ricardo Paiva, carried a lot of weight ... oh bother ... I'm sure it will come to me ... I think he may have been the coordinator ie the big boss ...

I know ... Dr Amaral

Guilhermino Encarnacao, Amaral's superior, would have made the final decision, not Amaral.

Back to the drawing board old pip !

[Anna]

from my post below

Also, there was a witness, Jeremy (Wilkins) – a BBC TV producer – who was willing to come to Portugal


What?

[Miss Taken Identity]

This is what I am talking about  their confused stories! You can read them in mccanfiles, the rotatory interviews.  ermm um can't remember' err mmmm yeah you know yeah you know it was like you know...They cannot recall time time line accurately!!!!

a baby was allegedly abducted ffs.. they forget important details. come on  behave yourself!

This is the story they sent home- due to Kate being concerned what people would say/think about them
 ( thinking of self and not Maddie at this important point).

Kate-Went to check  and saw window jemmied- whooshing and Maddie gone= abducted.
Were were only like-- it was like sitting in your garden- everyone in the UK do it. ( Yes, some people do sit in their own garden, whilst the children sleep) NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL IS IT Gerry?

The press are hounding us= family phone sky news to tell them about 'abduction'  police were not told about abduction-just a missing child.

We did half hourly checks-  oh no you didn't you didn't have a proper time line/clip board to sign in  and off if all was well- it was: as and .when!

that is why they couldn't do a time line until they grabbed a bit of paper and pen to scribble one down- shameful! to try and justify leaving the children alone.

The door being locked  then it was found out later  one door was left unlocked!
They claimed to have checked the children- turns out this check was a  'door listening' and not a physical check- apart form Gerrys last sighting of Maddie being alive and beautiful in her bed.@ 9.30? Oh and Kate paying great detail of the measurement of the bedroom doors distance from the wall from her previous encounter with the door being a different distance-thus causing her such concern she opened the door and whoosh!

How did Kate know how far from the wall Gerry left the door? The devil is in the detail! all silly ,mistakes because they were not expecting to have their lies scrutinized! and challenged. They hate being challenged on anything. Which is too bad really because if they just said what really happened, the way it really happened, no one would have bothered picking up these discrepancies.

I have no informed opinion of Amaral. I don 't know the man - he did not contribute to little Maddie's demise- that goes directly to her parents.

Do I believe the PJ could have done things better- yes I do. They should have arrested the parents immediately on being suspicious of their behavior- sealed off the crime scene, and questioned everyone individually.

That would have been fairer to everyone!


 

[Benice]

This is what I am talking about  their confused stories! You can read them in mccanfiles, the rotatory interviews.  ermm um can't remember' err mmmm yeah you know yeah you know it was like you know...They cannot recall time time line accurately!!!!

a baby was allegedly abducted ffs.. they forget important details. come on  behave yourself!

This is the story they sent home- due to Kate being concerned what people would say/think about them
 ( thinking of self and not Maddie at this important point).

Kate-Went to check  and saw window jemmied- whooshing and Maddie gone= abducted.
Were were only like-- it was like sitting in your garden- everyone in the UK do it. ( Yes, some people do sit in their own garden, whilst the children sleep) NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL IS IT Gerry?

The press are hounding us= family phone sky news to tell them about 'abduction'  police were not told about abduction-just a missing child.

We did half hourly checks-  oh no you didn't you didn't have a proper time line/clip board to sign in  and off if all was well- it was: as and .when!

that is why they couldn't do a time line until they grabbed a bit of paper and pen to scribble one down- shameful! to try and justify leaving the children alone.

The door being locked  then it was found out later  one door was left unlocked!
They claimed to have checked the children- turns out this check was a  'door listening' and not a physical check- apart form Gerrys last sighting of Maddie being alive and beautiful in her bed.@ 9.30? Oh and Kate paying great detail of the measurement of the bedroom doors distance from the wall from her previous encounter with the door being a different distance-thus causing her such concern she opened the door and whoosh!

How did Kate know how far from the wall Gerry left the door? The devil is in the detail! all silly ,mistakes because they were not expecting to have their lies scrutinized! and challenged. They hate being challenged on anything. Which is too bad really because if they just said what really happened, the way it really happened, no one would have bothered picking up these discrepancies.

I have no informed opinion of Amaral. I don 't know the man - he did not contribute to little Maddie's demise- that goes directly to her parents.

Do I believe the PJ could have done things better- yes I do. They should have arrested the parents immediately on being suspicious of their behavior- sealed off the crime scene, and questioned everyone individually.

That would have been fairer to everyone!

Those are just your opinions - and your interpretation of the facts.  You are entitled to them but it doesn't necessarily make them true.    SY do not agree with you and as they have far more information about this case than any armchair detective and also have the professional training and experience required to investigate it - then I'll stick with the experts.

With regard to the part of your post bolded above - fortunately the police know all about the fallibility of memory.

Quote
"Police know how fallible the memory can be," says Steve Retford, a former head of the investigative skills unit at GMP and now specialist interviewing adviser with the force.

"They also know this is usually not through mischievousness on the part of the witnesses, but through stress and shock."

Take the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot at Stockwell Tube station in 2005 by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber.

Eyewitnesses said he had vaulted a ticket barrier when running away from the police. In fact it was later shown by CCTV that Mr Menezes had walked through the barriers, having picked up a free newspaper, and only ran when he saw his train arriving.
End quote

ALSO

Quote from DC Ferguson (JT's rogatory statement)

4078    “You know, we can take a statement from people, if an incident happened outside and there was a group of people watching it, everybody would have a different take on what they had seen”.
Unquote.


Why would anyone expect  that the McCanns and their friends' powers of recall should be any different from the rest of us after finding themselves suddenly plunged without warning into a situation of extreme stress.
 

[slartibartfast]

Those are just your opinions - and your interpretation of the facts.  You are entitled to them but it doesn't necessarily make them true.    SY do not agree with you and as they have far more information about this case than any armchair detective and also have the professional training and experience required to investigate it - then I'll stick with the experts.

With regard to the part of your post bolded above - fortunately the police know all about the fallibility of memory.

Quote
"Police know how fallible the memory can be," says Steve Retford, a former head of the investigative skills unit at GMP and now specialist interviewing adviser with the force.

"They also know this is usually not through mischievousness on the part of the witnesses, but through stress and shock."

Take the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot at Stockwell Tube station in 2005 by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber.

Eyewitnesses said he had vaulted a ticket barrier when running away from the police. In fact it was later shown by CCTV that Mr Menezes had walked through the barriers, having picked up a free newspaper, and only ran when he saw his train arriving.
End quote

ALSO

Quote from DC Ferguson (JT's rogatory statement)

4078    “You know, we can take a statement from people, if an incident happened outside and there was a group of people watching it, everybody would have a different take on what they had seen”.
Unquote.


Why would anyone expect  that the McCanns and their friends' powers of recall should be any different from the rest of us after finding themselves suddenly plunged without warning into a situation of extreme stress.

That is precisely why the PJ routinely use reconstructions...

[Benice]

That is precisely why the PJ routinely use reconstructions...

When did they last conduct a routine reconstruction which began at 5.30 and ended at 11.00pm - involving 10  people and was carried out 12 months after the crime was committed? 

Most recons are for the purpose of jogging the memories of members of the public who were in the vicinity at the time.

IMO it is patently obvious this was not the aim of this proposed recon.

 

[Miss Taken Identity]

No They are NOT my opinions. that is the stories they changed to and fro. I did not make it up, it is all there,  it is all documented. Don't you want to look?

Forgetting what happened on the day your daughter disappeared- they claimed to be checking every half hour? Pfft

Do not even try and pin a tag on me. I had nothing to do with Maddies disappearance,unlike her parents  and that isn't an opinion either. That is fact.

and why you have to bleet on about Charles Menedez who was executed by the police? He had nothing to do with it either!

You can believe what you want, but don't dare try and rearrange events to attach them to my opinions, to fit in with your agenda.

Thank you.

[Alice Purjorick]

No They are NOT my opinions. that is the stories they changed to and fro. I did not make it up, it is all there,  it is all documented. Don't you want to look?

Forgetting what happened on the day your daughter disappeared- they claimed to be checking every half hour? Pfft

Do not even try and pin a tag on me. I had nothing to do with Maddies disappearance,unlike her parents  and that isn't an opinion either. That is fact.

and why you have to bleet on about Charles Menedez who was executed by the police? He had nothing to do with it either!

You can believe what you want, but don't dare try and rearrange events to attach them to my opinions, to fit in with your agenda.

Thank you.

Behave! why would they want to that. Don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
It's funny how a lot of old faces have reappeared in the last few days. There must be something big on.

[Benice]

No They are NOT my opinions. that is the stories they changed to and fro. I did not make it up, it is all there,  it is all documented. Don't you want to look?

Forgetting what happened on the day your daughter disappeared- they claimed to be checking every half hour? Pfft

Do not even try and pin a tag on me. I had nothing to do with Maddies disappearance,unlike her parents  and that isn't an opinion either. That is fact.

and why you have to bleet on about Charles Menedez who was executed by the police? He had nothing to do with it either!

You can believe what you want, but don't dare try and rearrange events to attach them to my opinions, to fit in with your agenda.

Thank you.

Feel free to carry on thinking you know better than the experts.  That is your prerogative.   However if I was the victim of a crime - and I had the choice of SY investigating it - or some random armchair detective on the internet who had only some of the information to hand  -  then no prizes for guessing who I would choose.   It would be no contest.

If you don't understand that the quotes I gave were to inform you of the attitude of the police towards 'differing stories' from witnesses - and which explain why their stance is the opposite of yours   - then that is not my problem.

[Brietta]

Those are just your opinions - and your interpretation of the facts.  You are entitled to them but it doesn't necessarily make them true.    SY do not agree with you and as they have far more information about this case than any armchair detective and also have the professional training and experience required to investigate it - then I'll stick with the experts.

With regard to the part of your post bolded above - fortunately the police know all about the fallibility of memory.

Quote
"Police know how fallible the memory can be," says Steve Retford, a former head of the investigative skills unit at GMP and now specialist interviewing adviser with the force.

"They also know this is usually not through mischievousness on the part of the witnesses, but through stress and shock."

Take the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot at Stockwell Tube station in 2005 by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber.

Eyewitnesses said he had vaulted a ticket barrier when running away from the police. In fact it was later shown by CCTV that Mr Menezes had walked through the barriers, having picked up a free newspaper, and only ran when he saw his train arriving.
End quote

ALSO

Quote from DC Ferguson (JT's rogatory statement)

4078    “You know, we can take a statement from people, if an incident happened outside and there was a group of people watching it, everybody would have a different take on what they had seen”.
Unquote.


Why would anyone expect  that the McCanns and their friends' powers of recall should be any different from the rest of us after finding themselves suddenly plunged without warning into a situation of extreme stress.

Indeed ... and if all their statements had dovetailed one into the other perfectly ... if there had been not a single discrepancy ... not a single word out of place ... that is when the situation would have been suspect and collusion a very obvious consideration.

I find it extraordinary that people cannot imagine the absolute terror and panic caused by Madeleine's disappearance.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Feel free to carry on thinking you know better than the experts.  That is your prerogative.   However if I was the victim of a crime - and I had the choice of SY investigating it - or some random armchair detective on the internet who had only some of the information to hand  -  then no prizes for guessing who I would choose.   It would be no contest.

If you don't understand that the quotes I gave were to inform you of the attitude of the police towards 'differing stories' from witnesses - and which explain why their stance is the opposite of yours   - then that is not my problem.

Experts?  Please do not use that tone with me, I have stated FACTS not armchair detective stories. I will leave those armchair detective stories to you and the McCann Family.

This is why I come here Just to let others know that people like you exist only to preserve a story which has never been accepted by any police force AS FACTS.

Today, the fate of Maddie has not be established= FACT! I know  you don't like to hear it- I don't like to hear the abduction story being tossed about as gospel and the parents being 'totally innocent of any wrong doing', when we all know THE CHILDREN WERE LEFT ALONE. So  armchair detectives can deduce that: parents leave kids alone =child goes missing= parents responsible for childs demise- what ever that is/was.


FACTS!