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

[Miss Taken Identity]

And how do YOU know that Faith?

Why wasn't it done at the time, when memories were fresh?

ah the power of selective memory!

Fresh memories?  is this a night people could forget about so easily?  Well apparently so in the Tapas case.

"errr um yer you know err eim well i don't know  erm you know I can't remember um err"

I recall everything that happened on the day My sister died. what I was wearing, what I was doing up until and after I was told. 


I was 6 years old!

Now ask me what I did last January on this date and I couldn't tell you, I can't recall at all, I would need to check my diary!

[Alfred R Jones]

By getting those involved to reenact events together, discrepancies are revealed.

Discrepancies are already revealed in the statements, where one says it was 9.10pm, another 9.15pm - so how is a "reconstitution" going to reveal any more discrepancies? 

[sadie]

A simple check of online dictionaries reveals reconstitution as the appropriate definition for a crime scene reenactment.

Well John , they may call it reconstituted .... and maybe that is what it is.

Getting bits together, shifting them around and then adding bits in.  In other words, after this process, likely to be a falsehood to 'prove' their agenda


I think they would be wiser to call it a reconstruction, which implies purity as against processed and altered.

[Lyall]

Nothing to do with JT sighting Lyall.

Amaral in his book says

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. For all that, a more discreet reconstruction, even partial, with only the couple present, might provide useful information. No a priori judgment is implied, quite the contrary. It's quite simply the co-operation that we have the right to expect on the part of parents faced with such a situation.

But even then there was the suggestion if something was done it should be a UK Crimewatch-like event, with JT at the centre. They did of course do UK Crimwatch just a few weeks later.

[Alfred R Jones]

Think of 'prove their innocence' more as demonstrate it. It was an opportunity.

No, all they could have demonstrated is that the may have been telling the truth, that's all.  But in fact - how would it, as who would ultimately decide whose memory of each event was correct and whose was not?

[sadie]

Amaral was not the coordinator at the time of the reconstitution request, Rebelo was.

More myth making sadie ?

I am human and I make mistakes (as you do too)
But I do NOT do myths.

You will see that I have corected my mistake.  Thankyou for bringing it to my attention Faith.

[Lyall]

No, all they could have demonstrated is that the may have been telling the truth, that's all.  But in fact - how would it, as who would ultimately decide whose memory of each event was correct and whose was not?

It was an opportunity to demonstrate a) their cooperation b) that nothing was more important to them than doing everything to help find what happened to Madeleine c) they weren't worried about any lingering doubts or questions.

It would not have been the police running it, but the judiciary. So when they declined to do it, you can't blame the judiciary for putting on the record it was an opportunity missed.

[John]

Btw, Faith

You are going against Johns new rule

Reconstitued NOT reconstructed 




I like reconstuted better than reconstructed, because that is what I think it was all about
To attempt to get the bits together then shift them around and add bits in .... and Voila, it is PROVEN beyond doubt that The Mccanns Dunnit
RECONSTITUED, like bad ham.


Cunning ploy if I am right.

I didn't start the thread btw, I merely added an op and intro to posts which were taken originally from another thread.

My comment to Alfred was not intended as criticism and I apologise if that is how it came across.  The point however must be observed and that is that the Portuguese were not requesting a reconstruction with actors or police officers playing the respective parts. What they wanted was a full reenactment with the original participants taking part and doing exactly what they did on the night that Madeleine disappeared.

[Miss Taken Identity]

No, all they could have demonstrated is that the may have been telling the truth, that's all.  But in fact - how would it, as who would ultimately decide whose memory of each event was correct and whose was not?

May have been telling the truth?. Indeed 'May have been'. May not have been and that is what the police were seeking to establish!

Gerry has already established that JT was not passing him and Jez by on that night (oops little 'maybe not telling the truth' by a some one)... He calls the shots apparently. His missing daughter -his investigation. That is the impression he gives.

[John]

No, all they could have demonstrated is that the may have been telling the truth, that's all.  But in fact - how would it, as who would ultimately decide whose memory of each event was correct and whose was not?

The same way we know where Gerry and Jez were when Jane slid by.   

[faithlilly]

Nothing to do with JT sighting Lyall.

Amaral in his book says

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. For all that, a more discreet reconstruction, even partial, with only the couple present, might provide useful information. No a priori judgment is implied, quite the contrary. It's quite simply the co-operation that we have the right to expect on the part of parents faced with such a situation.

Thank you DCI. I think that paragraph makes it abundantly clear that it wasn't Amaral's decision to cancel the early reconstruction.

[Miss Taken Identity]

It was an opportunity to demonstrate a) their cooperation b) that nothing was more important to them than doing everything to help find what happened to Madeleine c) they weren't worried about any lingering doubts or questions.

It would not have been the police running it, but the judiciary. So when they declined to do it, you can't blame the judiciary for putting on the record it was an opportunity missed.

Excellent post.

  This also put doubts in peoples minds as to why they didn't co operate- what were they hiding.

I am not suggesting they are/were hiding anything- I wasn't there, so I don't know- I am just saying how it looks.

[DCI]

Thank you DCI. I think that paragraph makes it abundantly clear that it wasn't Amaral's decision to cancel the early reconstruction.

Nor was it due to refusal by the McCanns and tapas 7, to attend.

[sadie]

I didn't start the thread btw, I merely added an op and intro to posts which were taken originally from another thread.

My comment to Alfred was not intended as criticism and I apologise if that is how it came across.  The point however must be observed and that is that the Portuguese were not requesting a reconstruction with actors or police officers playing the respective parts. What they wanted was a full reenactment with the original participants taking part and doing exactly what they did on the night that Madeleine disappeared.

Who gave the thread its title John?

Anyway we all had a good laugh about it and we can put it behind us.

I like the term re-enactment best.  That is a good term IMO

 .... but I suspect that a reconstitution with bits changed and added was what the PJ wanted.

[Alfred R Jones]

The same way we know where Gerry and Jez were when Jane slid by.   

OK, let's use that example.  You are telling me that in the event of a "reconstitution" in which Jane walks past Jez and Gerry as they chat in the semi-darkness (because of course we would also have to ensure light conditions were exactly as they were on May 3rd 2007, changing back the light fittings to their previous incarnation), that the Judiciary would watch this and then decide who, if anyone, was lying or mistaken?  Is that how it would work?  Wouldn't we need to get the real Tannerman to take part in this "reconstitution" now, in order to make it even more accurate?  What if the "reconstitution" had happened before the Met found and eliminated him from their enquiries - what may the Judiciary have concluded instead?