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

[Benice]

No idea, Benice.

Depending on your motive, you could make everyone repeat a sequence of actions until you find one that appears to be suitably physically impossible and damning and then you present that one to the prosecutor.

Personally, I very much doubt that Rebelo would have done that as he seems to have been a decent cop as far as I've been able to gather.

Pure speculation on my part Carana, but IMO the PJ had a pretty good idea that the group would not agree to come and in fact were banking on it.   Hence the less than encouraging replies imo to some of their queries.

For instance, not being able to guarantee there would be no press intrusion  and also telling them not to bring their children with them - that last instruction alone would be enough to raise my suspicions.   Also stipulating that unless they all agreed to go then it wouldn't take place. 

There is no way that any of the group had an iota of trust in the PJ - after watching with horror what had happened to their innocent  friends - as well as the abuse they themselves had suffered in the PT press - and I'm sure the PJ realised that.

I think the PJ were eager to shelve the case and the eventual refusal of the group to attend gave the PJ a 'face-saving' reason to do that.

As I say - pure speculation on my part, but I don't think the PJ themselves believed that an accurate recon was possible - as it's not rocket science to see the reasons why it was totally unviable.

[Brietta]

Pure speculation on my part Carana, but IMO the PJ had a pretty good idea that the group would not agree to come and in fact were banking on it.   Hence the less than encouraging replies imo to some of their queries.

For instance, not being able to guarantee there would be no press intrusion  and also telling them not to bring their children with them - that last instruction alone would be enough to raise my suspicions.   Also stipulating that unless they all agreed to go then it wouldn't take place. 

There is no way that any of the group had an iota of trust in the PJ - after watching with horror what had happened to their innocent  friends - as well as the abuse they themselves had suffered in the PT press - and I'm sure the PJ realised that.

I think the PJ were eager to shelve the case and the eventual refusal of the group to attend gave the PJ a 'face-saving' reason to do that.

As I say - pure speculation on my part, but I don't think the PJ themselves believed that an accurate recon was possible - as it's not rocket science to see the reasons why it was totally unviable.

I agree that it has all the hallmarks of a 'face saving' exercise.

From what I have read in the press and seen on the media at the time and subsequently on video, I think Rebelo must have found that to get anywhere with continuing the investigation it would be necessary to discard the previous investigation and go back to square one.

Perhaps the Portuguese authorities determined there was neither the time, the money or the inclination to confirm the criticisms of the foreign press by doing so.

I have just been watching Mr Amaral's documentary on Madeleine's case which unblushingly claims to be a 'reconstitution'.

[John]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how this reconstitution was going to be carried out:
-------

PJ to Jez Wilkins:   We would like you to set off on your walk at the same time you did last year.

Jez to PJ:        But I don't know what the exact time was.   I can make an educated guess but what if I get it wrong and miss Gerry?    What then?   Do you want me to have another go at it starting out at a different time or what?

PJ to Jez    Erm.........................................................??

Can you suggest what the PJ's answer would be Stephen?

Same goes for JT - who also could only give an approximate time of when she left the table after Gerry - (5 to 10 mins).   She would only have to be wrong by a minute or two  - and Gerry could be back at the table before she even left it.    Or would he and Jez be told to hang about in the street until she did arrive?   In which case it wouldn't be a true recon would it?

It is simply not humanly possible for 10 people to accurately recreate their movements from a night 12 month prior and the only thing an attempted recon would do - is prove that to be the case.

If you - or anyone else think differently then I would be interested to hear how you think the problem of the approximate times would be dealt with by the PJ.

I keep asking this question, but no-one replies - so I won't hold my breath.

It was perfectly feasible and is a normal procedure in Portugal, France and many other countries.  Its is amazing what happens when you bring a group of people together to reenact an event, it is quite amazing how things fall into place or stand out as impossible.   The point in all of this is that a handful of people thought they knew better than the police and refused to participate for their own reasons.  People are perfectly right to question their motives.

[Benice]

It was perfectly feasible and is a normal procedure in Portugal, France and many other countries.  Its is amazing what happens when you bring a group of people together to reenact an event, it is quite amazing how things fall into place or stand out as impossible.   The point in all of this is that a handful of people thought they were above the Law and decided not to participate for whatever reason.

I'm sure recons are very valuable in certain instances John.     However, I have never heard of one which it was proposed would last 5.1/2 hours.

IIRC the group did not believe what was proposed would help to find out what happened to Madeleine - and were suspicious of the PJ's agenda.    And quite rightly so IMO.

Once Jez Wilkins had said he wasn't going - then it was all over anyway.

[John]

Pure speculation on my part Carana, but IMO the PJ had a pretty good idea that the group would not agree to come and in fact were banking on it.   Hence the less than encouraging replies imo to some of their queries.

For instance, not being able to guarantee there would be no press intrusion  and also telling them not to bring their children with them - that last instruction alone would be enough to raise my suspicions.   Also stipulating that unless they all agreed to go then it wouldn't take place. 

There is no way that any of the group had an iota of trust in the PJ - after watching with horror what had happened to their innocent  friends - as well as the abuse they themselves had suffered in the PT press - and I'm sure the PJ realised that.

I think the PJ were eager to shelve the case and the eventual refusal of the group to attend gave the PJ a 'face-saving' reason to do that.

As I say - pure speculation on my part, but I don't think the PJ themselves believed that an accurate recon was possible - as it's not rocket science to see the reasons why it was totally unviable.

What was it that happened to the 'innocent' friends that was so dreadful?   Was it the fact that they were questioned as witnesses or designated arguidos?

Why shouldn't the police question parents in a missing child case?  It happens everywhere, even in the UK.

[Lace]

The McCann's agreed to go,   I don't know why they couldn't have used actors for the rest of the group,  they would have had the main players it was the McCann's child who disappeared after all.

[John]

I'm sure recons are very valuable in certain instances John.     However, I have never heard of one which it was proposed would last 5.1/2 hours.

IIRC the group did not believe what was proposed would help to find out what happened to Madeleine - and were suspicious of the PJ's agenda.    And quite rightly so IMO.

Once Jez Wilkins had said he wasn't going - then it was all over anyway.

It takes a long time to put together a reconstitution, in some instances it could run into days and not hours.  Scenes are played out several times until an accurate representation is achieved and accepted by the police.  British people are not familiar with reconstitutions since it is usually a reconstruction using police officers or actors who take part in the UK equivalent.

I have no doubt those asked to participate were afraid of what they were getting themselves into but if they had nothing to hide they should have agreed to take part.  It wasn't their place to second-guess the police, it was their duty to do all and everything which investigators asked for in an attempt to reconstruct events that evening so that the investigation could move forward.

[ferryman]

It takes a long time to put together a reconstitution, in some instances it could run into days and not hours.  Scenes are played out several times until an accurate representation is achieved and accepted by the police.  British people are not familiar with reconstitutions since it is usually a reconstruction using police officers or actors who take part in the UK equivalent.

I have no doubt those asked to participate were afraid of what they were getting themselves into but if they had nothing to hide they should have agreed to take part.  It wasn't their place to second-guess the police, it was their duty to do all and everything which investigators asked for in an attempt to reconstruct events that evening so that the investigation could move forward.

You can never recreate things a second time the way they happened the first time.

[Alfred R Jones]

It takes a long time to put together a reconstitution, in some instances it could run into days and not hours.  Scenes are played out several times until an accurate representation is achieved and accepted by the police.  British people are not familiar with reconstitutions since it is usually a reconstruction using police officers or actors who take part in the UK equivalent.

I have no doubt those asked to participate were afraid of what they were getting themselves into but if they had nothing to hide they should have agreed to take part.  It wasn't their place to second-guess the police, it was their duty to do all and everything which investigators asked for in an attempt to reconstruct events that evening so that the investigation could move forward.

And if, as Jez Wilkins and the McCanns and their friends believed that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, how do you think a reconstruction of their own movements would have convinced them that this reconstitution was in anyone's best interests?

[Brietta]

What was it that happened to the 'innocent' friends that was so dreadful?   Was it the fact that they were questioned as witnesses or designated arguidos?

Why shouldn't the police question parents in a missing child case?  It happens everywhere, even in the UK.

It is proper procedure to immediately interview the parents of a missing child

(a)  to get as much information about the child as possible 
(b)  to check out if there is any reason why they might be considered suspect and to rule them of interest or not

In missing child investigations in the UK I cannot think of one when leaks from the investigation to the press encouraged speculation about the parents' body language and appearance or whether the father of the missing child was the genetic parent.

Quote
Criminal investigations in Portugal are governed by a secrecy clause in its penal code, which means there are no official press briefings.[22] One journalist wrote that this leads to a culture of "leak, not speak," and a proliferation of gossip that is hard for others to counter without breaking the law.[60] A Polícia Judiciária officer acknowledged in 2010 that they had been suspicious of the McCanns from the start, because the couple turned the inquiry into what the officer called a "media circus."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann

In Britain controlled police press releases keep the public informed.  The sad thing is that this could have happened in Madeleine McCann's case as missing people cases can be released from the secrecy requirement of the Criminal Code if the proper request is submitted to the Portuguese Authorities.

[Benice]

What was it that happened to the 'innocent' friends that was so dreadful?   Was it the fact that they were questioned as witnesses or designated arguidos?

Why shouldn't the police question parents in a missing child case?

There is nothing wrong in questioning the parents in depth -  and right at the beginning so that they could be ruled in or out.     

Maybe if Amaral had actually met the McCanns and spoken to them himself, he would  have been in a better position to judge/assess them.   Why he didn't do that is incomprehensible to me.

IMO the attempted trial by media - based on leaks from the PJ was a disgraceful way to treat them, and showed  a cynical contempt by the PJ for their own secrecy laws - which they simply used as weapon, knowing that the McCanns had no way of rebutting the dreadful allegations being made.

Also I've no doubt that finding out that Amaral was an arguido himself, suspected of being involved in the torture of a defenceless woman, in his last (and only) missing child case  -  hardly inspired either the McCanns or their friends to have confidence in him.     Quite the opposite in fact.   And who could blame them?

He should never have been let near the case. imo.

[Brietta]

There is nothing wrong in questioning the parents in depth -  and right at the beginning so that they could be ruled in or out.     

Maybe if Amaral had actually met the McCanns and spoken to them himself, he would  have been in a better position to judge/assess them.   Why he didn't do that is incomprehensible to me.

IMO the attempted trial by media - based on leaks from the PJ was a disgraceful way to treat them, and showed  a cynical contempt by the PJ for their own secrecy laws - which they simply used as weapon, knowing that the McCanns had no way of rebutting the dreadful allegations being made.

Also I've no doubt that finding out that Amaral was an arguido himself, suspected of being involved in the torture of a defenceless woman, in his last (and only) missing child case  -  hardly inspired either the McCanns or their friends to have confidence in him.     Quite the opposite in fact.   And who could blame them?

He should never have been let near the case. imo.

I do not understand why he was not told to take 'gardening leave' on the 4th. 

I think it probably illustrates perfectly how efficiently a secrecy code can be maintained when it suits ... I don't think the press got a sniff of it at the time.

[John]

You can never recreate things a second time the way they happened the first time.

True but you can usually get close enough to the truth to expose the lies.

[John]

And if, as Jez Wilkins and the McCanns and their friends believed that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger, how do you think a reconstruction of their own movements would have convinced them that this reconstitution was in anyone's best interests?

Nobody saw an abductor, at least that was DCI Redwood told us so the PJ were correct to pursue all options.

[G-Unit]

It takes a long time to put together a reconstitution, in some instances it could run into days and not hours.  Scenes are played out several times until an accurate representation is achieved and accepted by the police.  British people are not familiar with reconstitutions since it is usually a reconstruction using police officers or actors who take part in the UK equivalent.

I have no doubt those asked to participate were afraid of what they were getting themselves into but if they had nothing to hide they should have agreed to take part.  It wasn't their place to second-guess the police, it was their duty to do all and everything which investigators asked for in an attempt to reconstruct events that evening so that the investigation could move forward.

It's the only case I've ever heard of where people have decided immediately what crime was committed, employed private investigators to carry out a parallel investigation and refused to help the police with their enquiries.