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

[Alfred R Jones]

HOLMES needed to take account of when the meals were ordered, served and eaten because most of the group referred to these events when speaking about the checks. I said perhaps the Met needed to get rid of Tannerman. I assume that's so they could concentrate attention on Smithman. Maybe HOLMES demonstrated beyond doubt that there was no opportunity whatsoever for Tannerman to be the abductor. There could have been a ten minute window between Matthew returning to the table and Jane Tanner leaving it to take over from Russell, however.

Why are you assuming that HOLMES did not take account of when meals were ordered, served and eaten?  In my opinion using such language as "getting rid of Tannerman at any cost" is hyperbolic and a little bit childish.  The Met have eliminated that sighting based on the fact that someone matching JT's description of person and events has come forward and identified themselves.  It is your choice to disbelieve what the Met are telling us, based I suppose on your ABC method of super-sleuthing...

[G-Unit]

The Oldfields wore watches and we know Gerry did. Matt gave a time for Kate leaving the table 9:50 - much earlier than 10.

1578 'And did you wear watches''
 Reply 'Yes'.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

By the way, he clarifies that that news had been communicated to all the friends who were in the Tapas by KM subsequent to her having personally been to her flat to check that her children were well.

The question asked, he relates that she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50.

Noticing the disappearance KM returned in panic to the restaurant where the deponent was in order to tell her husband, GM.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm

Sorry, pathfinder, I was using Mitchell's words (which he later changed anyway)


Clarence Mitchell backtracks on previous statement about watches
 
Mitchell said he was not surprised by the inconsistencies in the initial accounts. 'You had nine people in a bar without watches on, without mobile phones, and absolute panic set in when they realised what had happened.
 
The Guardian 06 April 2008
 
"It was made out to be the biggest 'conspiracy' since the Diana 'conspiracy,'" says Mitchell. "Some of the group (of friends in the tapas restaurant) had their watches on that night, and others didn't...
 
Yorkshire Post 29 May 2008 

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id255.html

[G-Unit]

Why are you assuming that HOLMES did not take account of when meals were ordered, served and eaten?  In my opinion using such language as "getting rid of Tannerman at any cost" is hyperbolic and a little bit childish.  The Met have eliminated that sighting based on the fact that someone matching JT's description of person and events has come forward and identified themselves.  It is your choice to disbelieve what the Met are telling us, based I suppose on your ABC method of super-sleuthing...

The manner in which the Met got rid of Tannerman suggests desperation to me because the story they came up with was ridiculous. He was gong the wrong way. They suggested he had the same clothes still and he remembered what he wore that night. His child had the same pyjamas still and he remembered which ones the child wore that night also. Please! My disbelief of the Met is very well founded, thank you.

[mercury]

When the forty eight questions had anything at all to do with finding Madeleine McCann they had all been answered during many hours of questioning.
When the forty eight questions were put to Madeleine's mother when she was constituted arguida without a shred of evidence to support it ... she exercised her right under the law not to answer questions which would be used to incriminate her.

Funny that it is ignored that Madeleine's father answered all the questions put to him.


**snip
September 7, 2007. Kate McCann entered the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão in the morning and the questioning extended into the evening.

**snip
Kate began by replying all the questions, but when she was made an arguida, she stopped talking.

**snip
Within the process, you were shown films of cynotechnical inspection of forensic character, where the dogs can be seen marking indications of human cadaver odour and equally human blood traces, and only of human origin, as well as all the comments that were made by the responsible expert. After the visualization, and after cadaver odour was signaled in your bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, you said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said?

You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood behind the sofa by the detection dog

You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of cadaver odour in the boot of the vehicle that you rented a month after the disappearance?

You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, come ncerning the marking of human blood in the boot of the vehicle?

You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, upon being confronted with the result of the collection of Maddie’s DNA, which was analysed by a British lab, behind the sofa and inside the vehicle’s boot?

http://truthformadeleine.com/2008/08/the-48-questions-that-remained-unanswered/


When the Drs McCann exited after being made arguidos they were met by a baying mob. 

If no guarantee could be given to people that participating in a reconstitution would not expose them to similar treatment I think it would be extraordinary if they subjected themselves to such an experience.

Just as the forty eight questions were not designed to help in the search for Madeleine neither was the reconstitution.

Cite required for K Mccann answering all 48 questions beforehand

[Brietta]

You still haven't detailed how a reconstitution involving only this party could assist in the search for Madeleine, possibly because there is no stretch of the imagination which would enable it.



wouldn't it have shown it was physically impossible to have made the checks ...that they said they did

like the time line ....how odd when all that is going on ...you can recollect times and by whom ....you would have thought only the last two checks would have been surfice.........unless there was an hidden agenda...like IMO ....busy recollecting times ...[no watches ]....instead of searching for maddie ....who could have been found at anytime......but they knew they were going to need that time line .....

It would have been impossible to replicate events without some verifiable constant such as a CCTV record of events.

It would have required the presence of the cooks to cook the meals, it would have required the presence of waiting staff and bar staff to serve the meal bearing in mind there were other guests to be served.  IMO if a reconstitution was being done it would have required everything to be done in real time or it was pointless.

On the 3rd of May ... when they were eating a carefree meal, they had no idea of the event taking place in the McCann apartment.
During a re-enactment that would have been the foremost thought in everyone's mind which would have had an effect on their actions and their timings.

I have absolutely no doubt about the effect it would have had on Madeleine's mother and father; the trauma of subjecting them to a re-enactment which had no bearing on finding Madeleine really failed to do joined up thinking on this.

[Benice]

The manner in which the Met got rid of Tannerman suggests desperation to me because the story they came up with was ridiculous. He was gong the wrong way. They suggested he had the same clothes still and he remembered what he wore that night. His child had the same pyjamas still and he remembered which ones the child wore that night also. Please! My disbelief of the Met is very well founded, thank you.

As SY did not divulge every last detail as to why they were almost certain Tannerman was an innocent tourist - then common sense dictates that there was a credible explanation for why he was apparently 'going the wrong way' when JT saw him - which SY are obviously aware of - and we are not.      Or do you think SY are so thick they simply didn't notice what anyone with half a brain cell had noticed?     

Why would they waste valuable air time going into minute details simply to satisfy a small group of sceptics on the internet?     The main  message they wished to convey to the viewing public  was that the timescale was now longer than before - and that is what they did.

[mercury]

It would have been impossible to replicate events without some verifiable constant such as a CCTV record of events.

It would have required the presence of the cooks to cook the meals, it would have required the presence of waiting staff and bar staff to serve the meal bearing in mind there were other guests to be served.  IMO if a reconstitution was being done it would have required everything to be done in real time or it was pointless.

On the 3rd of May ... when they were eating a carefree meal, they had no idea of the event taking place in the McCann apartment.
During a re-enactment that would have been the foremost thought in everyone's mind which would have had an effect on their actions and their timings.

I have absolutely no doubt about the effect it would have had on Madeleine's mother and father; the trauma of subjecting them to a re-enactment which had no bearing on finding Madeleine really failed to do joined up thinking on this.

Carefree meal?

How any parent could enjoy a carefree meal whilst leaving their babies on their own out of sight and hearing is an oxymoron at best

[Brietta]

Sorry, pathfinder, I was using Mitchell's words (which he later changed anyway)


Clarence Mitchell backtracks on previous statement about watches
 
Mitchell said he was not surprised by the inconsistencies in the initial accounts. 'You had nine people in a bar without watches on, without mobile phones, and absolute panic set in when they realised what had happened.
 
The Guardian 06 April 2008
 
"It was made out to be the biggest 'conspiracy' since the Diana 'conspiracy,'" says Mitchell. "Some of the group (of friends in the tapas restaurant) had their watches on that night, and others didn't...
 
Yorkshire Post 29 May 2008 

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id255.html

How many people relaxing over a meal take a stopwatch and a notebook with them to record every minute? 

Perhaps someone with an obsessive compulsive disorder may but ordinarily it is such unusual behaviour I think it would have been highly suspicious if they had been able to produce a perfectly coordinated and to the second record of the events.

[Alfred R Jones]

The manner in which the Met got rid of Tannerman suggests desperation to me because the story they came up with was ridiculous. He was gong the wrong way. They suggested he had the same clothes still and he remembered what he wore that night. His child had the same pyjamas still and he remembered which ones the child wore that night also. Please! My disbelief of the Met is very well founded, thank you.

Please stop saying "The Met got rid of Tannerman", it really is silly.  They eliminated him from their enquires, based on information they got from him.  Why shouldn't he still have the child's PJs?  We dressed our younger child in items of clothing belonging to our elder child several years later - does this make us freakish?  I can still remember items of clothing I  wore on various holidays 10 or 15 years ago thanks to umpteen photos taken of us at various times and locales - is this utterly bizarre?  As for the direction Crecheman was walking there may be a perfectly plausible explanation for it - Carana has already highlighted a number of them, do you really think so poorly of the Met as to think they would not establish such a thing? 

[Carana]

I thought Gerry stated that he looked at his watch, it was 10:03, so he told Kate it was time to go and check i.e. Gerry had a watch.

I have been comparing the phone times of the July 14 arguidos against the Tapas 9 checks.  The bulk of those checking make it event driven rather than clock driven - a check before ordering, a check after eating starters and before mains, a check after mains. As it happens, the arguido phone times are a poor fit for the check times that are in the statements.

Moving on to the Met and whether they are competent or not.  The actions to date do not generate confidence.  1) They have Tannerman going the wrong way re both crèche and destination.  2) The June 2014 dig in Luz was comical.  3) They claim the arguidos and witnesses of the July/Dec 2014 rounds were targeted, when the list shows they were anything but. 4) They have not visited the actual crime scene or the Smithman scene, making them as much armchair detectives as I am.  They have no idea as to traffic flows within Luz.  They have no idea how to get their hands on Smithman help in the event that Smithman is an innocent Portuguese male.

5) Heriberto has just had a request to access the Luz area phone data turned (by Portuguese authorities, not SY).  SY is sitting on the key piece of information required to progress the case.  I simply do not have the confidence that they know how to interpret it, given point 4.

I'm not convinced that whatever got leaked to the media is the whole story. There is no way of knowing exactly what the digs were for... there may have been intelligence of some sort that didn't happen to get plastered all over the media. I don't see how SY could officially have been poring over anything in situ that wasn't subject to the tortuous ILORs - it's not their territory. There may have been some informal agreement to have a look around dressed as tourists, but in view of the formalities insisted upon, I somewhat doubt it.

I see no reason why any member of the general public should have access to potentially sensitive information in the middle of an investigation.

The fact that the PJ was leaking like a sieve doesn't make the situation normal, even though I'm  as curious as the next person.

[pathfinder73]

Sorry, pathfinder, I was using Mitchell's words (which he later changed anyway)


Clarence Mitchell backtracks on previous statement about watches
 
Mitchell said he was not surprised by the inconsistencies in the initial accounts. 'You had nine people in a bar without watches on, without mobile phones, and absolute panic set in when they realised what had happened.
 
The Guardian 06 April 2008
 
"It was made out to be the biggest 'conspiracy' since the Diana 'conspiracy,'" says Mitchell. "Some of the group (of friends in the tapas restaurant) had their watches on that night, and others didn't...
 
Yorkshire Post 29 May 2008 

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id255.html

That's ok thanks G-Unit. CM who finally admitted.

October 25 2007
"There was no evidence of a break-in," said Mr Mitchell.
"I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily."

On Martin Brunt's documentary 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann, aired on 24 December 2007, Prof David Barclay, one of Britain's top forensic consultants said: "I think it's impossible for somebody to get in and out, through that window without leaving a forensic trace."

[Benice]

Carefree meal?

How any parent could enjoy a carefree meal whilst leaving their babies on their own out of sight and hearing is an oxymoron at best

They could enjoy it in exactly the same way hundreds of thousands of other parents have whilst on holiday, when they go off to have a carefree meal knowing their sleeping  -(but out of sight/hearing) - children will be regularly checked on.

In the same way as parents who leave their children asleep in their beds and take baby alarms to restaurants with them.

You may not agree with the practise, but multiple thousands of other people do -- and incredibly some of them still do it nowadays -  even after what happened to Madeleine.   It is those parent IMO who deserve to be criticised.   However, for some strange reason - 'sceptics' never mention any of these other thousands upon thousands of 'wicked'  parents.   Inexplicable.

[Brietta]

That's ok thanks G-Unit. CM who finally admitted.

October 25 2007
"There was no evidence of a break-in," said Mr Mitchell.
"I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily."

On Martin Brunt's documentary 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann, aired on 24 December 2007, Prof David Barclay, one of Britain's top forensic consultants said: "I think it's impossible for somebody to get in and out, through that window without leaving a forensic trace."

Perhaps you should have included the rest of what Professor Barclay had to say about why he thought traces would be left ... he was under the impression that the window ledge was covered with green lichen which would have been disturbed if someone had tried to climb over it.

There was no lichen on the window ledge ... therefore none would have been disturbed.  But you know that, don't you ...

[ShiningInLuz]

So you put yourself above the Met as far as this investigation is concerned.  Who are you anyway and how do you know so much about what Operation Grange have and have not done?   As you seem to know way more than the professionals then why haven't you solved this case?

I haven't solved the case because I don't know the answer.

If I could get my hands on the phone data I might have an outside chance, but even then it is a long shot.

And if I was in charge of Operation Grange, then whether I am right or deluded, I think the case solution is within SY's grasp.

Shame there was no Crimewatch appeal about Smithman in Portugal.

[mercury]

I haven't solved the case because I don't know the answer.

If I could get my hands on the phone data I might have an outside chance, but even then it is a long shot.

And if I was in charge of Operation Grange, then whether I am right or deluded, I think the case solution is within SY's grasp.

Shame there was no Crimewatch appeal about Smithman in Portugal.

As for Portugal not having crimewatch  the BBC declined the request.