"We must reconstruct Maddie’s fateful night" says former Portuguese police chief.

[pegasus]

There is one detail that would need to be attended to before doing a reconstruction.
The exterior metal security bars which are now present on that bedroom window would need to be removed.
It would be impossible to reconstruct the events with those security bars present.
BTW what was the reason the owner fitted those metal security bars?

[ShiningInLuz]

I have never heard of a reconstitution in the UK ...only reconstruction.....have you

No, but this is Portugal, not the UK.

No Crimewatch.

[ShiningInLuz]

There is one detail that would need to be attended to before doing a reconstruction.
The exterior metal security bars which are now present on that bedroom window would need to be removed.

To get it accurate, they would need to stick the old lighting back in, regrow the trees they chopped down, and much, much more.

I have realised, looking at the cork board today, that I have a menu for the pizzeria that took over when the Tapas restaurant closed down.

Trust me, I shall not be popping in for a meal any time in the near future.

[pegasus]

To get it accurate, they would need to stick the old lighting back in, regrow the trees they chopped down, and much, much more.

I have realised, looking at the cork board today, that I have a menu for the pizzeria that took over when the Tapas restaurant closed down.

Trust me, I shall not be popping in for a meal any time in the near future.

That was a really good place Shining - and just like the Tapas restuarant before it, they welcomed children, a great place to take the whole family for an Italian evening meal.

[Countess Mayberry]

I'm not an expert in this, so please take it as my opinion.

It is my understanding that a reconstitution uses the original participants, and is quite different to a reconstruction, such as Crimewatch 2013, which used actors.

If you want to see an example of what happens, look at Peter Smith in the files.  In his verbal interview he gives one event of the night.  In the photo reconstitution, it comes out quite a bit different.  Any actors would have got it wrong using his statement as a script.

An explanation would be helpful given they mean the same in the dictionary.

[ShiningInLuz]

That was a really good place Shining - and just like the Tapas restuarant before it, they welcomed children, a great place to take the whole family for an Italian evening meal.

I'm most pleased that you enjoyed it.  Good to see Luz getting a thumbs up.

[G-Unit]

I was just wondering why no-one ever mentioned eating between about 1pm-1.30pm and 8.30pm-9pm. Did they all feel comfortable leaving such a gap? Especially with all the exercise they took.

[pegasus]

An explanation would be helpful given they mean the same in the dictionary.

The PJ gained more precise information about the Smith sighting by taking three of the witnesses to the actual location, and asking each of those witnesses to demonstrate where in the road they walked and exactly where each of them saw the man carrying a girl. This was done in daylight not nighttime, and no actors were used to represent the man carrying the girl. But the diligence was valuable - it enabled the witnesses to point out exactly what they did and saw, at the real location.
 

[ShiningInLuz]

An explanation would be helpful given they mean the same in the dictionary.

You MAY need a Portuguese dictionary.

Joanna makes it reconstitution, carried out in private, using the original people, away from the media, to ensure the police have got a grasp.

Then there is a reconstruction, as per Crimewatch 2013, not in Luz, using actors with scripts, with the media filming it for posterity.

I cannot be certain about this, but in this instance I would trust Joanna as being better placed to comment than I am.  IMO.

[pegasus]

Using actors is a waste of time.
Exact reproduction of the conditions is not needed - could be done in daylight.
It is necessary to have each witness individually, one at a time, re-enact what they did and saw.
Taking a real witness back to the real location enables the witness to more accurately show police where they walked and what they did and what they saw.

[Brietta]

The PJ gained more precise information about the Smith sighting by taking three of the witnesses to the actual location, and asking each of those witnesses to demonstrate where in the road they walked and exactly where each of them saw the man carrying a girl. This was done in daylight not nighttime, and no actors were used to represent the man carrying the girl. But the diligence was valuable - it enabled the witnesses to point out exactly what they did and saw, at the real location.
 

Only three out of nine took part.  The family were spread out with each seeing a different picture from the others.  The non-participation of all, particularly the two adults and older children, devalued the information gathering exercise using your criteria.

[Alice Purjorick]

Using actors is a waste of time.
Exact reproduction of the conditions is not needed - could be done in daylight.
It is necessary to have each witness individually, one at a time, re-enact what they did and saw.
Taking a real witness back to the real location enables the witness to more accurately show police where they walked and what they did and what they saw.

Right on Peggy. The reconstitution to use their term is to carry out an exercise of time, lapsed time, space and bodies (participants).
Then to have the bodies explain any discrepancies that show up between their statements and what occurs "on site" during the reconstitution
Simples. It does not need much brain power to work out why this is a good idea and that it has a quite different purpose from Crimewatch style reconstructions.
Any one who can't see it is imo being deliberately obtuse.

[pegasus]

Only three out of nine took part.  The family were spread out with each seeing a different picture from the others.  The non-participation of all, particularly the two adults and older children, devalued the information gathering exercise using your criteria.

Just to take one witness back to the real location and have them demonstrate where they walked and where they saw what they saw, is extremely valuable. To take three witnesses back is even more valuable. And that is what the PJ did ,at the Smith sighting diligence in PDL in late May 2007.

The PJ did a similar diligence with just JT, late on 4th May, they got her to show them where she walked, and where she saw what she saw, at the actual location.

[pegasus]

Right on Peggy. The reconstitution to use their term is to carry out an exercise of time, lapsed time, space and bodies (participants).
Then to have the bodies explain any discrepancies that show up between their statements and what occurs "on site" during the reconstitution
Simples. It does not need much brain power to work out why this is a good idea and that it has a quite different purpose from Crimewatch style reconstructions.
Any one who can't see it is imo being deliberately obtuse.

Yes.
The reconstruction using actors in the Cutting Edge documentary was of absolutely no value. However it also contains a valuable real diligence - with no actors - just JT demonstrating where she walked, and where she saw each thing.

[Countess Mayberry]

The PJ gained more precise information about the Smith sighting by taking three of the witnesses to the actual location, and asking each of those witnesses to demonstrate where in the road they walked and exactly where each of them saw the man carrying a girl. This was done in daylight not nighttime, and no actors were used to represent the man carrying the girl. But the diligence was valuable - it enabled the witnesses to point out exactly what they did and saw, at the real location.
 

Where is the evidence for this claim about the  Smiths? They did not make their claims about seeing a many carrying a child until the Mccanns had left Portugal. I was not aware any of the Smiths returned for a reconstruction although am prepared to stand corrected.