The reconstitution, lost opportunity or a folly?

[Carana]

According to the prosecutors the lack of this diligence was a lost opportunity for the McCanns;

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Have you worked out how it could prove them innocent? I really don't see how.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Have you worked out how it could prove them innocent? I really don't see how.

The exercise was not to prove them innocent or guilty! This has been explained in previous pages.
They were claiming to be innocent by explaining what happened that night, and they had the opportunity to show how what they said was true. If all the witness statements tied in with the Tapas statements.

There was a huge reward on offer...not many would pass up that chance to point the finger at someone!

[slartibartfast]

IMO once the police have formed their suspicions, then they are looking for further confirmation of their suspicions, not for any evidence to let their suspects off the hook.  That is why, if you are innocent (which I believe the Tapas group to be) you won’t be eager to play into the police’s hands, because something which may have simply been a genuine recall error (and many witnesses make them in their statements) could end up being used to further  reinforce the case the police are building against you.  At no point would a reconstitution have “proved their innocence”. it simply would not have been possible to do that, nor would it have helped to find Madeleine.  So, from the point of view of parents and friends innocent of hiding the child’s body, a reconstitution would have been at best a complete waste of time, at worst a threat to their future liberty. IMO.  Now ridicule away, as is your wont.

It appears to be leaving a stone unturned.

[Robittybob1]

The exercise was not to prove them innocent or guilty! This has been explained in previous pages.
They were claiming to be innocent by explaining what happened that night, and they had the opportunity to show how what they said was true. If all the witness statements tied in with the Tapas statements.

There was a huge reward on offer...not many would pass up that chance to point the finger at someone!

The only thing I can think of was that they all eagerly turn up and see if it was possible to for the PJ to organise a re-enactment.

[Robittybob1]

IMO once the police have formed their suspicions, then they are looking for further confirmation of their suspicions, not for any evidence to let their suspects off the hook.  That is why, if you are innocent (which I believe the Tapas group to be) you won’t be eager to play into the police’s hands, because something which may have simply been a genuine recall error (and many witnesses make them in their statements) could end up being used to further  reinforce the case the police are building against you.  At no point would a reconstitution have “proved their innocence”. it simply would not have been possible to do that, nor would it have helped to find Madeleine.  So, from the point of view of parents and friends innocent of hiding the child’s body, a reconstitution would have been at best a complete waste of time, at worst a threat to their future liberty. IMO.  Now ridicule away, as is your wont.

I don't disagree with what you are saying but "if you are innocent guilty you won’t be eager to play into the police’s hands, because something which may have simply been a genuine recall error (and many witnesses make them in their statements) could end up being used to further  reinforce the case the police are building against you.  .....

See how the same reasoning works both ways.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It appears to be leaving a stone unturned.

Not from the parents point of view it doesn’t and as that is their promise to Madeleine, I don’t see why it’s necessary for you to use their promise against them.

[slartibartfast]

Not from the parents point of view it doesn’t and as that is their promise to Madeleine, I don’t see why it’s necessary for you to use their promise against them.

Because it smacks of hypocrisy to me.

[Mr Gray]

Because it smacks of hypocrisy to me.

Well it doesn't to me... That's just your opinion

[Brietta]

I had one deleted yesterday.
I have no idea why.
It was a fair response to an earlier post.imo.
I did post again and it remained.
Puzzling??

On occasion a perfectly valid post can be inexplicably lost as a result of being a response to a post which which has been deleted.

[Erngath]

On occasion a perfectly valid post can be inexplicably lost as a result of being a response to a post which which has been deleted.

The original post wasn't deleted.
Not to worry.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Because it smacks of hypocrisy to me.

That is your opinion, but not one I share (am I allowed to say that?)

[Erngath]

That is your opinion, but not one I share (am I allowed to say that?)

I share your opinion.

[faithlilly]

I share your opinion.

Now there’s a surprise.

[Erngath]

Now there’s a surprise.

And your response is predictably unsurprising.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Now there’s a surprise.

And your opinion will come as no surprise either - I won’t ask it as I have been told not to but I can guess.