A look at what constitutes evidence of an abduction versus hearsay and gossip.

[AnneGuedes]

This is one of their findings Anne:-

''We have conducted a forensic analysis of the timeline and there is clearly opportunity there for Madeleine MCann to have been removed from that apartment alive.''

This is another one:

Neither the McCanns nor any of the group who were with them are persons of interest or suspects in this case.

Not original nor precise findings !
1) Everybody's convinced there was opportunity for abduction. But not in the doxa terms, highly implausible. Note that Mr Redwood never said the abduction happened under the nose of Mr McCann (twice in the presence of the man without a face)
2) The Grange operation's task is to review abduction (+ eventual murder) and nothing else. It's not surprising that they don't suspect the McCanns or their holiday companions to have abducted Madeleine.

[AnneGuedes]

Only 4 out of the 10 hairs

Split hairs perhaps ?

[Benice]

Not original nor precise findings !
1) Everybody's convinced there was opportunity for abduction. But not in the doxa terms, highly implausible. Note that Mr Redwood never said the abduction happened under the nose of Mr McCann (twice in the presence of the man without a face)
2) The Grange operation's task is to review abduction (+ eventual murder) and nothing else. It's not surprising that they don't suspect the McCanns or their holiday companions to have abducted Madeleine.

SY believe Madeleine was the victim of stranger abduction.    What they don't know is what happened to her after she was abducted - and that is what they hope to find out.

They have said the  McCanns and their friends are not part of that equation.  That seems pretty 'precise' to me

[AnneGuedes]

SY believe Madeleine was the victim of stranger abduction.    What they don't know is what happened to her after she was abducted - and that is what they hope to find out.

They have said the  McCanns and their friends are not part of that equation.  That seems pretty 'precise' to me

Yes they didn't abduct their child, nor did the TP 7. I think we all agree on that.
But as you say SY "believe". As faith is not exactly what is expected from the self-called best police force on the planet, Mr Redwood's stutter speech sounds like submission to orders : find the abductor and, if not, find a reasonable exit out of that mess, because we're quite a lot of authorities or celebrities to have compromised ourselves in this case.

[Benice]

Yes they didn't abduct their child, nor did the TP 7. I think we all agree on that.
But as you say SY "believe". As faith is not exactly what is expected from the self-called best police force on the planet, Mr Redwood's stutter speech sounds like submission to orders : find the abductor and, if not, find a reasonable exit out of that mess, because we're quite a lot of authorities or celebrities to have compromised ourselves in this case.

Sorry Anne, but I have read that 3 times, and I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

[AnneGuedes]

The 4th time will do, Benice !

[Benice]

The 4th time will do, Benice !

Nope - still mystified.  Would you like to elucidate Anne?

[AnneGuedes]

I guess, Benice, you understood that police officers aren't expected to express opinions (I believe, I think, I would say, etc.)
I guess you understood as well the ineloquent speech of Mr Redwood reveals he would like to convince but isn't convinced, having not chosen to review this case but being the person in charge.
His final ambiguous statement is easy to interpret as a concern to find a "resolution out of this case".
Authorities and celebrities believed in the McCann doxa, they would hate to be ridiculed. Just a matter or pride.

[Benice]

I guess, Benice, you understood that police officers aren't expected to express opinions (I believe, I think, I would say, etc.)
I guess you understood as well the ineloquent speech of Mr Redwood reveals he would like to convince but isn't convinced, having not chosen to review this case but being the person in charge.
His final ambiguous statement is easy to interpret as a concern to find a "resolution out of this case".
Authorities and celebrities believed in the McCann doxa, they would hate to be ridiculed. Just a matter or pride.

I have found nothing ambiguous in his statements Anne.  He has clearly stated that he (and I presume he speaks for his whole team) believe that Madeliene was abducted by a stranger and that neither her parents nor their friends were involved in her abduction.   What could possibly be more clear than that?   

[AnneGuedes]

What could possibly be more clear than that?

A resolution instead of twisted words :
"I'm hopeful that when we pursue those lines of inquiry that we'll be able to bring some sort of resolution. Whether we'll be able to solve it is a different issue but I hope that we'll be able to make... have the ability to move the investigation on."
Very clear indeed !

[Carana]

A reconstruction would provide  crucial information

For instance,  it would demonstrate whether it was possible for a man to have been hiding in the children's bedroom,  and to have remained undiscovered when Gerry made his check

Why in the chidlren's bedroom necessarily? Someone could have been hiding in the parents' bedroom.

[Albertini]

It wouldn't have been the PJ pursuing a case, but the public prosecution service... which archived in full knowledge that the - tardy - reconstruction hadn't taken place.

How would a reconstruction a year later have proven anything?



- Unless you were trying to pass each other on a narrow ledge, how could anyone prove that JT could not have passed without two men engrossed in conversation noticing her pass by?

- What would have been the point about getting Kate back to recreate the circumstances about the door slamming? The PJ would have had to have brought in a wind machine calibrated for any known wind velocity at that time, or to have coordinated a reconstruction date with whichever deity decides on the weather. The PJ may have gone back there on their own anyway (there are photos of Rebelo et al at the apartment).

- What's the point of a physical reconstruction with so many of the other witnesses (staff, other holidaymakers...) absent?

Yes and the case was archived, precisely because the reconstruction had not taken place. This was mentioned specifcally in the final report.

The fact is that under the Portuguese penal code a reconstruction was required. The fact that you or indeed those who were asked to participate in may not see the validity of it is irrelevant.

It was an official part of the Portuguese investigation. One would expect witnesses not to be able to second guess the police's investigation strategies, nor question what benefit the investigators would gain from it and comply with what the official investigation needed to take the case forward.

If they did the recon and if they were confident in being able to remove any suspicion over them then they would have forced the investigation to have to look at abduction.

The PJ wanted it, the group refused, the case had to be shelved.

When taking a step back, and removing the names of the people involved it is quite frankly gob smacking that witnesses in a child's disappearance, can refuse to take part in a required part of the police's investigation becuase they (the witnesses) do not see the benefit of it to the investigation!

Who are they to say whether a reconstruction would have no benefit to the investigation that the investigators of the case required?

It is outrageous.

[Benice]

Yes and the case was archived, precisely because the reconstruction had not taken place. This was mentioned specifcally in the final report.

The fact is that under the Portuguese penal code a reconstruction was required. The fact that you or indeed those who were asked to participate in may not see the validity of it is irrelevant.

It was an official part of the Portuguese investigation. One would expect witnesses not to be able to second guess the police's investigation strategies, nor question what benefit the investigators would gain from it and comply with what the official investigation needed to take the case forward.

If they did the recon and if they were confident in being able to remove any suspicion over them then they would have forced the investigation to have to look at abduction.

The PJ wanted it, the group refused, the case had to be shelved.

When taking a step back, and removing the names of the people involved it is quite frankly gob smacking that witnesses in a child's disappearance, can refuse to take part in a required part of the police's investigation becuase they (the witnesses) do not see the benefit of it to the investigation!

Who are they to say whether a reconstruction would have no benefit to the investigation that the investigators of the case required?

It is outrageous.

If a reconstruction was so important and a legal requirement under Portuguese penal law  -  why didn't Amaral arrange one in the first few days when the same people were around and events were fresh in people's memories?   

[Chinagirl]

If a reconstruction was so important and a legal requirement under Portuguese penal law  -  why didn't Amaral arrange one in the first few days when the same people were around and events were fresh in people's memories?   

Quite, Benice.  Particularly as he has stated that he suspected the timelines given by the Tapas 9 were inaccurate right from the word go.

[Albertini]

If a reconstruction was so important and a legal requirement under Portuguese penal law  -  why didn't Amaral arrange one in the first few days when the same people were around and events were fresh in people's memories?   

I have no idea, you would need to ask him. Here's the final archiving report (the one McCann supporters use to claim "exoneration") and it's take on the cancelled reconstruction:

E – About the interest of the reconstruction
 
Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
 
1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
 
2 – The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;
 
3 – The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);
 
4 – What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. – the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings – and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy – at around 10 p.m.;
 
5 – The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
 
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
 
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
 
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; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.

Please note the following from that passage:

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; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.

Which then raises the question how can you be "exonerated" if you have failed to prove your innocence. But that is probably for another thread.