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

[Alfred R Jones]

It's easy to spot liars and that's where the truth lies.

The PJ had ample opportunity to "spot liars" when they questioned the McCanns and their friends - a "reconstitution" would not have made it any easier to spot liars, unless you can explain to me how it would have?

[Benice]

About what the time line?  So you are saying JT is a liar? and that she didn't see the 'abductor' as she passed by Gerry and Jez...Which honest Gerry denies happened?


Anyway, to clarify. The timeline was not going to be a synchronized watch- nano second by nano second scrutiny.

There had to be a start time- middle bit- and Kate's end bit!

Start time....when they met for dinner-were served
Middle bit... JT seeing the abductor WHILST JW and GM were in the same vicinity at the same time(chance for collaboration) oops look a discrepancy already!
End bit... Kate raises the alarm.

This does not include windows open -shut-which doors were locked -unlocked. whooshing curtains and all that.

There were three very valid reasons for it being done.
1. There was suspicion about the events surrounding Maddies disappearance
2.  Alice already mentioned - there were two time lines!  why?
3. They wanted to establish if there was an opportunity for an abductor to enter and leave the apartment with a young child.

This is called an investigation.You know the one which the McCanns denied was going on...

IIRC the start time of the recon was to be 5.30pm -  until 11.00p.m.

According to DCI Redwood  - SY's Forensic Analysis of the timelines has established that there was clear opportunity for Madeleine to have been taken from the apartment.

Since establishing that fact  - the timeline was extended as a result of the identification of the man seen by JT.

To clarify:  - Gerry has never questioned JT's sighting or even implied that she was lying.

[Alice Purjorick]

About what the time line?  So you are saying JT is a liar? and that she didn't see the 'abductor' as she passed by Gerry and Jez...Which honest Gerry denies happened?


Anyway, to clarify. The timeline was not going to be a synchronized watch- nano second by nano second scrutiny.

There had to be a start time- middle bit- and Kate's end bit!

Start time....when they met for dinner-were served
Middle bit... JT seeing the abductor WHILST JW and GM were in the same vicinity at the same time(chance for collaboration) oops look a discrepancy already!
End bit... Kate raises the alarm.

This does not include windows open -shut-which doors were locked -unlocked. whooshing curtains and all that.

There were three very valid reasons for it being done.
1. There was suspicion about the events surrounding Maddies disappearance
2.  Alice already mentioned - there were two time lines!  why?
3. They wanted to establish if there was an opportunity for an abductor to enter and leave the apartment with a young child.

This is called an investigation.You know the one which the McCanns denied was going on...

It's the middle bit that is interesting. For example Jane Tanner left the table at 21:20 to 21:25 depending on which timeline you wish to believe.
So she was passing Jez and Gerry at say 21:21 to 21:26 by which time according to Jez he was long gone.
Not saying anything like other than it is an anomaly which the fuzz might like to resolve and possibly a reconstitution might help to effect same.

[Lyall]

They (the McCanns) said they were prepared to go, I've no reason to think otherwise - their friends however were clearly not keen, and my scenario was describing it from their point of view.  Now maybe you can answer the question I posed at the end of it...?

You're not actually doing them any favour with your spin. At the same time they were failing to cooperate with the Portuguese, because - your argument seems to go - even the T7 knew better than police, they were also blowing an incredible amount of money on very useless detectives. It looks far from good.

Just be honest and say none of them wanted to return to Portugal while they still had arguido status.

People can disagree on why they didn't but it does you no good to deny it.

[Alfred R Jones]

You're not actually doing them any favour with your spin. At the same time they were failing to cooperate with the Portuguese, because - your argument seems to go - even the T7 knew better than police, they were also blowing an incredible amount of money on very useless detectives. It looks far from good.

Just be honest and say none of them wanted to return to Portugal while they still had arguido status.

People can disagree on why they didn't but it does you no good to deny it.

My spin?  I said that the McCanns said they were prepared to go - which is a fact.  I also said I have no reason to disbelieve them - which is also a fact.  So I suggest you do yourself a favour and learn to read and understand my posts before insulting me or my integrity again.  I certainly will not speak for the McCanns or their friends or Jez Wilkins, which is what it seems you are insisting I do.  Why?

[John]

[/b]

But 10 people would need to remember the EXACT times they did different things to be able to do that  -and that is the one thing they DIDN'T know!    They could only give approximate times.

How would it have been perceived by the PJ  if say - JT  for instance  - wrongly calculated the time she left the table after Gerry - by a couple of minutes at the recon.  - and so ended up passing him a few yards from the table - instead of halfway up the street outside? 

Can someone please tell me  - What would happen then?   Because IMO all that would prove is that she had guessed the wrong amount of time which had elapsed between Gerry leaving the table - and when she herself  left it.

When you put a dozen witnesses in a room and ask them to replicate what occurred on a previous occasion you will usually get a result of sorts.  Unfortunately, since most of the tapas 9 were drinking that evening I fear the results may not be as focussed as one would like.  However, that said, the detectives would be looking for any signs of inconsistency and divergences from the original statements and if found I have no doubt some explaining would be required.

Remember also that there are two potential sites within Luz where sightings have been claimed.  The PJ would possibly run both reenactments together to establish exactly where everyone was that we know about.  That in itself could very well have put to bed the oft mentioned contention that it was Gerry who was seen down town by the Smiths.

Which brings me to the issue of why wasn't Gerry asked to take part in a reenactment for the benefit of the Smiths.  That again would hopefully have shown once and for all that Martin Smith's original identification was mistaken. 

[Miss Taken Identity]

IIRC the start time of the recon was to be 5.30pm -  until 11.00p.m.

According to DCI Redwood  - SY's Forensic Analysis of the timelines has established that there was clear opportunity for Madeleine to have been taken from the apartment.

Since establishing that fact  - the timeline was extended as a result of the identification of the man seen by JT.

To clarify:  - Gerry has never questioned JT's sighting or even implied that she was lying.

I have no idea why you are replying to my post abut why there was no reconstitution back in the day. That is the thread headline!

It makes no sense to quote what SY have done - this is hindsight it adds nothing to the then investigation which is what we are discussing.

*But if you insist it should also be mentioned that SY could also have implied there was clear opportunity for other theories to be followed!*  They have also mentioned and highlighted the importance of 'Smithman'.

Anyway, back to thread...To  clarify  your clarification: JT Claimed she passed by JW and GM and that is when she saw what we now know was NOT the 'abductor' .  GM said JT did not pass them....so, in your opinion he is not calling her a liar?  Shall we just skip over the bits you don't feel comfortable about or reinvent another timeline to absolve everyone from having anything to do with anything.


Yes Alice, the 'middle' bits are very interesting indeed. The devil is in the detail. Back in the day the police could not make any sense of what was going on- or make any sense of their account of what happened. much the same today- no one seems to be able to solve this mystery with the accounts given by the K&G M and Tapas.  It just doesn't add up!

[Lyall]

My spin?  I said that the McCanns said they were prepared to go - which is a fact.  I also said I have no reason to disbelieve them - which is also a fact.  So I suggest you do yourself a favour and learn to read and understand my posts before insulting me or my integrity again.  I certainly will not speak for the McCanns or their friends or Jez Wilkins, which is what it seems you are insisting I do.  Why?

It's easy to say in late May yes we'll go when they knew it wasn't going to happen anyway.

Mitchell began objecting in early April. The rogatory interviews were in early April. The TV interviews with the McCanns - in which they too raise objections - were in early May. By the end of May everyone knew it wasn't happening anyway.

[stephen25000]

When you put a dozen witnesses in a room and ask them to replicate what occurred on a previous occasion you will usually get a result of sorts.  Unfortunately, since most of the tapas 9 were drinking that evening I fear the results may not be as focussed as one would like.  However, that said, the detectives would be looking for any signs of inconsistency and divergences from the original statements and if found I have no doubt some explaining would be required.

If by some chance there was a 'reconstitution', it would be clearly devalued as the chief participants have no doubt colluded, since then.

[John]

If by some chance there was a 'reconstitution', it would be clearly devalued as the chief participants have no doubt colluded, since then.

Yes, a good point Stephen, all the more reason it should have been done 7 years ago.

[Benice]

I have no idea why you are replying to my post abut why there was no reconstitution back in the day. That is the thread headline!

It makes no sense to quote what SY have done - this is hindsight it adds nothing to the then investigation which is what we are discussing.

*But if you insist it should also be mentioned that SY could also have implied there was clear opportunity for other theories to be followed!*  They have also mentioned and highlighted the importance of 'Smithman'.

Anyway, back to thread...To  clarify  your clarification: JT Claimed she passed by JW and GM and that is when she saw what we now know was NOT the 'abductor' .  GM said JT did not pass them....so, in your opinion he is not calling her a liar?  Shall we just skip over the bits you don't feel comfortable about or reinvent another timeline to absolve everyone from having anything to do with anything.


Yes Alice, the 'middle' bits are very interesting indeed. The devil is in the detail. Back in the day the police could not make any sense of what was going on- or make any sense of their account of what happened. much the same today- no one seems to be able to solve this mystery with the accounts given by the K&G M and Tapas.  It just doesn't add up!

No he didn't.   He said he didn't see her.   That is not the same as saying she didn't pass by - by any stretch of the imagination.     

I'm not insisting on anything - just posting my opinion.  If you don't like it - I have others.

[Miss Taken Identity]

If by some chance there was a 'reconstitution', it would be clearly devalued as the chief participants have no doubt colluded, since then.

Good Point Stephen, but they would then have to  explain any changes to the previous two 'written' timelines.

 Their non cooperation is a sure let down to their daughter. It is a very  sad situation.  The Tapas silence is eeerie to say the least- that also makes me feel uneasy about this whole business.

[Benice]

When you put a dozen witnesses in a room and ask them to replicate what occurred on a previous occasion you will usually get a result of sorts.  Unfortunately, since most of the tapas 9 were drinking that evening I fear the results may not be as focussed as one would like.  However, that said, the detectives would be looking for any signs of inconsistency and divergences from the original statements and if found I have no doubt some explaining would be required.

Remember also that there are two potential sites within Luz where sightings have been claimed.  The PJ would possibly run both reenactments together to establish exactly where everyone was that we know about.  That in itself could very well have put to bed the oft mentioned contention that it was Gerry who was seen down town by the Smiths.

Which brings me to the issue of why wasn't Gerry asked to take part in a reenactment for the benefit of the Smiths.  That again would hopefully have shown once and for all that Martin Smith's original identification was mistaken.

Tests carried out on people on occasions such as you mention resulted in a massive diversity of memories - when those people were asked to recall what had happened.

It has been proved that memories are notoriously fallible and different people have differing levels of the power of recall and also different 'ideas' of time and distance.    As the passage of time gets longer before being asked to recall an event - the accuracy of those memories being recalled becomes even more unreliable

[Miss Taken Identity]

No he didn't.   He said he didn't see her.   That is not the same as saying she didn't pass by - by any stretch of the imagination.     

I'm not insisting on anything - just posting my opinion.  If you don't like it - I have others.

...And it really does stretch the imagination for some!  three people on the same small pavement? he didn't see her..Oh ok.


I have no opinion of your posts at all- why would I care what your opinion is? I am indifferent to how many posts you make or the content.

I was pointing out that you interjected a statement which was not in keeping with the discussion at the period of time. You could have said 'with hindsight.....

 The tricks and spin are not as subtle as some would like. lol

[Miss Taken Identity]

Tests carried out on people on occasions such as you mention resulted in a massive diversity of memories - when those people were asked to recall what had happened.

It has been proved that memories are notoriously fallible and different people have differing levels of the power of recall and also different 'ideas' of time and distance.    As the passage of time gets longer before being asked to recall an event - the accuracy of those memories being recalled becomes even more unreliable

Everyone in my office remembers their "five times table"- we all learned at different times and places, but the five times table never changed at all! Funny how we all remembered that...