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

[Benice]

I didn't start the thread btw, I merely added an op and intro to posts which were taken originally from another thread.

My comment to Alfred was not intended as criticism and I apologise if that is how it came across.  The point however must be observed and that is that the Portuguese were not requesting a reconstruction with actors or police officers playing the respective parts. What they wanted was a full reenactment with the original participants taking part and doing exactly what they did on the night that Madeleine disappeared.

[/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.

[Miss Taken Identity]

[/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.

It would have been noted,  regardless of the time, that JT said she passed Gerry and Jez-  Gerry claimed she did not!.....He was quite adamant!

They all wrote down their timeline as Kate says 'it is all written down'...so why not act on what was written? 

well, we know why don't we.

Re Tannerman: so when he came forward was he asked :at what time did you cross the street from the creche?. Did you notice anyone else in the area? That would have to have been asked of him surely.

[Alice Purjorick]

Maybe the PJ wanted to check it out against the two time lines devised by the Tapas Group, one of which gives exact times, and the only independent timing which is Jez saying he met Gerry between 20:45 and 21:15.
It might have thrown up all sorts of things but the reconstitution did not take place, period. I find it hard to believe that The Met will not have carried out at least a desk top study based on the two time lines, the results of which have not been divulged save for DCI Redwood saying there was "a window of opportunity when an abduction could have taken place". Not you will note "did take place".

[Brietta]

As far as I was aware there is only one of me and I am speaking for myself, not the McCanns or anyone else.  The McCanns may very well have been happy to go back and do the "reconstitution" but it certainly would not have uncovered any lies or proven their innocence.  See, I can have it both ways!

Personally speaking for myself and as far as I am concerned ... I, me and myself are too tied up in a knot of hysterical laughter about what is being said to be bothered about contradicting anyone.

I would possibly be concerned if a reconstitution or whatever was pivotal to the present investigation ... but it is not ... and trying to wind the clock back to what should have been done is pointless.

I think that Paulo Rebelo had to do what the PJ and SY investigation had to do as well and that is to go back to the beginning of a thoroughly botched investigation and attempt to do what should have been done by the original co-ordinator ... and that was to hold a reconstitution.

[Benice]

It would have been noted,  regardless of the time, that JT said she passed Gerry and Jez-  Gerry claimed she did not!.....He was quite adamant!

They all wrote down their timeline as Kate says 'it is all written down'...so why not act on what was written? 

well, we know why don't we.

Re Tannerman: so when he came forward was he asked :at what time did you cross the street from the creche?. Did you notice anyone else in the area? That would have to have been asked of him surely.

You seem to have completely missed the point.   Maybe I didn't explain it very well.  Let me reiterate: 

JT said she left the table around 5 or 10 mins after Gerry.

So - during a recon. what time would she choose to leave the table after him?   5mins? 6 mins?  7 mins? 8 mins? 9mins? or 10 mins?     Remember -  she only had to be a couple of minutes out either way - to either be up the top of the street BEFORE Gerry had come out of 5A - if she went too soon -  or to be still sitting at the table when he returned - if she had wrongly guessed the time which had elapsed before she left after Gerry.
 
The same problem exists with Jez, he didn't know the exact time he set out for his walk.   He could only have a guess at it.   But if  he guessed at the wrong time then Gerry could have still be in 5A when Jez arrived.      What would he do then?  Carry on walking or hang about until Gerry emerged?     But then that would not be a true re-enactment of what he did a year prior would it?

What I would like to know is how the PJ deal would deal with this serious problem of 10 people only knowing approximate times - thus making it impossible for an accurate recon. to take place.

[Lyall]

Personally speaking for myself and as far as I am concerned ... I, me and myself are too tied up in a knot of hysterical laughter about what is being said to be bothered about contradicting anyone.

I would possibly be concerned if a reconstitution or whatever was pivotal to the present investigation ... but it is not ... and trying to wind the clock back to what should have been done is pointless.

I think that Paulo Rebelo had to do what the PJ and SY investigation had to do as well and that is to go back to the beginning of a thoroughly botched investigation and attempt to do what should have been done by the original co-ordinator ... and that was to hold a reconstitution.

In which case why not go back and do it? &%+((£

You are trying to have it both ways.

Mitchell signaled the reluctance in 2008 by saying it was felt a Crimewatch-like appeal around JT would be better, but in 2008 the Portuguese knew just as much as they did in May 2007 that JT's description was poor in and not only that but the exact time of that sighting wasn't known in any case. That may have been one objective of trying to get everyone to return.

[Alfred R Jones]

You seem to have completely missed the point.   Maybe I didn't explain it very well.  Let me reiterate: 

JT said she left the table around 5 or 10 mins after Gerry.

So - during a recon. what time would she choose to leave the table after him?   5mins? 6 mins?  7 mins? 8 mins? 9mins? or 10 mins?     Remember -  she only had to be a couple of minutes out either way - to either be up the top of the street BEFORE Gerry had come out of 5A - if she went too soon -  or to be still sitting at the table when he returned - if she had wrongly guessed the time which had elapsed before she left after Gerry.
 
The same problem exists with Jez, he didn't know the exact time he set out for his walk.   He could only have a guess at it.   But if  he guessed at the wrong time then Gerry could have still be in 5A when Jez arrived.      What would he do then?  Carry on walking or hang about until Gerry emerged?     But then that would not be a true re-enactment of what he did a year prior would it?

What I would like to know is how the PJ deal would deal with this serious problem of 10 people only knowing approximate times - thus making it impossible for an accurate recon. to take place.

I wonder how many different permutations of events that night there could actually be based on the vagueness of everyone's timelines, and not just the Tapas 9 - what about the Tapas staff member who said the alarm was raised by Kate between 9.30pm and 10pm?    There must be thousands if not millions of possible "reconstitutions" that would need to be done to ensure every possible option had been covered.

[Alfred R Jones]

In which case why not go back and do it? &%+((£

You are trying to have it both ways.

You seem to be conflating posters' views on this forum with those of the McCanns and their friends - do you believe they are one and the same?

[Lyall]

You seem to be conflating posters' views on this forum with those of the McCanns and their friends - do you believe they are one and the same?

  Pretty much.

[Alfred R Jones]

Pretty much.

Oh dear.

[Brietta]

In which case why not go back and do it? &%+((£

You are trying to have it both ways.

The decision not to return was made by people who sought certain assurances from the Portuguese authorities; when these were not forthcoming they made the decision not to return to Portuguese Jurisdiction.

You appear to dismiss my suggestion that Paulo Rebelo was involved in playing 'catch up' on diligences which should already have been carried out ... are you therefore suggesting the proposal of a reconstitution actually was an entrapment ... as it is possible the people who would not return believed it to be?
Bearing in mind that Jez Wilkins was a refusenik.   

[Brietta]

Pretty much.

 ... then what is your connection to Dr Amaral and his cohort?

[Lyall]

Oh dear.

The views, not the people

[Lyall]

The decision not to return was made by people who sought certain assurances from the Portuguese authorities; when these were not forthcoming they made the decision not to return to Portuguese Jurisdiction.

You appear to dismiss my suggestion that Paulo Rebelo was involved in playing 'catch up' on diligences which should already have been carried out ... are you therefore suggesting the proposal of a reconstitution actually was an entrapment ... as it is possible the people who would not return believed it to be?
Bearing in mind that Jez Wilkins was a refusenik.

No I think it was part of the the shelving of the case and probably they were being fair and trying to avoid having to leave so much doubt in the final conclusions reached.

I think long before April they'd already decided nothing was going to be achieved.

[Alfred R Jones]

Scenario: you have been asked  to take part in a "reconstitution" of a traumatic event that happened to you and your friends a year ago, ie: the mysterious disappearance of your friends' child.  You are led to believe that one of the key reasons for this "reconstitution" is to "demonstrate your friends' innocence" to the authorities, however you do not see how such a "reconstitution" would demonstrate anything apart from the inconsistencies between your various statements, inconsistencies which are perfectly normal as everyone will have slightly different memories of the event, but which you suspect may be used by the police as evidence of wrong-doing by you and your friends. This being the case - why take part, when you also know that taking part in a "reconstitution" of this nature will do nothing whatsoever to shed any light on the disappearance of the missing person and will certainly not prove or even demonstrate anyone's innocence?