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

[Lyall]

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 the only reason 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?

This is why you are trying to have it both ways. I'm sure the McCanns did indeed think something like the above and that's why they didn't go, but you also at other times say they did themselves want to go but couldn't because their friends said no.

Which is it? &%+((£

[Alfred R Jones]

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.

JT's description was spot on as confirmed by the Met.

[Lyall]

JT's description was spot on as confirmed by the Met.

When there's no description of a face, it's poor.

[Alfred R Jones]

This is why you are trying to have it both ways. I'm sure the McCanns did indeed think something like the above and that's why they didn't go, but you also at other times say they did themselves want to go but couldn't because their friends said no.

Which is it? &%+((£

You didn't read my post properly did you?  Read it again.

[Alfred R Jones]

When there's no description of a face, it's poor.

How could she give a description of a face that she never even saw properly?  A question we could ask of the Smiths while we're at it.... &%+((£  In all other respects her description was spot on. 

[pathfinder73]

liars have to remember all their lies.

“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.”
― Mark Twain

[Alfred R Jones]

liars have to remember all their lies.

“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.”
― Mark Twain

LOL.  What good would truth tellers be in a "reconstitution" then?

[Lyall]

You didn't read my post properly did you?  Read it again.

I read it. So you're saying again they did want to go but their friends didn't?

[pathfinder73]

LOL.  What good would truth tellers be in a "reconstitution" then?

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

[Mr Gray]

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

I agree
It's very easy to see the McCann's are telling the truth

[stephen25000]

I am human and I make mistakes (as you do too)
But I do NOT do myths.

You will see that I have corected my mistake.  Thankyou for bringing it to my attention Faith.

You don't make myths ?


How about the 'BLOODLINE'. ?

[stephen25000]

I agree
It's very easy to see the McCann's are telling the truth

Your 'belief' doesn't make it a fact.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I agree
It's very easy to see the McCann's are telling the truth

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...

[DCI]

I read it. So you're saying again they did want to go but their friends didn't?

Seems that way, according to Rebelo.

Table of Contents : Processo Vol 16..(PDF page 223)...Page 4354-"Email from Rebelo to Prior re: Prosecutor Decision"

Vol 16 Page 4354 (Page 1 of 1)

Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo

From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo.
Date : 27th May 2008 10.25 a.m.
To : "Prior Stuart"
Subject : Re-enactment cancelation

(( Inserted here is an attachment labelled : Anulacao da reconstituticao.doc....))

Dear Stuart :

As agreed, here I send the Prosecutor's decision regarding the re-enactment cancelation. In a few words, it says that due the absence of the witnesses Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Mampilly, Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner, there are no conditions to perform the diligence.
I kindly request you to urgently transmit this decision to each one of the witnesses (Matthew, Rachael, Russell, Jane, Dianne, David, Fiona and Jeremy).

Thank you, again, for your cooperation.
Best regards
Paulo Rebelo
CSIC


Public Ministry of PortimaoCase SectionCase 201/07 GALGSDear SirPublic prosecutorKate Marie Healy arguida in the case referred to above, having been notified (page 3947) expresses her availability to participate in the reconstruction of the events on the second of the dates suggested, in other words on the 15 and 16th of next May. Her husband, Gerry McCann has also already expressed his availability.Rogerio AlvesLawyer(Sent by email)

[Alfred R Jones]

I read it. So you're saying again they did want to go but their friends didn't?

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...?