Diário de Notícias, 2 January, Interview with GA, please read!

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:No, not "full stop"

If, for example, they already knew their "friends" were unwilling and either had, or were going to, decline, then they can claim they are willing win the full knowledge that it wouldn't make it happen.

And I know full well that my comment is speculative, but it rather counters all these statements of "fact", I suggest.

Things taken in isolation often can be interpreted in different ways than if they were put into wider context.

It's the difference between accepting things at face value and actually looking at the wider picture.

Well the wider picture includes legal advice, advice from Prior and knowledge that the PJ had already tried to include Oldfield in the handling of the body of Madeleine and the attempt to get Kate to confess to the crime.

If the Tapas group knew they personally werent involved in anything illegal and believed the McCanns were not involved then why would they go against legal advice and possibly get themselves arguidoed for something they didnt do?

flower wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:No, not "full stop"

If, for example, they already knew their "friends" were unwilling and either had, or were going to, decline, then they can claim they are willing win the full knowledge that it wouldn't make it happen.

And I know full well that my comment is speculative, but it rather counters all these statements of "fact", I suggest.

Things taken in isolation often can be interpreted in different ways than if they were put into wider context.

It's the difference between accepting things at face value and actually looking at the wider picture.

Well the wider picture includes legal advice, advice from Prior and knowledge that the PJ had already tried to include Oldfield in the handling of the body of Madeleine and the attempt to get Kate to confess to the crime.

If the Tapas group knew they personally werent involved in anything illegal and believed the McCanns were not involved then why would they go against legal advice and possibly get themselves arguidoed for something they didnt do?

If they weren't involved and knew that.........then what harm would going back for a reconstruction do??.......... Surely it would only confirm their statements were correct??!!!.................

matthew wrote:

flower wrote:

matthew wrote:Hi,i agreed with you platinum...the mccanns were willing to go...but without their friends attendance.... the reconstruction depended on full attendance so basically was never happening & they knew it

but its there in black & white that the mccanns agreed to go

Yes they did............ what fantastic 'Friends' they have too - NOT................

Hi flower

Under the circumstances i think they were being friends

if the tapas had fears of being made arguido...so what...they could just jump on a plane asap after the recon

tanszi wrote:if i wasnt involved in anything and i knew i wasnt, i would go for a recon, but thats me cos ive got nothing to hide.

@Platinum

Nothing to add.

Amazing what can happen while on a loo break.

platinum wrote:

matthew wrote:Hi platinum,you have a point....the mccanns were willing to go at a later date but only if the other tapas went...but unfortunately their friends were really busy with work & shopping etc & could not see the point in a reconstruction so alas....

It didnt depend on the friends for the McCanns.

This shows that they were willing to go back full stop.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm#oa9p139

Its right at the end of the page.

Public Ministry of Portimao
Case Section
Case 201/07 GALGS


Dear Sir
Public prosecutor


Kate 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 Alves
Lawyer

10/08/2008



In April 2008, Paulo Rebelo gave a detailed response to the McCanns' friends about their arguments and doubts on the subject of the reconstruction of the events of May3rd. He stated that one of the conditions put forward by the group, that of first of all withdrawing Kate and Gerry's arguidos status - was impossible to accomplish, because only the Prosecutor held the legal power to do it, not the PJ.

On the subject of the reconstruction, the main problem for the McCanns' group of friends was clear: if the PJ believed their statements, then the reconstruction wasn't necessary, or the PJ were trying to obtain something strange with this activity.

They wanted to know what the PJ's true intentions were. After several exchanges of emails, going first through Stuart Prior, the Tapas 7 group were not convinced of the usefulness of such a reconstruction.

In the replies that followed, Kate and Gerry's friends placed as a condition, not only the lifting of the McCann couple's arguido status, but also the announcement of a press release by the PJ dispelling the lies published by the Portuguese media, emphasising that there was no suspicion about the seven friends.

As it was impossible to accept or accomplish these conditions, Paulo Rebelo, in an email addressed to Stuart Prior on April 29th, requested that a final decision was taken. Jane and Russel O'Brien were the first to respond, saying yes, but waiting for further advice from their lawyers. Rachel and Matthew sent a similar response, but stressing that they couldn't be in Portugal between May 15th and May 17th.

Diana, Fiona and David Payne also accepted, while waiting for advice from their lawyers. After the PJ's detailed explanations, Jeremy Wilkins was willing to participate, on conditon that the other witnesses were also in Portugal.

The criminal court took the decision to set a new date: 29th and 30th of May 2008. Then Gerald McCann requested a change to this new date, because his lawyer had another meeting planned before the Lisbon court, for May 29th. His request was refused because it was impossible to make a further revision of the date, due to the numbers of people involved.
On May 10th, Rachel and Matthew Oldfield sent an email to Stuart Prior, communicating their final decision to him: they would not be in Portugal to participate in the reconstruction. Russel O'Brien, also on May 10th, told the Superintendent that as he had learned that Jeremy Wilkins, the Oldfields and the Payne family had now decided not to go to Portugal, there was now no need for their presence, because the Prosecutor had said that the reconstruction could not take place unless all the witnesses were present.

On May 23rd, all seven of the McCanns' friends sent a formal reply to the Prosecutor's request for a reconstruction, saying that they would not be attending, after advice from their lawyers. The reconstruction was therefore cancelled by the Judge for the Court of Criminal Investigation, on May 26th 2008.



http://sosmaddie.blogs.dhnet.be/tag/reconstitution

flower wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:No, not "full stop"

If, for example, they already knew their "friends" were unwilling and either had, or were going to, decline, then they can claim they are willing win the full knowledge that it wouldn't make it happen.

And I know full well that my comment is speculative, but it rather counters all these statements of "fact", I suggest.

Things taken in isolation often can be interpreted in different ways than if they were put into wider context.

It's the difference between accepting things at face value and actually looking at the wider picture.

Well the wider picture includes legal advice, advice from Prior and knowledge that the PJ had already tried to include Oldfield in the handling of the body of Madeleine and the attempt to get Kate to confess to the crime.

If the Tapas group knew they personally werent involved in anything illegal and believed the McCanns were not involved then why would they go against legal advice and possibly get themselves arguidoed for something they didnt do?

If they weren't involved and knew that.........then what harm would going back for a reconstruction do??.......... Surely it would only confirm their statements were correct??!!!.................

Probably it would. But legal advice and probably fear of being banged up for something you didnt do would be very much to the forefront of their minds. I don't think they abandoned Madeleine. I do wonder what purpose the reconstruction after a year would have served. When such reconstructions are done in UK they are done to jog the publics minds but that was not going to happen with this one as the PJ were adamant it was not to be covered by the press. So they probably asked themselves what good would it actually do for Madeleine.

Odd nobody can explain the weird decision by the PJ not to have a reconstruction when it might actually have done some good.

@AnnaEsse

Exactly.

Wider context.

Not just taking things which superficially seem to bear out one's point of view in isolation.

The End Is Nigh wrote:@AnnaEsse

Exactly.

Wider context.

Not just taking things which superficially seem to bear out one's point of view in isolation.

Like ignoring legal advice and advice from UK police not to attend. Interesting the way the wider picture doesn't extend to the original reconstruction which the PJ refused either.

The reasons are quite different. Can't compare Apples and Pears.

And, for balance, I do think that an enforced early reconstruction would have been a jolly good idea.

Might have saved us years of fruitless debate and put miscreants where they belong.

The End Is Nigh wrote:The reasons are quite different. Can't compare Apples and Pears.

Never asked for a comparison. Just mentioned it all as part of the wider picture. A glaring error I would say on the part of the PJ.

An error indeed. I said as much myself.

Ergo, I'm not at all sure what you are ultimately getting at.

So, a question: Do you yourself think it wrong that at any point or for whatever reason (or apparent reason) a reconstruction has never taken place?

The End Is Nigh wrote:An error indeed. I said as much myself.

Ergo, I'm not at all sure what you are ultimately getting at.

So, a question: Do you yourself think it wrong that at ay point or for whatever reason (or apparent reason) a reconstruction has never taken place?

I think that there should have been a full reconstruction at the earliest possible time. I think the excuses given by the PJ via Goncalo Amaral in his book are simply daft.

I think that the reconstruction would have been of real use then. I also because I know how good reconstructions are for jogging the publics minds think that any such event should have been fully publicised. It is crazy to think that nobody in PDL or surrounding towns who wasnt going to be involved in the reconstruction might have seen something useful for example.

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:An error indeed. I said as much myself.

Ergo, I'm not at all sure what you are ultimately getting at.

So, a question: Do you yourself think it wrong that at ay point or for whatever reason (or apparent reason) a reconstruction has never taken place?

I think that there should have been a full reconstruction at the earliest possible time. I think the excuses given by the PJ via Goncalo Amaral in his book are simply daft.

I think that the reconstruction would have been of real use then. I also because I know how good reconstructions are for jogging the publics minds think that any such event should have been fully publicised. It is crazy to think that nobody in PDL or surrounding towns who wasnt going to be involved in the reconstruction might have seen something useful for example.

Crime scene reconstruction is not simply about jogging people's memories or looking for witnesses. It's also about analysing the sequence of events.

Crime scene reconstruction is the process of taking all available information, with a focus on physical evidence, to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding a crime, a suicide, or an accident. The crime scene reconstructionist seeks to determine:

What happened?
How did it happen?
Where did it happen?
Why did it happen?
When did it happen?
Who was involved?

It is important to understand that a crime scene reconstructionist can rarely make specific determinations about when a crime occurred; in other words, he will not often be able to say, "The victim was killed at 7:35 p.m. on Thursday." However, it is often possible to determine that one event occurred prior to another event, e.g., the suspect fired a shot at the victim before the victim fired back at the suspect.

http://www.knoxforensics.com/crime.php

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:An error indeed. I said as much myself.

Ergo, I'm not at all sure what you are ultimately getting at.

So, a question: Do you yourself think it wrong that at ay point or for whatever reason (or apparent reason) a reconstruction has never taken place?

I think that there should have been a full reconstruction at the earliest possible time. I think the excuses given by the PJ via Goncalo Amaral in his book are simply daft.

I think that the reconstruction would have been of real use then. I also because I know how good reconstructions are for jogging the publics minds think that any such event should have been fully publicised. It is crazy to think that nobody in PDL or surrounding towns who wasnt going to be involved in the reconstruction might have seen something useful for example.

Crime scene reconstruction is not simply about jogging people's memories or looking for witnesses. It's also about analysing the sequence of events.

Crime scene reconstruction is the process of taking all available information, with a focus on physical evidence, to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding a crime, a suicide, or an accident. The crime scene reconstructionist seeks to determine:

What happened?
How did it happen?
Where did it happen?
Why did it happen?
When did it happen?
Who was involved?

It is important to understand that a crime scene reconstructionist can rarely make specific determinations about when a crime occurred; in other words, he will not often be able to say, "The victim was killed at 7:35 p.m. on Thursday." However, it is often possible to determine that one event occurred prior to another event, e.g., the suspect fired a shot at the victim before the victim fired back at the suspect.

http://www.knoxforensics.com/crime.php

It is usually both. Not in this case though.

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:An error indeed. I said as much myself.

Ergo, I'm not at all sure what you are ultimately getting at.

So, a question: Do you yourself think it wrong that at ay point or for whatever reason (or apparent reason) a reconstruction has never taken place?

I think that there should have been a full reconstruction at the earliest possible time. I think the excuses given by the PJ via Goncalo Amaral in his book are simply daft.

I think that the reconstruction would have been of real use then. I also because I know how good reconstructions are for jogging the publics minds think that any such event should have been fully publicised. It is crazy to think that nobody in PDL or surrounding towns who wasnt going to be involved in the reconstruction might have seen something useful for example.

Crime scene reconstruction is not simply about jogging people's memories or looking for witnesses. It's also about analysing the sequence of events.

Crime scene reconstruction is the process of taking all available information, with a focus on physical evidence, to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding a crime, a suicide, or an accident. The crime scene reconstructionist seeks to determine:

What happened?
How did it happen?
Where did it happen?
Why did it happen?
When did it happen?
Who was involved?

It is important to understand that a crime scene reconstructionist can rarely make specific determinations about when a crime occurred; in other words, he will not often be able to say, "The victim was killed at 7:35 p.m. on Thursday." However, it is often possible to determine that one event occurred prior to another event, e.g., the suspect fired a shot at the victim before the victim fired back at the suspect.

http://www.knoxforensics.com/crime.php

It is usually both. Not in this case though.

Well, the McCanns' docu with their own reconstruction doesn't appear to have led to Madeleine's whereabouts. So, the best reason, I think, for ordering a reconstruction now, is to place all the main players back in the situation and see how the timelines fit or don't fit. Then questions can be asked about why.

With all the publicity there has been around this case, you'd think that if more witnesses were going to come forward, they'd have done so long before now.

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:An error indeed. I said as much myself.

Ergo, I'm not at all sure what you are ultimately getting at.

So, a question: Do you yourself think it wrong that at ay point or for whatever reason (or apparent reason) a reconstruction has never taken place?

I think that there should have been a full reconstruction at the earliest possible time. I think the excuses given by the PJ via Goncalo Amaral in his book are simply daft.

I think that the reconstruction would have been of real use then. I also because I know how good reconstructions are for jogging the publics minds think that any such event should have been fully publicised. It is crazy to think that nobody in PDL or surrounding towns who wasnt going to be involved in the reconstruction might have seen something useful for example.

Crime scene reconstruction is not simply about jogging people's memories or looking for witnesses. It's also about analysing the sequence of events.

Crime scene reconstruction is the process of taking all available information, with a focus on physical evidence, to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding a crime, a suicide, or an accident. The crime scene reconstructionist seeks to determine:

What happened?
How did it happen?
Where did it happen?
Why did it happen?
When did it happen?
Who was involved?

It is important to understand that a crime scene reconstructionist can rarely make specific determinations about when a crime occurred; in other words, he will not often be able to say, "The victim was killed at 7:35 p.m. on Thursday." However, it is often possible to determine that one event occurred prior to another event, e.g., the suspect fired a shot at the victim before the victim fired back at the suspect.

http://www.knoxforensics.com/crime.php

It is usually both. Not in this case though.

Well, the McCanns' docu with their own reconstruction doesn't appear to have led to Madeleine's whereabouts. So, the best reason, I think, for ordering a reconstruction now, is to place all the main players back in the situation and see how the timelines fit or don't fit. Then questions can be asked about why.

With all the publicity there has been around this case, you'd think that if more witnesses were going to come forward, they'd have done so long before now.

You could say that about lots of cases but I am pretty certain that the BBC programme has unearthed a few clues from cases way back when. Both reasons are valuable for reconstruction. Not just one.

And none of this gets round the fact that the best time of all would have been in the very early days when for whatever reason the PJ decided that it wasn't worth it.

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

I think that there should have been a full reconstruction at the earliest possible time. I think the excuses given by the PJ via Goncalo Amaral in his book are simply daft.

I think that the reconstruction would have been of real use then. I also because I know how good reconstructions are for jogging the publics minds think that any such event should have been fully publicised. It is crazy to think that nobody in PDL or surrounding towns who wasnt going to be involved in the reconstruction might have seen something useful for example.

Crime scene reconstruction is not simply about jogging people's memories or looking for witnesses. It's also about analysing the sequence of events.

Crime scene reconstruction is the process of taking all available information, with a focus on physical evidence, to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding a crime, a suicide, or an accident. The crime scene reconstructionist seeks to determine:

What happened?
How did it happen?
Where did it happen?
Why did it happen?
When did it happen?
Who was involved?

It is important to understand that a crime scene reconstructionist can rarely make specific determinations about when a crime occurred; in other words, he will not often be able to say, "The victim was killed at 7:35 p.m. on Thursday." However, it is often possible to determine that one event occurred prior to another event, e.g., the suspect fired a shot at the victim before the victim fired back at the suspect.

http://www.knoxforensics.com/crime.php

It is usually both. Not in this case though.

Well, the McCanns' docu with their own reconstruction doesn't appear to have led to Madeleine's whereabouts. So, the best reason, I think, for ordering a reconstruction now, is to place all the main players back in the situation and see how the timelines fit or don't fit. Then questions can be asked about why.

With all the publicity there has been around this case, you'd think that if more witnesses were going to come forward, they'd have done so long before now.

You could say that about lots of cases but I am pretty certain that the BBC programme has unearthed a few clues from cases way back when. Both reasons are valuable for reconstruction. Not just one.

And none of this gets round the fact that the best time of all would have been in the very early days when for whatever reason the PJ decided that it wasn't worth it.

As you say, clues are unearthed from cases way back when. Reconstructions have proved to be useful years after the crime. So, maybe SY should organise one and demand that all the key participants attend.

ETA: I didn't actually suggest that there could be just one reason. I used the word 'also.'

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:An error indeed. I said as much myself.

Ergo, I'm not at all sure what you are ultimately getting at.

So, a question: Do you yourself think it wrong that at ay point or for whatever reason (or apparent reason) a reconstruction has never taken place?

I think that there should have been a full reconstruction at the earliest possible time. I think the excuses given by the PJ via Goncalo Amaral in his book are simply daft.

I think that the reconstruction would have been of real use then. I also because I know how good reconstructions are for jogging the publics minds think that any such event should have been fully publicised. It is crazy to think that nobody in PDL or surrounding towns who wasnt going to be involved in the reconstruction might have seen something useful for example.

The police everywhere do rely on the co-operation of witnesses to help solve a case. Non co-operation on the part of witnesses because they personally feel the police do not believe what they are saying and fear of the police trying to pin a crime on them is stupid really. If you are telling the truth you have nothing to fear from co-operating. A reconstruction alone would have ironed out many discrepancies. The tapas group's statements bore many discrepancies; therefore how could the police believe them or otherwise? To my mind its not about the police trying to pin a crime on to someone, its about the police trying to complete an important part of the jigsaw of events that evening. This was supposed to be about an abduction so it could never be a true reconstruction in any event because the abductor would have been absent. As well as verifying timelines it is about the police attempting to verify just how the abductor could have entered and exited the apartment and the abductor certainly would not have been present to help. Plus, the tapas group between them cannot seem to agree on how the abductor carried out his deed, with many theories on their behalf having been put forward. Yes, the police should have carried out the reconstruction, yes it should have been done early on in the investigation, yes the witnesses should have co-operated whether they felt uneasy about it or not. Taking legal advice on such a matter thus making the decision not to attend leaves a person, in my view, open to adverse inference if ever a case was brought to court. Legal advisers usually advise against answering questions in case you jeopardise yourself. However, juries in a court of law tend to view non answering of questions and non co-operation in an adverse light, thinking such actions attach blame to the person. The McCanns, by agreeing initially to take part in a reconstruction, were boxing clever,trying to look as though they were co-operating, as were some of the others. However, at the end of the day, multiple decisions were made not to attend for one reason or another, which seemed to do with dates. A fine story really if you ask me. If they wanted to help the enquiry and co-operate fully, dates would have been agreed. I mean, they could all seem to agree dates to go on holiday together, but try to get them back for a reconstruction and its a different story. Some of them even appear to say that their own legal advisors could not make some of the dates. A jury would read between the lines I think. The tapas group therefore must hope this case never comes to a criminal trial because I would imagine a jury would take a dim view of their non co-operation with the police, whether their reasons were sincere or otherwise.

platinum wrote:

matthew wrote:Hi platinum,you have a point....the mccanns were willing to go at a later date but only if the other tapas went...but unfortunately their friends were really busy with work & shopping etc & could not see the point in a reconstruction so alas....

It didnt depend on the friends for the McCanns.

This shows that they were willing to go back full stop.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RE_ENACTMENT.htm#oa9p139

Its right at the end of the page.

Public Ministry of Portimao
Case Section
Case 201/07 GALGS


Dear Sir
Public prosecutor


Kate 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 Alves
Lawyer

As previously mentioned by another poster the Mccann's used their friends to get out of it. There is no way a reconstruction could run without their best friends The Paynes (or the rest et al) attending. To suggest otherwise is as disingenuous as their expressions of availability.

Paynes re: non-attendance at reconstruction"

Vol 17 Page 4419 (Page 1 of 1)

Fiona and David Payne
xx Knxxxxxx Chxxxx Roxx
Leicester
UK
LEx 3xx
Servicos do Ministerio Publico de Portimao
Av Miguel Bombarda
Palacio da Justica
2 Piso
8501-960 Portimao

22nd May 2008

Dear Maria Luisa,

We are in receipt of your letter dated 9th May 2008 Ref 3951281

Following great consideration, we regret to inform you that we do not wish to attend the proposed re-enactment in Portugal.

Kind Regards

Yours sincerely

Fiona and David Payne

platinum wrote:

The Tapas group took advice from lawyers and from UK police about attending as I understand it. Their decisions were probably based on the advice they got. If I remember correctly Oldfield had already been put in the frame at the rogatories so its not surprising if he knew he wasnt involved he wouldnt go back. Nobody in their right mind would.

This is definitly the crux of the matter. The Mccann's received legal advice to say that it would look bad if they refused!
I'm not sure what you mean about 'Oldfield' being put in the frame? I also find it surprising that he wouldn't go back if he wasn't involved in anything. Please expand as I'm evidently missing something.

platinum wrote:

If the Tapas group knew they personally werent involved in anything illegal and believed the McCanns were not involved then why would they go against legal advice and possibly get themselves arguidoed for something they didnt do?

This bit confuses me as well. Kate and Gerry Mccann have said that in actuality there are no negative connotations to being an arguido and in fact it merely means that they are a person of interest and it is just something done to ensure that they receive certain legal protections so what would be the harm in going there and getting 'possibly arguidoed?' if they are innocent? and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise is there?

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:An error indeed. I said as much myself.

Ergo, I'm not at all sure what you are ultimately getting at.

So, a question: Do you yourself think it wrong that at ay point or for whatever reason (or apparent reason) a reconstruction has never taken place?

I think that there should have been a full reconstruction at the earliest possible time. I think the excuses given by the PJ via Goncalo Amaral in his book are simply daft.

I think that the reconstruction would have been of real use then. I also because I know how good reconstructions are for jogging the publics minds think that any such event should have been fully publicised. It is crazy to think that nobody in PDL or surrounding towns who wasnt going to be involved in the reconstruction might have seen something useful for example.

Just a note to add that Crimewatch often does reconstructions based on events from years previously and they are the majority of the time inundated with people responding.

Loopdaloop wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:An error indeed. I said as much myself.

Ergo, I'm not at all sure what you are ultimately getting at.

So, a question: Do you yourself think it wrong that at ay point or for whatever reason (or apparent reason) a reconstruction has never taken place?

I think that there should have been a full reconstruction at the earliest possible time. I think the excuses given by the PJ via Goncalo Amaral in his book are simply daft.

I think that the reconstruction would have been of real use then. I also because I know how good reconstructions are for jogging the publics minds think that any such event should have been fully publicised. It is crazy to think that nobody in PDL or surrounding towns who wasnt going to be involved in the reconstruction might have seen something useful for example.

Just a note to add that Crimewatch often does reconstructions based on events from years previously and they are the majority of the time inundated with people responding.

Exactly. Any reconstruction should be for the public as well as the police. They have been known to bring in untold clues from cases much older than this.

Sometimes ignorance gets tiring. The reconstruction could NEVER be released to the public because that would mean breaking a PORTUGUESE law. It's as simple as that. Just because it is done in a certain way somewhere else it doesn't mean it has to be done the same way everywhere. And the arrogance that THAT is the way is quite annoying although not surprising at all.

platinum wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:An error indeed. I said as much myself.

Ergo, I'm not at all sure what you are ultimately getting at.

So, a question: Do you yourself think it wrong that at ay point or for whatever reason (or apparent reason) a reconstruction has never taken place?

I think that there should have been a full reconstruction at the earliest possible time. I think the excuses given by the PJ via Goncalo Amaral in his book are simply daft.

I think that the reconstruction would have been of real use then. I also because I know how good reconstructions are for jogging the publics minds think that any such event should have been fully publicised. It is crazy to think that nobody in PDL or surrounding towns who wasnt going to be involved in the reconstruction might have seen something useful for example.

Just a note to add that Crimewatch often does reconstructions based on events from years previously and they are the majority of the time inundated with people responding.

Exactly. Any reconstruction should be for the public as well as the police. They have been known to bring in untold clues from cases much older than this.

Either way, they and their friends still did not bother...

jinvta wrote:I don't believe for a minute that the McCanns actually wanted to do the reconstruction. They used their friends to get out of it. Of course if the McCanns and their friends were truly interested in finding out what happened to Madeleine, the McCanns would have pleaded for their friends to attend, and the friends would have gladly helped. But, as we know, things did not go this way, as none of the tapas group or even the McCanns themselves, gives a $#!+ about finding out what happened to Madeleine. Why? Most likely because they already know, but don't want anyone else to know.

" They used their friends to get out of it"
SPOT ON Jinvta That is just what I was thinking,and maybe Mitchell had a little word with them all.

Platinum wrote:-


Well the wider picture includes legal advice, advice from Prior and
knowledge that the PJ had already tried to include Oldfield in the
handling of the body of Madeleine and the attempt to get Kate to confess
to the crime. "

I have never , ever, read anything remotely like this concerning Oldfield and would ask Platinum to provide the source.

The truth about Leonor Cipriano (mother of "another missing girl"…) "beaten" and "tortured" by Chief-Inspector Gonçalo Amaral
Paulo Reis
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2007/07/truth-about-leonor-cipriano-mother-of.html

Panda wrote:Platinum wrote:-


Well the wider picture includes legal advice, advice from Prior and
knowledge that the PJ had already tried to include Oldfield in the
handling of the body of Madeleine and the attempt to get Kate to confess
to the crime. "

I have never , ever, read anything remotely like this concerning Oldfield and would ask Platinum to provide the source.

Me too, as l've never read such a thing!

margaret wrote:

Panda wrote:Platinum wrote:-


Well the wider picture includes legal advice, advice from Prior and
knowledge that the PJ had already tried to include Oldfield in the
handling of the body of Madeleine and the attempt to get Kate to confess
to the crime. "

I have never , ever, read anything remotely like this concerning Oldfield and would ask Platinum to provide the source.

Me too, as l've never read such a thing!

Page 123 - Madeleine (Kate McCann)

I sat in the waiting area for eight hours before I was told that it was now too late for me to be interviewed and I should go home and come back the next day. Gerry was there for thirteen hours.

When he finally returned to the apartment he related how Matt had been almost hysterical during his interview. Gerry had heard him shouting and crying. Apparently, it had been put to Matt that he’d handed Madeleine out through the window to a third party. It was like something out of Life on Mars.

Well I have read both Kate McCanns book and Goncalo Amarals book as I want to see what everybody has to say. That is from Kate McCanns book.