Rumours of a Reconstruction

Just rumours at the moment of course, without confirmation.

Strictly hypothetically speaking, if a recon were to be held in PT in April (as the rumours purport) perhaps the inevitable discrepancies that it would throw up would be enough for the PJ to re-open the case?

Any legal eagles on here? Would SY be able to compel the Tapas and the McDonuts to attend? Or can only the PJ do that?

ShabbyTiger wrote:Just rumours at the moment of course, without confirmation.

Strictly hypothetically speaking, if a recon were to be held in PT in April (as the rumours purport) perhaps the inevitable discrepancies that it would throw up would be enough for the PJ to re-open the case?

Any legal eagles on here? Would SY be able to compel the Tapas and the McDonuts to attend? Or can only the PJ do that?

Surely no compulsion required. The Sunday Express said only 10 days ago:

The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said they and their friends would do everything to assist attempts to discover what happened to Madeleine.

ShabbyTiger wrote:Just rumours at the moment of course, without confirmation.

Strictly hypothetically speaking, if a recon were to be held in PT in April (as the rumours purport) perhaps the inevitable discrepancies that it would throw up would be enough for the PJ to re-open the case?

Any legal eagles on here? Would SY be able to compel the Tapas and the McDonuts to attend? Or can only the PJ do that?

Where has this rumour come from?

Yes, according to the Pink Pratt they should all be positively hurtling over to PT for the reconstruction! I'll believe it when I see it. They refused back in 2008 for increasingly spurious and pathetic reasons. They refused to help in the case of a missing child. Let's just hope that SY have the remit to force them to attend. Or at least face some serious questioning.

LJC wrote:

ShabbyTiger wrote:Just rumours at the moment of course, without confirmation.

Strictly hypothetically speaking, if a recon were to be held in PT in April (as the rumours purport) perhaps the inevitable discrepancies that it would throw up would be enough for the PJ to re-open the case?

Any legal eagles on here? Would SY be able to compel the Tapas and the McDonuts to attend? Or can only the PJ do that?

Where has this rumour come from?

I believe that it was recently posted as a comment on Fartin C*nt's Sky blog.

There will never be a reconstruction involving the mccanns

Lioned wrote:There will never be a reconstruction involving the mccanns

I think they are running out of wriggle room.
'Just call me Dave' as seen to that.

The mccanns will be suspects supposedly if the case is reopened....


In most cases to catch the culprit you try to 'entice' the witnesses or the people close to them into a false sense off security in the hope that one will crack.

Chris wrote:

ShabbyTiger wrote:Just rumours at the moment of course, without confirmation.

Strictly hypothetically speaking, if a recon were to be held in PT in April (as the rumours purport) perhaps the inevitable discrepancies that it would throw up would be enough for the PJ to re-open the case?

Any legal eagles on here? Would SY be able to compel the Tapas and the McDonuts to attend? Or can only the PJ do that?

Surely no compulsion required. The Sunday Express said only 10 days ago:

The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said they and their friends would do everything to assist attempts to discover what happened to Madeleine.

Sorry chris, after nearly 5years following this case, the one thing I kno about this case is that the McCanns say one thing and do the other, if there is a recon imo the lot of them will have to be dragged back by their hair, whether its by the PJ or SY they will have to fight them tooth and nail, you wait and see.

Clarence Mitchell quoted about the proposed reconstruction in 2008

"Kate and Gerry McCann could be back to Portugal next month, at the request of the Judicial Police (PJ), who wants to reconstruct the events of the night of Madeleine's disappearance on 3 May last year. But, according to family spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, the couple should only consider a trip to Portugal if the status of the accused is removed.

"Right now, the bar associations are not to return to Portugal as their names remain as defendants in the process. Of course if the Portuguese police did a review of this statute, a collaboration in the recovery of the facts would be much easier, "said Clarence Mitchell, speaking to JN.".....

"refund has televising the events in Portugal and abroad, to "raise awareness and bring greater hope that Madeleine is found," he said. Still, the McCanns say they are open to cooperate with the PJ "since they feel that their collaboration can help find Maddie and help prove the innocence of the couple."

However, an impediment may be the psychological state of Kate who claims not feel prepared to review the events. Since his return to the United Kingdom, September 7, Kate and Gerry did not return to Portugal and, since they were made arguidos, always said that only if the country would visit PJ withdraw the statute."

http://www.jn.pt/paginainicial/interior.aspx?content_id=930517&page=-1

Apologies for google translate version.

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

Chris wrote:

ShabbyTiger wrote:Just rumours at the moment of course, without confirmation.

Strictly hypothetically speaking, if a recon were to be held in PT in April (as the rumours purport) perhaps the inevitable discrepancies that it would throw up would be enough for the PJ to re-open the case?

Any legal eagles on here? Would SY be able to compel the Tapas and the McDonuts to attend? Or can only the PJ do that?

Surely no compulsion required. The Sunday Express said only 10 days ago:

The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said they and their friends would do everything to assist attempts to discover what happened to Madeleine.

Sorry chris, after nearly 5years following this case, the one thing I kno about this case is that the McCanns say one thing and do the other, if there is a recon imo the lot of them will have to be dragged back by their hair, whether its by the PJ or SY they will have to fight them tooth and nail, you wait and see.

It was a little tongue in cheek.

Having said that if SY called for a reconstruction could they easily refuse? After the petition for a review, a letter to Cameron and the allocation of £3.5 million of public money it would be a bit of a PR disaster not to go along with any request from SY. I am sure there would be a "lot of problems" in all attending and "don't remembers" but refusal isn't really on the cards.

I have a feeling that any 'Dear Andy' letters will fall on stony ground - as opposed to the 'Dear Stu' ones.

almostgothic wrote:I have a feeling that any 'Dear Andy' letters will fall on stony ground - as opposed to the 'Dear Stu' ones.

Yes indeed!

They ALL managed to shuffle their schedules into unison to go on that fateful holiday in spite of some busy careers and lots of tiny tots, and so I absolutely agree that refusals and/or excuses to opt out of a reconstruction wouldn't be on the cards.

The purpose of a reconstruction was always to incriminate the mccanns and their mates,there are no other players in the equation.

I tend to agree, but the discrepancies in the Statements and the ever changing time-lines surely provide Evidential doubt about the story they purport (!!!) to tell?

This is what really bewilders me - surely there is sufficient in the public domain, let alone what may lie in unpublished files, to bring a Case anyway?

Ok, a reconstruction may bring some of those doubts into sharper relief but, if it doesn't happen, it ought not to matter. Yet I have a feeling it actually will matter.

Trouble is discrepancies in statements are probably not uncommon and tend to prove very little except that some may be lying,which would tend,offcourse, to incriminate some perhaps but doesn't prove a jot as far as Maddies 'disappearance' is concerned.A reconstruction may possibly sharpen up the time lines but is otherwise meaningless apart from proving some are lying which we pretty much (and i guess the Police) already know.
That said,if you could prove that gerry was not accounted for at the time of the Smith sighting then that would mean something i suppose.