Panorama:Madeleine:The Last Hope...Thur 3rd May

jd16 wrote:

I have read this comment on Panorama, from Bren:
«About the reconstruction in May 2007 when Madeleine disappeared, in Goncalo Amarals book, he clearly states that the reconstruction was not carried out because the PJ decided against it... the McCanns wanted this reconstruction.»

Not true. If you read the PJ files there are a number of emails/letters from the PJ to the T9 trying to get them to take part in a reconstruction, which the T9 were doing their level best no to & get out from. It was the T9 that said they could not take part in a reconstruction, they were the ones who replied to the request saying they had decided not to take part. It is all there documented in the PJ files...maybe idiots like bren should read up on the facts first before spouting such blatant lies about the truth

From the McCanns' site:
http://www.findmadeleine.com/updates/updates@page=1.html

The proposed reconstruction: The suggestion of a reconstruction of our movements and other key witnesses at the crime scene and/or surrounding area in the early days following Madeleine's abduction was declined by the PJ as 'not usual' for Portugal. When the PJ finally requested a reconstruction to take place in 2008, Gerry and I were still arguidos and as such would have attended for a reconstruction. Some key witnesses (including some of our friends)declined to attend the planned reconstruction as they were not convinced of the aims and usefulness of it. In particular, as the reconstruction was not to be shown to the media (and hence the general public), they did not feel it would help to find Madeleine. Had the intention been to show it to the general public, it may have 'jogged' memories and encouraged people to come forward with information. It should be added that other key witnesses were not invited to attend.

Comments about this claim at: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html?cdForum=FxQ9BDPD12JT49&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=TxVZXUYR910KPY

Comment 1.

What she is referring to is when the Neglectful duo asked the police to do a Crimewatch style reconstruction, but the police declined and only wanted to do one which was for them only. Which would never be show on telly. The Duo were not happy about this (I assume because they would not get any air time). The friends started to leave the country and it never materilised.

When the police said it was not usual for Portugal they meant showing it on telly because of the secrecy law. Kate yet again is stretching the truth.

Comment 2.
The reason why the PJs refused to mount a 'crime watch' style reconstruction was because in Portugal they prefer to do them with the actual people involved, as opposed to actors, because they can give clarification as issues arise. This makes perfect sense to me.

I also recall from Amaral's book that they reason why Kate objected to a reconstruction involving just her and Gerry, was because she was concerned about what her parents and the media would think. Pretty sure it was in the book I read this, but will double check.

Thanks to all of you for those explanations.

Yes, I can see how TM stretched the truth about that reconstruction.. They are used to it aren't they?

Good job for those who were busy this weekend fighting for Justice.

Could not help as I struggle to make a coherent sentence in English, without any mistakes

But I can see your hard work every day, for the last 5 years..

I have read almost all the comments on Panorama, and I have to say that it makes me sad, really sad... We just want the truth for a defenceless little girl, and it seems almost impossible to obtain...

I hope there will be a transcript for that show, I have some problems to understand your British accent

From Amaral's book: (Chapter 5)

RECONSTRUCTION OR NOT?

In mid-May, we had already submitted the nine friends of the McCanns to a second round of interviews. In spite of its importance, - too upset seemingly to countenance the exercise - Kate Healy's was left until later. In view of the number of inconsistencies raised by cross-checking the statements, we are thinking of going ahead with a reconstruction. This is a routine procedure, above all when contradictory details pile up. Most of the time, it helps to make rapid headway with the investigation. By placing the various players in the drama - in this case the group of friends, employees of the restaurant, play leaders and other witnesses - into a situation that is identical to what they experienced, differences between the versions become obvious. When an improbability is noticed, the protagonists must then explain immediately.

The reconstruction was never to take place. The reasons put forward to justify that decision - in spite of opinions to the contrary - are multiple. There are lots of holiday-makers at this time and sealing off the perimeter would ruin their stay; the airspace would have to be closed; the hotel complex would be overrun with hordes of journalists; people might think that the parents and their friends were suspects and, of course, the field mustn't be left open for that kind of deliberation. For all that, a more discreet reconstruction, even partial, with only the couple present, might provide useful information. No a prior judgment is implied, quite the contrary. It's quite simply the co-operation that we have the right to expect on the part of parents faced with such a situation.

I am convinced that there is still a need for a reconstruction, whatever form it takes. The staging of the events of May 3rd from the details gathered from numerous witness statements would help to revive memories. It is difficult to understand why that is not possible.

Not sure what to make of this. Is Amaral saying that a higher authority prevented this early reconstruction from taking place?

It's this section that confuses me, in that it's written as though it wasn't Amaral's wish not to stage a reconstruction, but someone else's... when he says 'people might think the parents and their friends were suspects' who is raising these objections? the McCanns? I assume as witnesses, they can't be legally obliged to take part in a reconstruction....


The reasons put forward to justify that decision - in spite of opinions to the contrary - are multiple. There are lots of holiday-makers at this time and sealing off the perimeter would ruin their stay; the airspace would have to be closed; the hotel complex would be overrun with hordes of journalists; people might think that the parents and their friends were suspects and, of course, the field mustn't be left open for that kind of deliberation.

double.

Wintabells wrote:It's this section that confuses me, in that it's written as though it wasn't Amaral's wish not to stage a reconstruction, but someone else's... when he says 'people might think the parents and their friends were suspects' who is raising these objections? the McCanns? I assume as witnesses, they can't be legally obliged to take part in a reconstruction....


The reasons put forward to justify that decision - in spite of opinions to the contrary - are multiple. There are lots of holiday-makers at this time and sealing off the perimeter would ruin their stay; the airspace would have to be closed; the hotel complex would be overrun with hordes of journalists; people might think that the parents and their friends were suspects and, of course, the field mustn't be left open for that kind of deliberation.

«The field mustn't be left open» Am I wrong or this wording is really disturbing??

I could be mistaken but it seems to me that it was not GA who objected to do a reconstruction.. Higher levels IMO.

Also, the way that the case was handled from beginning leaves me confused.. It's a very NORMAL preocedure to make at first the parents suspects, and after you can enlarge the circle of suspects. Why «The field mustn't be left open»? Right at the beginning??

I am sorry to say that but for me, they were supported from day 1, by both countries.. In some way, Portuguese agreed to be pressured, if you see what I mean.

IMO, that pressure still exists.. And it's almost impossible for those higher autorities to back off at that point, without involving themselves for their previous behaviors/actions of the last 5 years..

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://sosmaddie.blogs.dhnet.be/&ei=AHCVT63zB-ip0QWItqDaAQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFsQ7gEwBg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dkate%2B%2526%2Bgerry%2Bmccann%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DzK1%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26tbs%3Dqdr:d%26prmd%3Dimvnso

"We should not expect a miracle. This remains as communication, "warns an inspector of police in Portugal.

A week after its publication, the book by Kate McCann was already discounted.

As we approach the fifth anniversary of the disappearance of their daughter, Kate and Gerry McCann, parents of little Maddie, are preparing to launch a new version of their book "Madeleine".
Through promotions and a rapid decrease of its initial price of sale, the original version of "Madeleine" has sold 280,000 copies in just the UK.
The "new" writing format paperback, will be on sale in the UK on May 10 and includes a new epilogue that is supposed to reflect the work of the British team that deals with the analysis of the initial investigation.
This is also the alleged confidence McCann in this team that was put in advance to justify the return of the case in the pages of British tabloids.
After five years and several million euros went up in smoke - 2.2 million in 2011 alone - a team of 36 detectives and civilians would be confident to find the solution of the mystery Maddie.
According to one source - always the same - quoted by the tabloid Sunday Mirror, "the London Metropolitan Police [Scotland Yard] have invested considerable resources in consideration of [the investigation] and they want results."
According to the Sunday Mirror, the British police work result in a "full report with a series of recommendations" to the Judicial Police (PJ) of Portugal.
Surprisingly, the source quoted by the tabloid also provides statements of the McCanns and details of the work of Kate in writing the new epilogue.
The information disclosed by several British tabloids also specifies that the team's Chief Inspector Andy Redwood is expected that their report may lead to reopening of the investigation in Portugal.
As a reminder, a team of PJ in Porto, northern Portugal, is also conducting a review of data from the original investigation - a kind of "Cold Case", Portuguese version.

Pressure, but no miracles

Distance communication experts and promotion of the new version of "Madeleine", the Portuguese team looks the business with much less enthusiasm.
"Unfortunately, we should not expect a miracle. Still, as this communication, "warns an inspector of police, close to the team led by the coordinator Helena Monteiro.
According to the inspector, "the method adopted by the English is vitiated by an error: they initially dismissed any possibility except the stranger abduction to the group."
"I do not blame parents, but there were others, and for some, there are still doubts. And the only way to resume the inquiry would be to start rebuilding, "said the same inspector noting that" the pressure is on collaboration, "at the expense of quality.

Decryption

A month before the release of this "new" book - a sort of warmed first written - it was commercially important call again to British media.
It is interesting to note that these are the same as the English tabloids McCann clan condemns whenever the topic of the disappearance of Maddie is approached from an angle that is not orchestrated by their machine communication - and I am referring to Clarence Mitchell.
Amazing coordination between the British media, yet stingy in their collaboration, which for some reason (sorry for the sarcasm), have all published similar information.
"Information" worthy of a communications expert ... is that I talked about Clarence Mitchell?!
I do not even speak Portuguese media ... because here we talk about the effect "parrot".

Matthew Oldfield watchout

matthew wrote:http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://sosmaddie.blogs.dhnet.be/&ei=AHCVT63zB-ip0QWItqDaAQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFsQ7gEwBg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dkate%2B%2526%2Bgerry%2Bmccann%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DzK1%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26tbs%3Dqdr:d%26prmd%3Dimvnso

"We should not expect a miracle. This remains as communication, "warns an inspector of police in Portugal.

A week after its publication, the book by Kate McCann was already discounted.

As we approach the fifth anniversary of the disappearance of their daughter, Kate and Gerry McCann, parents of little Maddie, are preparing to launch a new version of their book "Madeleine".
Through promotions and a rapid decrease of its initial price of sale, the original version of "Madeleine" has sold 280,000 copies in just the UK.
The "new" writing format paperback, will be on sale in the UK on May 10 and includes a new epilogue that is supposed to reflect the work of the British team that deals with the analysis of the initial investigation.
This is also the alleged confidence McCann in this team that was put in advance to justify the return of the case in the pages of British tabloids.
After five years and several million euros went up in smoke - 2.2 million in 2011 alone - a team of 36 detectives and civilians would be confident to find the solution of the mystery Maddie.
According to one source - always the same - quoted by the tabloid Sunday Mirror, "the London Metropolitan Police [Scotland Yard] have invested considerable resources in consideration of [the investigation] and they want results."
According to the Sunday Mirror, the British police work result in a "full report with a series of recommendations" to the Judicial Police (PJ) of Portugal.
Surprisingly, the source quoted by the tabloid also provides statements of the McCanns and details of the work of Kate in writing the new epilogue.
The information disclosed by several British tabloids also specifies that the team's Chief Inspector Andy Redwood is expected that their report may lead to reopening of the investigation in Portugal.
As a reminder, a team of PJ in Porto, northern Portugal, is also conducting a review of data from the original investigation - a kind of "Cold Case", Portuguese version.

Pressure, but no miracles

Distance communication experts and promotion of the new version of "Madeleine", the Portuguese team looks the business with much less enthusiasm.
"Unfortunately, we should not expect a miracle. Still, as this communication, "warns an inspector of police, close to the team led by the coordinator Helena Monteiro.
According to the inspector, "the method adopted by the English is vitiated by an error: they initially dismissed any possibility except the stranger abduction to the group."
"I do not blame parents, but there were others, and for some, there are still doubts. And the only way to resume the inquiry would be to start rebuilding, "said the same inspector noting that" the pressure is on collaboration, "at the expense of quality.

Decryption

A month before the release of this "new" book - a sort of warmed first written - it was commercially important call again to British media.
It is interesting to note that these are the same as the English tabloids McCann clan condemns whenever the topic of the disappearance of Maddie is approached from an angle that is not orchestrated by their machine communication - and I am referring to Clarence Mitchell.
Amazing coordination between the British media, yet stingy in their collaboration, which for some reason (sorry for the sarcasm), have all published similar information.
"Information" worthy of a communications expert ... is that I talked about Clarence Mitchell?!
I do not even speak Portuguese media ... because here we talk about the effect "parrot".

Matthew Oldfield watchout

I'll post my translation of that. "Communication," is like publicity or promotion.

ETA:

"Don't expect a miracle. This is still just promotion," warns a Portuguese PJ inspector.

Approaching the fifth anniversary of their daughter's disappearance, Kate and Gerry McCann, little Maddie's parents, are preparing to launch a new version of their book, "Madeleine."

Thanks to promotion and a rapid decrease in the initial cover price, the original version of "Madeleine," sold 280,000 copies in the United Kingdom alone.

The "new," work, in paperback format, will be released in the United Kingdom on May 10th and includes a new epilogue which is supposed to reflect the work of the British team which is busy analyzing the the original investigation.

What's more, it's the confidence the McCanns claim to have in this team that has been put forward to justify the return of the case to the pages of the British tabloids.

After five years and a few million Euros up in smoke - 2.2 million in 2011 alone - , a team of 36 detectives and civilians would be under pressure to find the solution to the Maddie mystery.

According to a source - always the same - quoted by the Sunday Mirror tabloid, "the London Metropolitan Police (Scotland Yard) would have invested a great deal of resources in the examination (of the investigation) and they want results."

According to the Sunday Mirror, the work of the British police will result in a "full report with a series of recommendations," for the Portuguese PJ.

Astonishingly, the source quoted by the tabloid also provides statements from the McCanns and details of Kate's work in the writing of the new epilogue.

The information disclosed by several British tabloids, also makes clear that Chief Inspector Andy Redwood's team anticipate that their report could lead to the reopening of the investigation in Portugal.

As a reminder, a PJ team in Porto, in the north of Portugal, is also proceeding with a re-examination of the facts from the original investigation - a kind of "Cold Case," Portuguese version.

Pressure, but no miracles.

A long way away from the communication experts and the promotion of the new version of "Madeleine," the Portuguese team views the case with a lot less enthusiasm.

"Unfortunately, we can't expect a miracle because it's still only promotion," a PJ inspector close to the team directed by coordinator Helena Monteiro warns.

According to this inspector, "the method adopted by the English is flawed by a mistake: at the beginning, they threw out all possibilities with the exception of abduction by a stranger to the group."

"I am not accusing the parents, but there were other people and for certain there are still doubts. And the only way to take up the investigation again would be to start with the reconstruction," states the same inspector, stressing that "pressure is on collaboration," at the expense of quality.

Decoding

One month before the publication of this "new" book - a sort of rehash of the first version - it is important from a commercial point of view, to make a new appeal to the British media.

It is incidentally interesting to stress that it's the same English tabloids that the McCann clan condemn every time the subject of Maddie's disappearance is approached from an angle that is not orchestrated by their public relations machine - and I'm referring to Clarence Mitchell.

Astonishing coordination between the British media, usually miserly in their collaboration, who, for some unknown reason (sorry for this utter sarcasm), have all published similar information.

Information worthy of a communications expert....did I mention Clarence Mitchell?!

I am not even talking about the Portuguese media ...because there we talk about the "parrot," effect.

Duarte Levy 17th April 2012/

AnnaEsse wrote:

The information disclosed by several British tabloids, also makes clear that Chief Inspector Andy Redwood's team anticipate that their report could lead to the reopening of the investigation in Portugal.

I don't know what to think about that..

I have read this comment on Panorama, from Bren:
«About the reconstruction in May 2007 when Madeleine disappeared, in Goncalo Amarals book, he clearly states that the reconstruction was not carried out because the PJ decided against it... the McCanns wanted this reconstruction.»

Here is just a flavour of the letters/emails re the T9 reconstruction

Email sent to the PJ from Graham Michael "As discussed on Friday, we have made contact with the holiday group ( Paynes, Webster, O'Brien, Tanner, Oldfield, Manpilly ) regarding their availability for the proposed dates for a re-enactment in Portugal. We are still awaiting response from Jeremy Wilkins. Before they will fully commit to attending they have the following questions that they request are answered:-

1 - Why do the PJ want them to take part in the re-enactment'
2 - What is the aim, what are the PJ trying to achieve with the re-enactment'
3 - Why so close to the anniversary'
4 - Why don't the PJ use actors'
5 - Will the footage of the re-enactment be released to the press/TV etc'
6 - What protection is there for the friends in relation to the media coverage/likely frenzy"

From : Rachael Oldfield "We remain unconvinced that this reconstruction is necessary. Our most significant question hasn't been answered, ie, how is it going to help find Madeleine/materially benefit the search for her ?
Point 14 of the PJ's response says that they consider this re-enactment "highly important". Why is that ? What are they really trying to get out of a reconstruction ? Either they believe our version of the events of May 3rd 2007, or they don't. If they do, why the need for a reconstruction ? If they don't believe us, do they want a reconstruction so we can convince them otherwise ?

From : fiona webster "We appreciated that paulo Rebelo attempted to answer many of our concerns however we are still left feeling very uncertain of the motives in organising a re-enactment. What information are they hoping to gain and how exactly is it going to help in moving the investigation on in a positive direction ?"

From exeter (must be jane tanner): "We also appreciate the legal obstacles to removing Kate and Gerry's arguido status, but would request that prior to us agreeing to the re-enactment the PJ:
' publicly dispels the damaging and disturbing lies churned out by the Portuguese press regarding alleged changes to statements, re-interviews or alleged lack of co-operation.
' publicly states there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." This in no way compromises judicial secrecy.

From : Rachael Oldfield "Thank you for the e-mail and your voice message yesterday evening. The tone of the reply from Portugal has changed and Matthew and I feel we need to take Legal Advice before making a commitment to return to Portugal. In any event, it will now be impossible for us to make the 15th to 17th May. We would be grateful if you could get other dates from the Portuguese when the reconstruction could take place. We will speak to our Lawyer and come back to you in due course

Email from Rachael Oldfield to Stuart Prior "Further to our recent emails, Matthew and I have made the decision not to return to Portugal for the proposed re-enactment on 15th/16th May 2008."

Email from Russell O'Brien to Stuart Prior "We gather now that at least Jez Wilkins, Matt and Rach and Dave/Fi are not going/able to make the re-enactment. Given the prosecutor's requirement for all to be in attendance or none at all, and the absolute nature of the planned date, the decision appears to be academic ...

From : fiona webster "We have now had time to consider the advice received from our legal team. Taking into account the advice given along with our many concerns previously mentioned to you; we feel we are unable to participate in the propoed (sic) re-enactment in Portugal.

Letter from Matthew Oldfield indicating he will not attend "I am hereby informing you that I will not be attending the proposed Reconstruction in Portugal on 29th and 30th May 2008. I have reached this decision after considering advice from our Lawyers

Letter from Rachel Oldfield she will not attend "I am hereby informing you that I will not be attending the proposed Reconstruction in Portugal on 29th and 30th May 2008. I have reached this decision after considering advice from our Lawyers.

Letter from Paynes re: non-attendance at reconstruction "Following great consideration, we regret to inform you that we do not wish to attend the proposed re-enactment in Portugal."

Not any concern in finding Maddie...just concern about the legals! 4 - Why don't the PJ use actors'....Just says it all!!

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

It seems (from Amaral's book) that an early (May 2007?) reconstruction was suggested - something that he believed would be of value, co-operation in which he felt should be expected 'on the part of parents faced with such a situation', but was refused, even 'with only the couple present', because of multiple reasons.

And those reasons sound like they were raised by perhaps multiple parties, including maybe Mark Warner themselves - There are lots of holiday-makers at this time and sealing off the perimeter would ruin their stay; the hotel complex would be overrun with hordes of journalists, Air traffic services - the airspace would have to be closed, and the parents and friends, - 'people might think that the parents and their friends were suspects and, of course, the field mustn't be left open for that kind of deliberation'.

He adds 'I am convinced that there is still a need for a reconstruction, whatever form it takes. The staging of the events of May 3rd from the details gathered from numerous witness statements would help to revive memories. It is difficult to understand why that is not possible'.

The McCanns' version of why this early reconstruction was declined is that it was 'not usual' for Portugal. There seems to be some debate about whether this comment was in response to the McCanns' idea of what sort of recon it should be, ie. a 'Crimewatch' style affair, as opposed to the idea that crime scene reconstructions aren't 'usual' in Portugal.

Then there was a later (2008?) request made from the PJ for the Tapas 9 to attend a reconstruction, which the friends refused to attend.

AnnaEsse wrote:

According to this inspector, "the method adopted by the English is flawed by a mistake: at the beginning, they threw out all possibilities with the exception of abduction by a stranger to the group."

"I am not accusing the parents, but there were other people and for certain there are still doubts. And the only way to take up the investigation again would be to start with the reconstruction," states the same inspector, stressing that "pressure is on collaboration," at the expense ...

Who is he referring to there Anna, SY or the Mccanns?

Sorry, can't find the reference. But recently I saw a video in which Gerry said that they didn't want to do the reconstruction because it wouldn't help find Madeleine, the Pj wanted to do it to see which discrepancies were going to show up - and with so many people etc... this was going to happen.

jd16 wrote:

I have read this comment on Panorama, from Bren:
«About the reconstruction in May 2007 when Madeleine disappeared, in Goncalo Amarals book, he clearly states that the reconstruction was not carried out because the PJ decided against it... the McCanns wanted this reconstruction.»

Not true.

If you read the PJ files there are a number of emails/letters from the PJ to the T9 trying to get them to take part in a reconstruction, which the T9 were doing their level best no to & get out from. It was the T9 that said they could not take part in a reconstruction, they were the ones who replied to the request saying they had decided not to take part.

It is all there documented in the PJ files...maybe idiots like bren should read up on the facts first before spouting such blatant lies about the truth

Based on this extract from GAs book, it seems as if Bren was correct with regards to a reconstruction being denied by the PJ (and OC if I recall correctly) for the reasons stated below in 2007.

Madeleine McCann: L'Enquête Interdite - The Forbidden Investigation - Chapter 5

RECONSTRUCTION OR NOT?

"The reconstruction was never to take place.

The reasons put forward to justify that decision - in spite of opinions to the contrary - are multiple.

There are lots of holiday-makers at this time and sealing off the perimeter would ruin their stay;

the airspace would have to be closed;

the hotel complex would be overrun with hordes of journalists;

people might think that the parents and their friends were suspects and, of course, the field mustn't be left open for that kind of deliberation.

For all that, a more discreet reconstruction, even partial, with only the couple present, might provide useful information. No a priori judgment is implied, quite the contrary. It's quite simply the co-operation that we have the right to expect on the part of parents faced with such a situation."

Whether or not that early reconstruction was denied by the PJ or denied to the PJ, I can't see any reference in GA's book that ''the McCanns wanted this reconstruction'', as claimed by this 'Bren' person.

GA doesn't identify the people who offered the 'multiple' reasons for not staging the reconstruction, but the way I read it is that the parents and friends were amongst them.

I've never heard of an earlier reconstruction in 2007, but whether or not, the T9 showed very clearly they were never interested in taking part in one, prolonging and hiding behind the cover of legals. They all knew that if they did take part in a reconstruction this would blow their fairytale story & expose them

Seriously, if anyone was truly concerned about finding their friends missing child, why suggest getting in actors to play their part!!

Wintabells wrote:
Whether or not that early reconstruction was denied by the PJ or denied to the PJ, I can't see any reference in GA's book that ''the McCanns wanted this reconstruction'', as claimed by this 'Bren' person.

GA doesn't identify the people who offered the 'multiple' reasons for not staging the reconstruction, but the way I read it is that the parents and friends were amongst them.

I don't see it that way...

«There are lots of holiday-makers at this time and sealing off the perimeter would ruin their stay; the hotel complex would be overrun with hordes of journalists, Air traffic services - the airspace would have to be closed..»

Tourism industry, Air traffic, Airspace - For me it sounds governmental preoccupations/objections, and I have no reason to believe that the rest of the sentence «people might think that the parents and their friends were suspects and, of course, the field mustn't be left open for that kind of deliberation» comes from another source.

Wintabells wrote:
Whether or not that early reconstruction was denied by the PJ or denied to the PJ, I can't see any reference in GA's book that ''the McCanns wanted this reconstruction'', as claimed by this 'Bren' person.

GA doesn't identify the people who offered the 'multiple' reasons for not staging the reconstruction, but the way I read it is that the parents and friends were amongst them.

Which reasons mentioned by GA do you feel the Tapas group were responsible for ?

Personally I feel it was due to the disruption to the Ocean Club holidaymakers it would have caused and so the PJ decided against it at the time.

I see that those supporting the abduction theory are especially pleased with themselves that they've spotted an omission from the translated version of GA's book that we're using in this discussion. At the end of that section about the May 2007 reconstruction that didn't happen (for multiple reasons) GA writes:

The team of investigators discussed the possibility but a decision was taken that there would be no reconstruction in spite of some dissenting voices.

So, as he said... it was decided that the (May 2007) recon wouldn't happen, for the reasons given... despite the fact that some members of the team wanted it to.

What interests me (as a 'forker') is WHO was it that made those objections to the recon. (about putting off the tourists, closing airspace and not wishing the parents and friends to be judged by the public?)

Fern wrote:

Which reasons mentioned by GA do you feel the Tapas group were responsible for ?

Personally I feel it was due to the disruption to the Ocean Club holidaymakers it would have caused and so the PJ decided against it at the time.

Hi Fern

I've made numerous posts on this on the previous page (18) explaining my thinking on this, but I've replicated part of one here to answer your question:

And those reasons sound like they were raised by perhaps multiple parties, including maybe Mark Warner themselves - There are lots of holiday-makers at this time and sealing off the perimeter would ruin their stay; the hotel complex would be overrun with hordes of journalists, Air traffic services - the airspace would have to be closed, and the parents and friends, - 'people might think that the parents and their friends were suspects and, of course, the field mustn't be left open for that kind of deliberation'.

maive wrote:

I don't see it that way...

«There are lots of holiday-makers at this time and sealing off the perimeter would ruin their stay; the hotel complex would be overrun with hordes of journalists, Air traffic services - the airspace would have to be closed..»

Tourism industry, Air traffic, Airspace - For me it sounds governmental preoccupations/objections, and I have no reason to believe that the rest of the sentence «people might think that the parents and their friends were suspects and, of course, the field mustn't be left open for that kind of deliberation» comes from another source.

I understand your way of thinking, of course, but I can't see why the Portuguese government would be reluctant for a recon. on the basis that it could lead the public to think that the McCanns and their friends were suspects. They'd all been interviewed by the police several times, they were the key witnesses in the affair and it's completely normal to hold a reconstruction of a crime, which involves the innocent passers-by (which is what they claim to be).

On the other hand, we have read it reported that four months later, KMc's reaction to being told she was an arguida was along the lines of 'what will my parents think?' so I can see a consistency between the two reactions, i.e. 'if we take part in a reconstruction, people might think we're guilty of something'.

At the end of the day it is not the place of TM, their mates or anyone else to question the effectiveness
of a reconstruction, that is up to the police, we have all seen their ridiculous questions and excuses about the reconstruction which says it all.

The team of investigators discussed the possibility but a decision was taken that there would be no reconstruction in spite of some dissenting voices

Someone saying 'a decision was taken' is really saying that this decision was taken out of their control and against what they thought was the right decision

jd16 wrote:

The team of investigators discussed the possibility but a decision was taken that there would be no reconstruction in spite of some dissenting voices

Someone saying 'a decision was taken' is really saying that this decision was taken out of their control and against what they thought was the right decision

I agree.

Wintabells wrote:

Fern wrote:

Which reasons mentioned by GA do you feel the Tapas group were responsible for ?

Personally I feel it was due to the disruption to the Ocean Club holidaymakers it would have caused and so the PJ decided against it at the time.

Hi Fern

I've made numerous posts on this on the previous page (18) explaining my thinking on this, but I've replicated part of one here to answer your question:

And those reasons sound like they were raised by perhaps multiple parties, including maybe Mark Warner themselves - There are lots of holiday-makers at this time and sealing off the perimeter would ruin their stay; the hotel complex would be overrun with hordes of journalists, Air traffic services - the airspace would have to be closed, and the parents and friends, - 'people might think that the parents and their friends were suspects and, of course, the field mustn't be left open for that kind of deliberation'.

Given how PdL was turned into a media 'circus' and remained that way for quite some time, it must have been very unpleasant for those on holiday at the time.

Maybe it was MW themselves who refused to allow a recon to be undertaken on the premise that enough disruption had been caused already.

Who knows.