Re: There is a Little Girl Missing

by Autumn on 13.02.10 11:53

@saj wrote:
@saj wrote:
@jack wrote:How can the Portuguese police be any help at all when they are convinced that maddie is dead and the MCCanns have hidden her body?

and there is a big file of information at Portimao which has been growing since July 2008 and everything in it is stamped not relevant to the Madeleine McCann Investigation and filed without ever being looked at, things sent by other police forces which were deemed as credible and needing investigation, including photos, car registrations etc.
This file was only found out about because Ricardo Paiva let something slip in court.

The obvious way forward now is to get the case re-opened and have a full reconstruction without interference from the the McCanns' camp and UK press. This time, everyone asked to participate in a reconstruction should be made to do so and charges pressed against them should they fail to co-operate.

by Cath on 13.02.10 12:14

A reconstruction, three years afterwards?
They should have done it in those first weeks after she went missing.

by Autumn on 13.02.10 13:01

Inyx wrote:A reconstruction, three years afterwards?
They should have done it in those first weeks after she went missing.

All the relevant information is on file, including their own hand-written timeline so, even neary 3 years on, it would be helpful.

by Cath on 13.02.10 13:14

Sorry Autumn I don't agree with you re the reconstruction.
If the relevant information is in the files, they can use actors.
There's a lot of time passed since then, people forgot things, people talked/read too much and it's confused their memory.
It's no use. It's too late. It won't help finding Madeleine.

Re-opening the case might help. But only if they're using a fresh, unbiased team to spit through everything.
And perhaps that won't help either if the sightings in Portugal and Spain for instance weren't properly checked at the time.

by Autumn on 13.02.10 14:59

Lynx, if the McCanns and their friends seriously believed Madeleine to be alive, they would have rushed back to PDL long ago to do a reconstruction. I hope that the pathetic excuses given by some of the Tapas 7 are included in the MF book - the public would be sickened by them.

by jmbd on 13.02.10 15:03

@Autumn wrote:Lynx, if the McCanns and their friends seriously believed Madeleine to be alive, they would have rushed back to PDL long ago to do a reconstruction. I hope that the pathetic excuses given by some of the Tapas 7 are included in the MF book - the public would be sickened by them.

If the "reconstruction" is televised (which was denied by the PJ when they requested it) then maybe they will all go back and do it.

by Cath on 13.02.10 16:07

Aumnut the PJ should have done a reconstruction long time ago.
The PJ should have invited all witnesses of that night. They didn't.

by Autumn on 13.02.10 16:21

But surely it would be helpful if it could be established once and for all, where the tapas 9 were at the time they state Madeleine was abducted?
In the Mockumentary, they couldn't even agree which side of the road Jane Tanner was supposed to on and, to make matters worse, Dave Edgar said it didn't matter. Of course it matters if any progress is to be made in this case. Am I correct in saying that Gerry was chatting to Jez Wilkins outside the apartment, facing towards the 'abductor' as he strode 'purposfully' away?
But I agree, the PJ should not have allowed any of them to leave PDL until they had taken part in a reconstruction - given the many inconsistencies in the T9 statements, they should have all been forced to take part in a reconstruction.

by marigold on 13.02.10 16:26

@Autumn wrote:But surely it would be helpful if it could be established once and for all, where the tapas 9 were at the time they state Madeleine was abducted?
In the Mockumentary, they couldn't even agree which side of the road Jane Tanner was supposed to on and, to make matters worse, Dave Edgar said it didn't matter. Of course it matters if any progress is to be made in this case. Am I correct in saying that Gerry was chatting to Jez Wilkins outside the apartment, facing towards the 'abductor' as he strode 'purposfully' away?
But I agree, the PJ should not have allowed any of them to leave PDL until they had taken part in a reconstruction - given the many inconsistencies in the T9 statements, they should have all been forced to take part in a reconstruction.

And not been allowed to scuttle home like frightened rabbits when made arguidos.

by jmbd on 13.02.10 16:29

"And not been allowed to scuttle home like frightened rabbits when made arguidos."

who allowed them to?

by marigold on 13.02.10 16:35

@jmbd wrote:"And not been allowed to scuttle home like frightened rabbits when made arguidos."

who allowed them to?

Maybe not 'allowed them to' but forced to by government interference.

by jmbd on 13.02.10 16:38

what do you mean by "maybe"?

Do you mean it is a guess - or do you have evidence?

by Cath on 13.02.10 16:39

In the Mockumentary, they couldn't even agree which side of the road Jane Tanner was supposed to on and

They didn't agree about that in their statements either. Nothing has changed.

But I agree, the PJ should not have allowed any of them to leave PDL until they had taken part in a reconstruction - given the many inconsistencies in the T9 statements, they should have all been forced to take part in a reconstruction.

At the time (May - August) there was no need to 'force' anybody.

Why did the PJ allow other tourists to leave before they were interviewed?

by jmbd on 13.02.10 16:46

have we ever seen a statement from all the diners in tapas that night?

by Cath on 13.02.10 17:15

Nope. Missing in the files or not translated yet.

by jmbd on 13.02.10 17:18

there was somebody at another table - we know that from the files.

by Cath on 13.02.10 17:33

Irwins? Sperrey?

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_608.jpg

by jmbd on 13.02.10 17:36

oh dear - did they scuttle home before PJ questioned them?

by jmbd on 13.02.10 17:37

were they invited to the reconstruction?

by jmbd on 13.02.10 17:38

were the workers around on the night invited to the reconstruction?

by jmbd on 13.02.10 17:39

was the guy and girlfriend who was fixing a door on that night invite to the reconstruction?

by jmbd on 13.02.10 17:40

were the people who had cars in the street invited for a reconstruction?

by jmbd on 13.02.10 17:42

maybe autumn should tell us who the PJ should have invited to the reconstruction. You know - a full list.

by jmbd on 13.02.10 17:50

I haven't seem anything translated from the files that asks anyone else back, who was there on the night, to take part in the reconstruction - how odd.

by jmbd on 13.02.10 17:50

Odd - or telling?