A few questions on the Crimewatch reconstruction
Sketch done by Jane Tanner, as part of her witness statement (2007.05.04), pointing to where she saw Gerry McCann chatting with Jeremy Wilkins (3), and a man that she believes to be the abductor (5)
«The Crimewatch programme will feature a reconstruction and interviews with Kate and Gerry McCann, who, for the first time, will appear alongside detectives working on the investigation.» BBC
«The programme, which will be screened on October 14, will feature a reconstruction of events in the Portuguese resort on the night of May 3, 2007. And it will highlight a series of new leads found by the team of 37 Yard detectives.» Express
«It will include a never-before-seen reconstruction of events in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on the night the then three-year-old disappeared on May 3, 2007.» Daily Star
We don't know what will be broadcast yet, or what kind of reconstruction this one will be. In any case I'll leave some questions that we will see answered, some at least, on the 14th of October.
Did Gerry and Kate take part of the reconstruction? Did the Tapas 7 take part of the reconstruction?
Were actors used? Was the reconstruction filmed in Praia da Luz? If it had been surely the PT media would have announced it. [ref. PT media reporting on McCanns/Channel 4 shooting a documentary in Portugal in 2009]. If it wasn't will the Crimewatch appeal carry a warning saying: "The following reconstruction was not filmed in Praia da Luz"?
Wouldn't it defeat the whole purpose of a reconstruction if actors were used, even more so if it isn't even shot in the same place from where Madeleine McCann disappeared? Think correct distances from the Tapas bar to the McCanns rented apartment and all that.
If actors weren't used and the Tapas 9, the McCann couple and the friends that were holidaying with them in May 2007, did take part, was anyone allowed to change their versions from the original statements to the Judiciary Police as some did in the 2009, joint ITV/Channel 4 documentary?
If actors were used which versions of the Tapas 9 statements, media interviews, documentaries was used? Who wrote the script? Who directed it?
«Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ spokesman, said: "Kate and Gerry remain very grateful to the Met for the work they are doing in liaison with the Portuguese authorities. Their forthcoming appearance on Crimewatch is an important stage in that ongoing process. Naturally, they hope it will lead to information that will provide the breakthrough to finding Madeleine."» Independent, Telegraph, Evening Standard, Express, etc.
I thought that an important stage would be to reopen the investigation in Portugal, something that could be achieved with a reconstruction of the events made by the Tapas 9 in situ, a reconstruction that was asked by the Judiciary Police in 2008 and was somehow rendered impossible by the Tapas 7 refusals.
Finally, will the McCanns use this Crimewatch reconstruction as a spin and/or to silence any "noise" regarding the never-taken place reconstruction requested by the Judiciary Police?
«The documentary reconstructs events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance using actors and based on testimony given to the Portuguese police as part of their investigations.» Broadcast by Channel 4, May 9, 2009
E – About the interest of the reconstruction
Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstruction of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts, the following very important details, among others:
1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;
2 – The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;
3 – The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);
4 – What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. – the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings – and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy – at around 10 p.m.;
5 – The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.
In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.
Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.
We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.
in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4636-4638 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)