This analysis by A Miller is far too well argued for me not to have rescued it from the comments section of Joana Morais.
That it was posted in a few separate parts, thereby reducing the flow and subsequently it's effect, was even more reason for posting it here in it's entirety.
If the somewhat mysterious "A Miller," for reasons I can well understand, is disinclined to start her own blog, might I extend an invitation, that should you require a platform to air your views in a less disjointed way, I would be delighted to publish here your words.
Kate’s Blog - Reconstruction:
She acknowledges that in Portugal it is NOT unusual for there being no reconstruction arranged in early stages.
So no problem there then! What happened (or didn’t) was usual practice. Business as usual.
She states:
‘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.’
---
A few things here:
Firstly keep in mind that Kate has stated that she and Gerry would have attended the reconstruction. As arguido she said they would. Gerry too on the steps of the Lisbon Court stated that he and Kate would have attended a reconstruction. He was, by stating this refuting any suggestion that they were not willing to attend. He clearly was very keen to let the public know that they were willing to do so.
Their friends however we are told, were NOT convinced of the aims and usefulness of a reconstruction.
For key witnesses, friends of the child’s mummy and daddy to not be ‘convinced’ of the AIM of a reconstruction or the USEFULNESS rather beggars belief.
The rest of the world could see and understand both the aim and the usefulness but the friends of the parents could not, and the parents accepted this?
Can you really imagine your friends refusing to assist in the reconstruction of events pertaining to your missing child and you just accept it? Hell no! They would no longer be your friends. You would do all within the law that was at your disposal to make sure they got their butts to where they should be!
Which takes me back to my first point – If Kate and Gerry were willing to attend and SAW the usefulness aim of this reconstruction, it would seem to me that they would have CONVINCED their friends of this.
Or, is it the case that they were prepared to go back simply because as arguido they were legally required to.
It was very convenient that their friends refused allowing for them then to slip through the net.
The McCann’s must truly believe the public are gullible.
To make the excuse that a reconstruction would not have been shown to the public is frankly a pathetic and poor excuse.
The McCann’s had a Fund £m’s at their disposal they could have publicised Madeleine disappearance as (we know they did with press campaigns, holding press conferences re bundleman etc, they did Panorama etc) much as they wished. Jogged memories in this way!
So that is, in my opinion a feeble excuse for not doing all in their power to help their child
Now Kate McCann speaks of ‘KEY’ witnesses declining to attend. Their friends were included in this group.
So who were the other ‘KEY’ witnesses who declined?
Funnily enough no mention of whom, they are! Jez Wilkins perhaps, or does he, come under the umbrella of “friends?”
Who else would be considered a key witness? And what reason would these other key witnesses have stated for declining? Surely not the same reason as the tapas group – that they wanted, the proceedings televised, broadcast to the world, couldn’t see the aim or the usefulness?
So many people,. 'key' witnesses all unwilling to help little Madeleine?
Kate further tells us that other KEY witnesses were not invited! I think we all know her implication here! (a dig at the Portuguese police.)
Now why would this bother her exactly, when none of her friends were going to attend anyway? And the fact that they did not, doesn't appear to have bothered her and Gerry in anyway as these people (the Paynes) are still their best buddies despite them refusing to help their daughter!
And when did it become within the McCann’s power, to decide which witnesses were ‘key’ and which were not?
Funnily enough I imagined that was for the investigating police authority to decide!
Funnier still, Fiona Payne in her interview with Leicester police stated that they weren’t keen to go back for the following reasons:
1485 “How do you feel about attending that re-enactment?”
Reply( “Well I’ve made my feelings clear in a letter, erm, already. Erm, my feelings are, I would do ABSOLUTELY anything if I felt it was going to help bring, find Madeleine or find who took her.
Erm, my reservations are, at this point, how doing the re-enactment is going to achieve that or advance the search in any way.
----
Her reservation is she is not sure how the re-enactment will achieve finding Madeleine bringing her back?
One thing for sure, by NOT doing it, Fiona was never going to find out was she?
she continues:‘And, obviously, there is a lot of apprehensions about doing it, just in terms of the media and they way we’ve been treated, the way the media would react to us doing the re-enactment, how they’d sort of physically actually manage to do a re-enactment without massive media intrusion,
-----
Now maybe I'm confused here. She is worried about massive media intrusion during a re-enactment?
But they said they were happy to do one if it was to be televised broadcast to the world in the hope of jogging memories!
Would the massive media intrusion not happen if the re-enactment was done for the purpose of being broadcast?
Doesn't make sense!
Fiona continues:I mean, we all know that we’re telling the truth of our actions on the night and if doing a re-enactment were going to be for the purpose of trying to find holes or, you know, in our movements and statements and try and rubbish our statements, then we know that’s not going to help find Madeleine, because we know, we were there, and we know we’re telling the truth, so I wouldn’t be happy to do it if that was the reason for doing it. I’d just like to be convinced how it’s going to move the investigation on really, erm, to find Madeleine”.
Ah, now we are getting to the REAL reason.
She's happy for Madeleine to languish in a lair being brutalised by her captors (?) until SHE Fiona is convinced her statement will not be 'rubbished' or a she gets some sort of guarantee it will further help find Madeleine.
Doh! How many times Fiona? Unless you do it, you will NEVER know if it brings Madeleine back, that aside, it would certainly go some way to understanding EXACTLY what happened the sequence of events and timings. ALL HELPFUL TO THE PROCESS
Fiona's statement becomes more intriguing and revealing:
1485 “Yeah”.
Reply (Fiona)
“And, at the moment really, we’ve got NO reason to TRUST the motives of doing a re-enactment when Kate and Gerry are still aguido and, if they’re aguido, I think we’ve ALL got to be IMPLICATED, because I just don’t SEE how Kate and Gerry could have done anything that’s been suggested WITHOUT US ALL BEING IN ON IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE."
--
Whao! And I thought we'd got to the real reason a paragraph or so ago! This statement is mind blowing!
Why is it so impossible? The alleged abductor managed to get in and out of the apartment, through unlocked doors opening windows drugging children making his escape without Fiona being aware or IMPLICATED!
Even when Fiona was told J. Tanner of the abductor she stayed schtum, was that in case she may be implicated?
Are we still to believe that the McCann's were happy to go do an reconstruction? Or that they tried to convince the Payne's it was useful and had an aim?
Do we believe that work commitments prevented the others from attending?
Or was it ONLY Fiona who felt they would ALL be implicated?
1485 “Is that it?”
Reply “So, you know, that’s a big stumbling block really”.
1485 “So, at this present moment, you are saying you wouldn’t?”
Reply “No, I mean, we haven’t really had any, been given any information about how it’s going to be used and that’s the information that I think we would all need if we were going to do it and, ‘obviously, there’s no point one of us doing it without everybody doing it. So, I think, you know, as far as I’m concerned, I’d only do it if everybody else was doing it, otherwise it’s pointless.’
----
After all that, she has said about doing anything possible, not doing it in case she was implicated in some way, not trusting the motive behind a reconstruction. She now states:"So, I think, you know, as far as I’m concerned, I’d only do it if everybody else was doing it, otherwise it’s pointless."
--
Despite or her fears and reservations, she WILL do it if everyone else does.
She stated this, safe in the knowledge that not a one of them was prepared to stop foot on Portuguese soil at that time.
She continues:‘And I still don’t see, erm, I think, emotionally, it would be hideous to go back and have to do an re-enactment, I really do, and I don’t see how, erm, emotions couldn’t affect the way it was done, because it would just be horrific, I mean, imagine, you know, Jane having to relive that, Kate having relive that, any of us having to relive that, you, you couldn’t do it without it being an emotional thing.’
Well yes it would be an emotional 'thing' a wee girl is with nasty men doing nasty things to her. So for a bunch of grown-ups to put their emotions and perceived suffering before that of the child is beyond belief!
You could not make this up if you tried.
---
1485 “Yeah”.
Reply
“Erm, so I just, I just don’t see, I mean, in my eyes, doing it, it would be beneficial if actors and actresses did it because they don’t have that emotion and you can still direct them to exactly what you were doing and where you went and your movements. So, so I still don’t, we still haven’t had an answer to that really, that side of it”.
And actors and actresses wouldn't be implicated in any way, would have no fear setting foot in Portugal.
There was only ONE 'side' to it which Fiona appears to have deliberately body swerved, only ONE person who mattered, only ONE right thing to do, and these NINE PERSONS failed to!
Regards
A.Miller
A response to the above in the same comments section from Anonymous, how I do wish people would use a handle, that sums the whole thing up.
...I mean, we all know that we’re telling the truth of our actions on the night and if doing a re-enactment were going to be for the purpose of trying to find holes or, you know, in our movements and statements and try and rubbish our statements, then we know that’s not going to help find Madeleine, because we know, we were there, and we know we’re telling the truth, so I wouldn’t be happy to do it if that was the reason for doing it. I’d just like to be convinced how it’s going to move the investigation on really, erm, to find Madeleine”.
The point is that if Fiona Payna is honest as she says, then why and how can the reconstruction find anything wrong with the T9 statements? The reconstruction could only prove them innocent of any deception and thus help the investigation to find the child. So why is Fiona Payne et al so concerned, why are they so afraid? Does she believe that there are discrepancies in T9 statements?
More to follow.
