Were the staff at the Batista Supermarket interviewed?

[Robittybob1]

Don't forget that the initial statements are answers to (unnoted) questions, except right at the end when they were generally asked if they had anything to add. It may well have been the PJ officer who was interested in the matter.

What do you mean, she got the spelling wrong? Lol. Unless she was asked to spell it for some reason, the officer simply wrote the name as it sounds.

But then is Silvia Batista's name spelt correctly?  Is it also supposed to be Baptista? it is spelt about 50:50 each way throughout the PJ file.
Does anyone have a photo of her passport?  Hopefully it has the correct name on there.
Well what sort of question yields an answer like "she not being concerned however about it. There are several till-points, more or less five. Twice she went to shop having always been attended at the till by ladies"?

[Carana]

But then is Silvia Batista's name spelt correctly?  Is it also supposed to be Baptista? it is spelt about 50:50 each way throughout the PJ file.
Does anyone have a photo of her passport?  Hopefully it has the correct name on there.
Well what sort of question yields an answer like "she not being concerned however about it. There are several till-points, more or less five. Twice she went to shop having always been attended at the till by ladies"?

Re Silvia, what does it matter if ever there was a typo? There are hardly 2000 other people it could be.

Re Rachel's statement. Yes, there are lots of questions that she may have been asked.

"Did you and / or any of your group ever need to visit a shop?"

"Yes, all of the group did."

"Which one?"

"The Batista, the only supermarket near the complex."

"Did you notice anything suspicious?"

"No."

"How many tills were there?"

"Four or five."

"How many times did you go there?"

"Twice."

"Were you served by men or women?"

"Women."

[Robittybob1]

Re Silvia, what does it matter if ever there was a typo? There are hardly 2000 other people it could be.

Re Rachel's statement. Yes, there are lots of questions that she may have been asked.

"Did you and / or any of your group ever need to visit a shop?"

"Yes, all of the group did."

"Which one?"

"The Batista, the only supermarket near the complex."

"Did you notice anything suspicious?"

"No."

"How many tills were there?"

"Four or five."

"How many times did you go there?"

"Twice."

"Were you served by men or women?"

"Women."

OK that was a neat little exercise, I suppose it was to end up with her statement ""she not being concerned however about it. There are several till-points, more or less five. Twice she went to shop having always been attended at the till by ladies"
For since in the statements generally quite often they repeat the question but in this case they didn't.

I do hope they asked ""Did you notice anything suspicious?"  But then we'd have "When asked did you notice anything suspicious? the witness replied no."

[Carana]

OK that was a neat little exercise, I suppose it was to end up with her statement ""she not being concerned however about it. There are several till-points, more or less five. Twice she went to shop having always been attended at the till by ladies"
For since in the statements generally quite often they repeat the question but in this case they didn't.

I do hope they asked ""Did you notice anything suspicious?"  But then we'd have "When asked did you notice anything suspicious? the witness replied no."

OK

"Did you notice anything that caused you any concern?"
"No."

[Robittybob1]

OK

"Did you notice anything that caused you any concern?"
"No."

Definitely in the rogatory interviews the question and answers can be followed like this.

[Robittybob1]

"All members of the group did their shopping at the only supermarket near the complex, the "Batista."

 she not being concerned however about it. There are several till-points, more or less five. Twice she went to shop having always been attended at the till by ladies."  Comes from Rachael's interview on the 4th.

What I had noted earlier but I see it again is the the sentence  "she not being concerned however about it." does not seem to be completed.  Has there been a bit missed in the translation?

The sentence starts with a lower case letter just as if the beginning of the sentence has been accidentally deleted.

[Carana]

Definitely in the rogatory interviews the question and answers can be followed like this.

The advantage of verbatim statements is that there is a record of both the questions and answers.

The UK apparently used to use the summary statement format, but then changed to verbatim (to find where I read that), due to errors creeping in or arguments over what was actually said - can't remember exactly, will try to find the articel.

[Robittybob1]

"All members of the group did their shopping at the only supermarket near the complex, the "Batista."

 she not being concerned however about it. There are several till-points, more or less five. Twice she went to shop having always been attended at the till by ladies."  Comes from Rachael's interview on the 4th.

What I had noted earlier but I see it again is the the sentence  "she not being concerned however about it." does not seem to be completed.  Has there been a bit missed in the translation?

The sentence starts with a lower case letter just as if the beginning of the sentence has been accidentally deleted.

it might just be grammar. 
Has the word Batista at the top.  All text appears OK (enough words) but not translated.  Maybe should have been a comma rather than a full stop in the English.

[sadie]

Such an interesting thread, this is.

So people used to meet there for tea and coffee and at a guess catch up with what was going on in PdL .

I wonder if Madeleines abduction could have been planned from there ?    Just about 110 metres down the road from 5A and a nice area for relaxing with friends and acquaintances, both sheltered out of the sun and even quieter in the open area outside in the sun.   

Might somebody there have befriended the children by giving them sweeties or something nice, or even someone who worked in the supermarket ?


Only my thoughts which are probably incorrect !  But worth considering IMO

[Robittybob1]

Such an interesting thread, this is.

So people used to meet there for tea and coffee and at a guess catch up with what was going on in PdL .

I wonder if Madeleines abduction could have been planned from there ?    Just about 110 metres down the road from 5A and a nice area for relaxing with friends and acquaintances, both sheltered out of the sun and even quieter in the open area outside in the sun.   

Might somebody there have befriended the children by giving them sweeties or something nice, or even someone who worked in the supermarket ?

Only my thoughts which are probably incorrect !  But worth considering IMO

Did you ever go to the Baptista supermarket?  This  courtyard would it be on the South facing side of the building?

[sadie]

Did you ever go to the Baptista supermarket?  This  courtyard would it be on the South facing side of the building?

No, but we went past.

I worked out where the open air and the covered (shaded parts) are from G. Earth street scene.  It was tricky but eventually i got the views I needed.

The open air bit is at the top of the car park, which is on the western side of Baptistas.

Looking on the plan view on certain different dates, zoom in and you will also see varying numbers of tables and chairs up at the top of that car park.   

On the plan you will also see near the top of that car park, a pinky brown roof attached to the main building.   When viewed on street scene from the west looking east, there appear to be table and chairs underneath that roof and maybe going further in to the building 

I was expecting loads of trees to give the shade, but I think that that is an open walled area under the roof and maybe beyond.  The roof gives the shade.


I measured the distance on GE and depending on exactly where Baptistas entrance is, that is approximately correct.



Am off to bed now.

nigh night

[Carana]

it might just be grammar. 
Has the word Batista at the top.  All text appears OK (enough words) but not translated.  Maybe should have been a comma rather than a full stop in the English.

I think there's a slight glitch in the translation.

All members of the group did their shopping at the only supermarket near the complex, the "Batista."

she not being concerned however about it. There are several till-points, more or less five. Twice she went to shop having always been attended at the till by ladies.

Corresponds to lines 42-44.

but the concerned bit doesn't exist in the original - I think what the PT says is "... near the complex... but which however didn't belong to it.  (não pertencendo no entanto ao mismo).

Just whoever translated was trying to formulate the subsequent paragraph about whether she'd noticed any suspicious behaviour in general, and the draft phrase got left in the wrong paragraph by mistake.

[Robittybob1]

I think there's a slight glitch in the translation.

All members of the group did their shopping at the only supermarket near the complex, the "Batista."

she not being concerned however about it. There are several till-points, more or less five. Twice she went to shop having always been attended at the till by ladies.

Corresponds to lines 42-44.

but the concerned bit doesn't exist in the original - I think what the PT says is "... near the complex... but which however didn't belong to it.  (não pertencendo no entanto ao mismo).

Just whoever translated was trying to formulate the subsequent paragraph about whether she'd noticed any suspicious behaviour in general, and the draft phrase got left in the wrong paragraph by mistake.

I think that is a very likely explanation but it has exposed an extremely worrying situation IMO for they are taking an unverified opinion of the PJ inspector and inserting it into the statement of Rachael Oldfield.
Who said or where is the proof the supermarket is unrelated to the complex and or even not involved in the case?

[Carana]

I think that is a very likely explanation but it has exposed an extremely worrying situation IMO for they are taking an unverified opinion of the PJ inspector and inserting it into the statement of Rachael Oldfield.
Who said or where is the proof the supermarket is unrelated to the complex and or even not involved in the case?

It might simply mean that it's not within the complex itself (i.e., is outside of it) - which it is.

[Robittybob1]

It might simply mean that it's not within the complex itself (i.e., is outside of it) - which it is.

Well it could be, but what was the implication from that?  Was it "Not part of the OC complex therefore the staff there do not need to be interviewed"?
!