Author Topic: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case  (Read 99196 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #480 on: February 11, 2016, 06:35:31 PM »
GMTV is, allegedly, attributed to 7.45am.

I would not expect the media scrum to have broken for a while after that.  I would not expect many OC guests to be up and about at that time.  I don't think Baptista is open at that time.  So all in all, we have Carpenter's depiction of quiet.

The Tapas receptionist is Louisa Coutinho who says "and only returned at 08.00 on 4th May.
It was on this day at 08.30 when she arrived that she was informed about the disappearance by colleagues."

So, if this is correct, and if Carpenter lodged his interest with the Tapas receptionist, it was at 8.30 or later.  Couple of ifs and a memory test in there.

This suggests the OC 24hr meeting occurred at a time when the day shift was at work.  Another assumption, I know.

What I do know is that the OC 24hr reception had at least one staff member working there who had no requirement to be able to converse in English.  He might or might not, but his duties did not require it.  Carpenter did not claim the Portuguese person was actually a receptionist.

So what do we have?  A somewhat odd statement that includes an incident of unidentified individuals being unable to break the English Portuguese language barrier re a phone call.  And a generalised requirement that receptionists (applied to one specific receptionist) that in a resort predominantly used by English-speaking people the receptionist should be able to converse in English.

I don't see this being resolved until Helder is grilled.

Unfortunately he wasn't, and it's a bit late now. His statement should have been noticed because he said he was phoned from the Tapas between 9.30pm and 10pm. That needed checking. They needed to check if he saw Matthew (twice) or Gerry (once). They also needed to find out how he called his boss, because he didn't use the OC landline to do that, as discussed previously.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #481 on: February 11, 2016, 06:40:59 PM »
The matter of who called the police and when was never particularly clear.  I can't find anything in early statements about calling the police, it seems to make it's first appearance in the rogatory interviews, done in April 2008. Perhaps it was hard for Matthew to recall exactly what happened a year after the events? After all, he doesn't mention being sent to reception again a little while later.

Danny Collins, in his book on the case says it would have been the responsibility of the manager (Vanished - The Truth About the Disappearance of Madeline McCann). Maybe he was right and that's why the receptionist only did it when John Hill appeared.
So, is it your contention that none of the group thought about calling the police then?

ETA: if you're being charitable and allowing for Matt's misremembering exactly when he went to chase up the police that still leaves us with the fact that the receptionist was clearly able to understand and speak English, unless you think he's misremembering that detail also?
« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 06:43:29 PM by Alfred R Jones »

Offline Carana

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #482 on: February 11, 2016, 06:59:19 PM »
Quite a few people alerted others. Someone alerted the Millenium. Someone alerted the 24 hour reception. People rang each other. People told each other in the streets. There was alerting going on all over the place. The news spread like wildfire.

Hardly surprising.

If someone, whoever it was, hadn't alerted the reception and asked the receptionist (who presumably spoke fluent Portuguese) to explain the situation to the police and where to come to), how long would it have taken for the missing child protocol to be engaged?

Offline G-Unit

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #483 on: February 11, 2016, 07:51:14 PM »
Hardly surprising.

If someone, whoever it was, hadn't alerted the reception and asked the receptionist (who presumably spoke fluent Portuguese) to explain the situation to the police and where to come to), how long would it have taken for the missing child protocol to be engaged?

You don't know when and why he called the police then? It was nothing at all to do with the missing child protocol which MW staff began at around 10.20pm. The GNR were called at 10.41pm. May I respectfully suggest you read the PJ files?
« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 08:59:23 PM by G-Unit »
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #484 on: February 11, 2016, 08:51:23 PM »
Unfortunately he wasn't, and it's a bit late now. His statement should have been noticed because he said he was phoned from the Tapas between 9.30pm and 10pm. That needed checking. They needed to check if he saw Matthew (twice) or Gerry (once). They also needed to find out how he called his boss, because he didn't use the OC landline to do that, as discussed previously.
Agreed.
What's up, old man?

Offline Carana

Re: Why are some people so averse to parental involvement in this case
« Reply #485 on: February 11, 2016, 09:00:38 PM »
Some statements almost tally but can be an hour out.

Unless there is a time warp running through PdL, why didn't the PJ check this out at the time?