The Felicia Cabrita story about the 14 bottles of wine.

[Carana]

The point I have made repeatedly is simple.

Their socializing  at the Tapas Bar,  for several successive nights, meant the children were not being taken care of.

It was supposed to be a family holiday, so why didn't they have their meals and drink in the apartment, or failing that hire a babysitter to watch over them.

They never needed to go to the Tapas Bar to drink or eat.

All we have from one waiter's statement, was how much he can recollect serving them, but there were others , for whom we have no statements. So you do not know how much alcohol they consumed. Earlier you said 4 bottles, now you are saying one bottle of wine and after dinner drinks...............................


They didn't do either.

On top of that, as is well known, the children were in an unblocked apartment, again inexcusable. Don't bother with hindsight again, commonsense should have told them not to do that. They were in a foreign country and never should have taken risks with their children's security.

However, they did, simply to place their social habits above their duties as parents and guardians of their children.

So why is the drinking relevant ?

Well if you can't see that you never will.

Here's another then.


He states that on that night, after having received the orders, he went into the bar. Immediately, he put two white wine and two red wine bottles, along with a bottle of water, on the table. He cannot be sure that he served more wine that night.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm


So the the general practice appears to be that the waiter serves 4 bottles and a bottle of water, and replaces them if they were empty and people wanted more. That seems to be common practice in most restaurants serving groups.

It doesn't even mean that they necessarily drank all the entire content of the replacement bottles. 

[sadie]

No, the only 'debate ' you want is for people to agree with you.

That is your mantra.

It isn't debate.

Grow up stephen.  You are letting yourself down now.  gilets contribution to debate is obvious.

[gilet]

No, the only 'debate ' you want is for people to agree with you.

That is your mantra.

It isn't debate.

By posting that you have just proved my point.

This particular thread is about the fact that the myth perpetrated by news media that the McCanns drank 14 bottles of wine on the night Madeleine disappeared is in fact a load of nonsense.

The evidence presented here by me and others has shown that to be the case.

Debate is about presenting evidence and looking carefully about that evidence. That has been done here and the nonsense about the McCanns drinking to oblivion as some people have been led to believe has been debunked well and truly within that debate. No matter how much you wish to detract from that fact, that is the reality.

[stephen25000]

By posting that you have just proved my point.

This particular thread is about the fact that the myth perpetrated by news media that the McCanns drank 14 bottles of wine on the night Madeleine disappeared is in fact a load of nonsense.

The evidence presented here by me and others has shown that to be the case.

Debate is about presenting evidence and looking carefully about that evidence. That has been done here and the nonsense about the McCanns drinking to oblivion as some people have been led to believe has been debunked well and truly within that debate. No matter how much you wish to detract from that fact, that is the reality.

No you have not proved they only consumed only 4 bottles of wine plus aperitifs.

Only the statement of 1 waiter has been provided.

No other.

Again you imply by using the word  oblivion, they were drunk. I didn't say that.

I never said they drunk 14 bottles on that evening.

I used the article to display other waiters gave accounts as well. I'd like to know why the PJ didn't interview them.

The facts are simple and straightforward, the Mccanns wined and dined at a tapas bar with their associates, several nights in a row, whilst their children were left in an unlocked apartment. On the last evening Madeleine 'disappeared'.

I'm not interested in 'hindsight'.

You can attack me to your hearts content, but it won't effect my views.



There was no need for what they did, and you can give every excuse under the sun you wish. It won't change the facts you are so tired of hearing.

[gilet]

No you have not proved they only consumed only 4 bottles of wine plus aperitifs.

Only the statement of 1 waiter has been provided.

No other.

Again you imply by using the word  oblivion, they were drunk. I didn't say that.

I never said they drunk 14 bottles on that evening.

I used the article to display other waiters gave accounts as well. I'd like to know why the PJ didn't interview them.

The facts are simple and straightforward, the Mccanns wined and dined at a tapas bar with their associates, several nights in a row, whilst their children were left in an unlocked apartment. On the last evening Madeleine 'disappeared'.

I'm not interested in 'hindsight'.

You can attack me to your hearts content, but it won't effect my views.



There was no need for what they did, and you can give every excuse under the sun you wish. It won't change the facts you are so tired of hearing.

Are you not aware that the statement of an independent qualified witness carries a great deal of weight in such matters?

Are you suggesting that your wild speculation that they may have drunk more carries anything like the same weight?

As someone else said earlier. Do wake up and smell the coffee.

If you think challenging your views because they are based on speculation rather than genuine qualified witness statements is attacking you, then you really are in need of that coffee aroma.

I am making absolutely no excuses for what the McCanns did other than the one that we are all working with (though you simply cannot bear to admit the fact) and that is the benefit of hindsight. Just because you cannot admit the plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face fact that you are posting in hindsight does not make that fact irrelevant.

Others reading your posts understand that fully and cannot understand (as I cannot) why you are so obsessed on destroying every thread with this pathetic mantra.

When you simply won't accept the evidence of independent witnesses (that bizarrely you contributed to the debate), when you simply cannot understand the concept of posting and discussing the issue with the benefit of hindsight, you are demonstrating a fundamental inability to accept the tenets of normal debate.

[stephen25000]

Are you not aware that the statement of an independent qualified witness carries a great deal of weight in such matters?

Are you suggesting that your wild speculation that they may have drunk more carries anything like the same weight?

As someone else said earlier. Do wake up and smell the coffee.

If you think challenging your views because they are based on speculation rather than genuine qualified witness statements is attacking you, then you really are in need of that coffee aroma.

I am making absolutely no excuses for what the McCanns did other than the one that we are all working with (though you simply cannot bear to admit the fact) and that is the benefit of hindsight. Just because you cannot admit the plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face fact that you are posting in hindsight does not make that fact irrelevant.

Others reading your posts understand that fully and cannot understand (as I cannot) why you are so obsessed on destroying every thread with this pathetic mantra.

When you simply won't accept the evidence of independent witnesses (that bizarrely you contributed to the debate), when you simply cannot understand the concept of posting and discussing the issue with the benefit of hindsight, you are demonstrating a fundamental inability to accept the tenets of normal debate.

Your use of the word 'mantra' to put it mildly is becoming more than just a tad obsessive.

You are relying on only one recorded statement and no more.

The Mccanns had no need to do what they did.

Again you say I called the Mccanns drunk.

I did no such thing.

You are merely trying your utmost to deflect this thread by attacking me.

It reveals as do your numerous comments on other threads what you accuse me of, OBSESSION with this case.

You also say I am trying to destroy every thread.

Precisely how many threads are there, and how many have I commented on ?

I suggest you look on how many threads you have contributed today, before you  attack me once again.

[gilet]

Your use of the word 'mantra' to put it mildly is becoming more than just a tad obsessive.

You are relying on only one recorded statement and no more.

The Mccanns had no need to do what they did.

Again you say I called the Mccanns drunk.

I did no such thing.

You are merely trying your utmost to deflect this thread by attacking me.

It reveals as do your numerous comments on other threads what you accuse me of, OBSESSION with this case.

You also say I am trying to destroy every thread.

Precisely how many threads are there, and how many have I commented on ?

I suggest you look on how many threads you have contributed today, before you  attack me once again.

I repeat the difference is that on every thread I have posted on today and previously, I have (except when replying to your blatant disruption) stuck rigidly to the topic at hand.

Whenever you appear on a thread you resort to the neglect mantra.

It is not obsessive to describe a phrase accurately as a mantra which I am doing in the case of your neglect mantra by the way.

No matter how many times you post this repetitive nonsense of yours you cannot disguise the fact that the myth about the 14 bottles has been solidly debunked. You cannot disguise the fact that the mantra about neglect is simply your obsessive opinion and was not agreed with by the legal authorities of Portugal or by any authorities within the UK. You cannot disguise the fact that you have diverted from the original purpose of this thread with this mantra of yours.

The more you continue with the same, the more obvious it becomes.

[stephen25000]

I repeat the difference is that on every thread I have posted on today and previously, I have (except when replying to your blatant disruption) stuck rigidly to the topic at hand.

Whenever you appear on a thread you resort to the neglect mantra.

It is not obsessive to describe a phrase accurately as a mantra which I am doing in the case of your neglect mantra by the way.

No matter how many times you post this repetitive nonsense of yours you cannot disguise the fact that the myth about the 14 bottles has been solidly debunked. You cannot disguise the fact that the mantra about neglect is simply your obsessive opinion and was not agreed with by the legal authorities of Portugal or by any authorities within the UK. You cannot disguise the fact that you have diverted from the original purpose of this thread with this mantra of yours.

The more you continue with the same, the more obvious it becomes.

Mantra, mantra and yet more mantra.

That word is becoming exceedingly boring.

Tell me exactly what irrefutable proof exists the party only drank 4 bottles of wine per night ?

If you can't don't bother replying.

As to neglect.

Where's Madeleine ?

[gilet]

Mantra, mantra and yet more mantra.

That word is becoming exceedingly boring.

Tell me exactly what irrefutable proof exists the party only drank 4 bottles of wine per night ?

If you can't don't bother replying.

As to neglect.

Where's Madeleine ?

There is never irrefutable proof of anything. Some would question whether there is irrefutable proof of the existence of a tree unless it is being observed and even then there is often doubt.

However, an independent qualified witness who reports on a situation is acceptable evidence in most jurisdictions. Apparently your rather fanciful notions do not accept this though.

And you prove my point by repeating your stuck-in-the-groove mantra. You may think it obsessive of me to point it out but I only do so when you actually use the mantra. Don't you even see that? The obsession is yours. I am just picking it out from your posts.

What is perfectly clear is that you are not willing to accept the evidence even when it is staring you in the face.

Neither the qualified independent witness who referred to the quantity of alcohol drunk that night, nor the eminently qualified legal authority who denies even that there was any neglect of the children in a fully logical and reasoned argued case in the archival report.

Simply closing your eyes to the fact that such evidence exists and repeating your inane mantra does not make you look like a skilled debater at all. Quite the opposite.

[stephen25000]

There is never irrefutable proof of anything. Some would question whether there is irrefutable proof of the existence of a tree unless it is being observed and even then there is often doubt.

However, an independent qualified witness who reports on a situation is acceptable evidence in most jurisdictions. Apparently your rather fanciful notions do not accept this though.

And you prove my point by repeating your stuck-in-the-groove mantra. You may think it obsessive of me to point it out but I only do so when you actually use the mantra. Don't you even see that? The obsession is yours. I am just picking it out from your posts.

' independent qualified witness '

Who was that exactly ?

I leave obsessions and use of 'mantra' to your self formulated mobius loop.

Have a good evening.

[gilet]

' independent qualified witness '

Who was that exactly ?

I leave obsessions and use of 'mantra' to your self formulated mobius loop.

Have a good evening.

So now you do not even accept a waiter as an independent witness fully qualified to give a statement about the amount of alcohol that was served. I see.

[insider]

Some of those waiters couldnt even tell the time let alone count the number of bottles they had dispensed on any particular evening.  Independent maybe...reliable? definately not!!!

[insider]

How would you know?

Have you read their statements?   

[gilet]

Some of those waiters couldnt even tell the time let alone count the number of bottles they had dispensed on any particular evening.  Independent maybe...reliable? definately not!!!

Can you provide evidence for that ridiculous comment or are you simply being facetious?

Please do go ahead and show us some proof of your claim that these people were unreliable. I await your proof with interest.

[stephen25000]

So now you do not even accept a waiter as an independent witness fully qualified to give a statement about the amount of alcohol that was served. I see.

I've asked this several times, but with no satisfactory response.

How much alcohol was served to the party on each of the nights by the other waiters  ?