The Felicia Cabrita story about the 14 bottles of wine.

[Lace]

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  ?

Why does that matter to you?    They were having a meal and a drink Stephen,  so what?

[gilet]

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  ?

You are either simply speculating that more alcohol was served to the party by other waiters or have evidence that such a thing happened?

Which is it?

Are we supposed to look for evidence for something which is only in your head or do you have something for us to actually discuss?

[stephen25000]

You are either simply speculating that more alcohol was served to the party by other waiters or have evidence that such a thing happened?

Which is it?

Are we supposed to look for evidence for something which is only in your head or do you have something for us to actually discuss?

You are not interested in discussion.

As Albertini has put it so succinctly, you are here to defend the Mccanns and no more.

You have no proof other waiters did not serve them drinks do you ?

You also do not know how reliable the waiters statement was ?

How do you know he was telling the truth  ?

[sadie]

You are not interested in discussion.

As Albertini has put it so succinctly, you are here to defend the Mccanns and no more.

You have no proof other waiters did not serve them drinks do you ?

You also do not know how reliable the waiters statement was ?

How do you know he was telling the truth  ?

Re: The statements:

So now we have the waiters telling lies too?

And all the Tapas peeps including the Mccann friends are not to be trusted ?

They are all liars to help the Mccanns ?



Jeez, whats the point in taking statements then ?

[stephen25000]

Re: The statements:

So now we have the waiters telling lies too?

And all the Tapas peeps including the Mccann friends are not to be trusted ?

They are all liars to help the Mccanns ?



Jeez, whats the point in taking statements then ?

Waiters ?

1 only on the statements.

Where are statements from the other waiters ?

[gilet]

Waiters ?

1 only on the statements.

Where are statements from the other waiters ?

I cannot quite believe that you are posting such a ridiculous question?

Are you seriously not aware of where the statements are to be found?

Have you not even made ANY effort at all to find them?

Well I will give you some assistance then.

You could try the PJ Files. They are available on a number of online sites. I thought most people were aware that is where statements such as those of the Waiters could be found. But as you have repeatedly asked this question I have to presume that you simply are not aware.

I will give you a few more clues too.

You should find a number in Volume Processos II, more in Volume Processos III and one in Volume Cartas Rogatoria V.

[stephen25000]

I cannot quite believe that you are posting such a ridiculous question?

Are you seriously not aware of where the statements are to be found?

Have you not even made ANY effort at all to find them?

Well I will give you some assistance then.

You could try the PJ Files. They are available on a number of online sites. I thought most people were aware that is where statements such as those of the Waiters could be found. But as you have repeatedly asked this question I have to presume that you simply are not aware.

I will give you a few more clues too.

You should find a number in Volume Processos II, more in Volume Processos III and one in Volume Cartas Rogatoria V.

I have read and found one statement concerning the consumption of alcohol.

Other waiters were questioned but not apparently on this matter.

[gilet]

I have read and found one statement concerning the consumption of alcohol.

Other waiters were questioned but not apparently on this matter.

Have you read all 16 statements? Why were you asking where the statements are if you already know?

What you are totally unwilling, it seems, to contemplate is that perhaps the others never served the McCanns any alcohol and therefore there was no need to record any comment from them concerning the subject? As the statements in all but one case are not verbatim, and do not record the questions asked you are simply guessing by this constant inference that the McCanns drank unrecorded alchohol. It is quite ridiculous.

[stephen25000]

Have you read all 16 statements? Why were you asking where the statements are if you already know?

What you are totally unwilling, it seems, to contemplate is that perhaps the others never served the McCanns any alcohol and therefore there was no need to record any comment from them concerning the subject? As the statements in all but one case are not verbatim, and do not record the questions asked you are simply guessing by this constant inference that the McCanns drank unrecorded alchohol. It is quite ridiculous.

No, for you it is ridiculous.

Also, why are you unwilling to accept that the Mccanns and associates drank more than was 'claimed' ?

You accuse me of the very thing you won't accept in reverse !

[Cudge]

You are not interested in discussion.

As Albertini has put it so succinctly, you are here to defend the Mccanns and no more.

You have no proof other waiters did not serve them drinks do you ?

You also do not know how reliable the waiters statement was ?

How do you know he was telling the truth  ?

Just like to the caual obsever it would appear that you are only here to attack The McCans and no more

[gilet]

No, for you it is ridiculous.

Also, why are you unwilling to accept that the Mccanns and associates drank more than was 'claimed' ?

You accuse me of the very thing you won't accept in reverse !

No.

My reason for not accepting that speculation on your part is very simple. It is pure conjecture/speculation/guesswork. And unlike you I do not base my conclusions/beliefs on conjecture/speculation/guessowork.

I have read all the statements because I rely on evidence. And there is no evidence for the claim you are attempting to make that the McCanns drank more in the restaurant or in the bar than is recorded by the waiter who served them.  When you provide some actual evidence instead of mere conjecture then and only then will I countenance the possibility.

This is now becoming your second mantra and again it is a mantra based wholly on speculation and is directly contradicted by every piece of evidence available.

[gilet]

Just like to the caual obsever it would appear that you are only here to attack The McCans and no more

There is a very important difference though between the actions of stephen25000 and myself.

Whereas I am relying on the evidence in the files such as that of the waiter who served the McCanns regarding the consumption of alchohol and the summation of reasons given by the Prosecutor in the Archival report with regard to their being no crime of neglect/abandonment for my conclusions, he is totally disregarding this evidence and simply speculating that it is all wrong and that his notions about greater alchohol consumption and neglect are right.

I am entirely guided by evidence in the files while his entire argument demands that all that evidence be ignored and his speculation become the guiding mantra.

I believe that using evidence from sources who either were present on the occasion or have superior legal knowledge to me is far more likely to lead towards truth than the summary ignoring of such evidence in favour of guesswork. Just my opinion, of course (though I do have an idea that my idea is the one on which almost all civilised legal systems are based and I can think of none on which his is based).

[stephen25000]

Just like to the caual obsever it would appear that you are only here to attack The McCans and no more

To the casual observer you are only here to defend the Mccanns.

[sadie]

No, for you it is ridiculous.

Also, why are you unwilling to accept that the Mccanns and associates drank more than was 'claimed' ?

You accuse me of the very thing you won't accept in reverse !

They have been open.  Some of them had a glass of wine before they came to the restaurant.  So what?


And even with the 2 reds and 2 whites consumed between nine of them, how do you know if the one partner in each couple virtually abstained?  You just dont know; you are speculating.


Despite my not being bothered about drinking, as a social thing we used to be members of a wine tasting group, with a cooked dinner.  Nine couples.    Almost without exception the blokes drank more than the women.  No driving involved, we walked to each others homes.


This just illustrates that often one partner imbibes more than the other, yet you seem to think they were all raving drunk.  Even shared equally with 4 bottles of wine between nine, and imbibed over a couple of hours, or so, with a full meal, no-one was even borderline drunk.


You have it all out of perspective Stephen.


Do you perchance belong to some religion that does not allow any alcohol?

[gilet]

To the casual observer you are only here to defend the Mccanns.

Are we seeing the start of your third mantra?

Why are you just repeating these silly phrases and not prepared to address the evidence?

Why do you not address the actual points made about the failings in your argument?

Why do you rely on speculation and ignore the actual evidence?