The Felicia Cabrita story about the 14 bottles of wine.

[stephen25000]

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.

Yet again your obsession with the word 'mantra'.

How do you know the account given by one waiter is correct ?

[stephen25000]

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 rely on speculation and ignore the actual evidence?

Let's try again.

Does a witness statement constitute proof ?

[gilet]

Yet again your obsession with the word 'mantra'.

How do you know the account given by one waiter is correct ?

Because no other statement contradicts it for a start.

Because it fits with the overall tally of 14 bottles used by all the tables that night.

Because it matches the fact that none of the McCanns or their friends were reported by any witness that night as showing any effect on their behaviour of alcohol consumption.

Because the witness was present in the restaurant that night.

Because the witness was reporting something he was personally involved in dealing with.

Because there is no evidence that the witness is in any way unreliable.

Because most independent witnesses (as opposed to suspects) giving account of such banal matters as how many bottles of wine served do so honestly.

Because there is absolutely no evidence anywhere which suggests it is not the truth.

Because there is no logical reason why this independent witness should lie.




Now could you please outline your full reasons for disbelieving this statement?


Oh and for your information, I am using the word 'mantra' perfectly correctly when referring to the repetitive, unevidenced claims which you make. Perhaps you should look at a dictionary and then you would realise that?

[gilet]

Let's try again.

Does a witness statement constitute proof ?

No, a witness statement contributes to the overall proving of a matter.

When there is absolutely nothing to suggest that there is any dishonesty, inaccuracy or other problem with a statement from a wholly independent witness who is fully qualified by presence on the scene and/or expertise (both in this instance) then it is a very strong contributor to the proof of that matter. 

Perhaps you hadn't noticed but that is how all serious legal systems work?

To the best of my knowledge none work on the system you are proposing, that of speculating that because nobody said it didn't happen then it might have happened.

Now I await your specific reasons for disbelieving this particular waiter's statement with interest.

[stephen25000]

Because no other statement contradicts it for a start.

Because it fits with the overall tally of 14 bottles used by all the tables that night.

Because it matches the fact that none of the McCanns or their friends were reported by any witness that night as showing any effect on their behaviour of alcohol consumption.

Because the witness was present in the restaurant that night.

Because the witness was reporting something he was personally involved in dealing with.

Because there is no evidence that the witness is in any way unreliable.

Because most independent witnesses (as opposed to suspects) giving account of such banal matters as how many bottles of wine served do so honestly.

Because there is absolutely no evidence anywhere which suggests it is not the truth.

Because there is no logical reason why this independent witness should lie.




Now could you please outline your full reasons for disbelieving this statement?


Oh and for your information, I am using the word 'mantra' perfectly correctly when referring to the repetitive, unevidenced claims which you make. Perhaps you should look at a dictionary and then you would realise that?

I am fully aware of the meaning of the word mantra, as equally as I am fully aware of your reason for being on this forum.

I was not referring solely to the drinking on that night.

I was referring to the drinking pattern over successive nights, whilst they were at the Tapas bar and not caring for their children.

That was the pattern of behaviour, with intermittent checks not verified by any independent source.

Clearly on the night in question , the drinking was cut short by events.

[Carana]

Waiters ?

1 only on the statements.

Where are statements from the other waiters ?

What do you mean only 1 statement? I've already posted a few.

[gilet]

My responses in blue.

I am fully aware of the meaning of the word mantra, as equally as I am fully aware of your reason for being on this forum.

But the evidence of your constant questioning of my use of the word when I use it accurately to describe the posts you make indicates a lack of understanding.

And once again you presume too much and do so in quite an abusive way. My reasons for being on this forum are my business and your guesses are utterly irrelevant.

I was not referring solely to the drinking on that night.

I was referring to the drinking pattern over successive nights, whilst they were at the Tapas bar and not caring for their children.

You have specifically decried that particular waiter's statement. I await your full list of reasons for disbelieving him.

And as for your point about other nights, the same response will be forthcoming. Provide evidence of any untoward use of alcohol on the part of the McCanns and we can debate that evidence. If you can provide none, if there is none then I am afraid that I am not prepared to debate with you on pure conjecture.

That was the pattern of behaviour, with intermittent checks not verified by any independent source.

Again you are preferring to wholly disregard witness statements which do in fact corroborate each other and which are corroborated (if not specifically verified) by a number of independent witness statements.

Clearly on the night in question , the drinking was cut short by events.

Stating the obvious while implying something else is not conducive to real debate. There is no evidence that on any night the McCanns over-indulged in any way in alchohol. The whole tenet of your argument is therefore flawed.

[gilet]

Yet again your obsession with the word 'mantra'.

How do you know the account given by one waiter is correct ?

I immediately responded to this request by giving a whole range of reasons why I believe this waiter's statement to be accurate.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a response to my own question to you which I posted some time ago.

What are your specific reasons for disbelieving this waiter's statement.

I await your reply and reasons with interest.

[stephen25000]

My responses in blue.

You skirt around the main issue as do the others who follow your line.

The Mccanns ( mantra time again  ) placed the socializing above their children's safety.

You have no proof the waiter's recollections were precise.

I notice one of the mod's was saying the same thing last night.

Alcohol is a depressant, it slows reactions and often has the effect of distracting people. If they wished to drink they could have done so in the apartment without disturbing the children. The 'regular' checking of the children has not been independently verified.
 
This was a family holiday, not a group of 30 something's without any responsibilities.

They had a duty to protect and look after their children, and they monumentally failed.

Queue the inevitable reply ( which I shall view later ) 

[drummer]

I am fully aware of the meaning of the word mantra, as equally as I am fully aware of your reason for being on this forum.


I can't believe you have the nerve to say this to any poster Stephen after you have made your reasons quite clear elsewhere why you post on this forum.

What was it you said?  "I only post on the justice site to put a spanner in the works."

[stephen25000]

I am fully aware of the meaning of the word mantra, as equally as I am fully aware of your reason for being on this forum.


I can't believe you have the nerve to say this to any poster Stephen after you have made your reasons quite clear elsewhere why you post on this forum.

What was it you said?  "I only post on the justice site to put a spanner in the works."

Indeed a 'spanner in the works' of those who make excuses for the negligence of the Mccanns ( oh, is that a mantra again  >@@(*&)  ).

Meanwhile I wonder why you are on here.

No, not really.

[sadie]

Indeed a 'spanner in the works' of those who make excuses for the negligence of the Mccanns ( oh, is that a mantra again  >@@(*&)  ).

Meanwhile I wonder why you are on here.

No, not really.

Aahhh, so you only post on here to put a spanner in the works, then ?


That explains lots of things.


If that is the case, please get rid of him Admin

[AnneGuedes]

If that is the case, please get rid of him Admin

Playing the Queen of Hearts, Sadie ? Off with his head ???

[stephen25000]

Aahhh, so you only post on here to put a spanner in the works, then ?


That explains lots of things.


If that is the case, please get rid of him Admin

You didn't read did you Sadie.

I'm here to those who condone neglect.

[Albertini]

You didn't read did you Sadie.

I'm here to those who condone neglect.

It astounds me that this is the only forum where there are posters who both believe and disbelieve the McCann's, debating together and all we seem to hear from the Mccann supporters is constant requests for posters to be banned.

What do these people want? The same one sided forums that populate the net? What's the point in that? You don't have to have the same opinion to be able to debate things without constanlty asking for posters to be banned!

This persistent bleating to Admin over banning people and removing posters is getting more than tiresome now.