The Libel Trial - So who or what did hinder the search for Madeleine??

[gilet]

Where is your  'link'  to the independent witness who,  you claimed,   said with certainty,  that Gerry McCann was in the tapas bar at 10pm on the night Madeleine disappeared 

In fact,  forget the link  ...  just give the name of the staff member who said he saw Gerry in the tapas bar at  that precise moment, and quote that part of his witness statement that leaves it in no doubt

Don't demand of others that which you  do not do yourself

The name was in one of the posts I made actually. Also I gave the full quotation and the folio page number from the files.

I don't demand of others what I don't do. I provided full references to the material I posted.

[gilet]

I don't think so. In September the PJ wondered why he hadn't searched for his child, and he said it wasn't true, he had gone to the main reception to see if they had called the police. Nobody corroborates he did. He didn't ask to call the police either (the police hadn't yet been called). Instead he went back to the flat and asked Mr Oldfield to go back to the main reception and to insist about the police.

Links or folio numbers please.

[C.Edwards]

Most importantly, if the McCanns had done their job properly as parents, there would be no need for any of this.

There's a good point, well made.  Who started all this?  Did the police kick the McCanns out of their apartment and insist they left it unlocked to assist anyone that may want to abduct a child?  Did they insist they did this night after night?  Did they force the McCanns, under duress, to leave their children in a dangerous situation? (as evidenced by one of them going missing, can't get much more dangerous than that, eh?)

Some people, naming no obvious names, made a judgement call to do all those things voluntarily.  Had they exercised what most people would agree is even a modicum of common sense then they wouldn't have been in this position, would they...?  Regardless of how Madeleine came to be missing, one way or another it was all, 100%, caused by the initial decisions made by the McCanns.

[icabodcrane]

The name was in one of the posts I made actually. Also I gave the full quotation and the folio page number from the files.

I don't demand of others what I don't do. I provided full references to the material I posted.

It's not true gilet

...  what you posted is  not true

There  IS  no independent witness who said,  with certainty,  that he saw Gerry McCann  in the tapas bar at 10pm

[gilet]

There's a good point, well made.  Who started all this?  Did the police kick the McCanns out of their apartment and insist they left it unlocked to assist anyone that may want to abduct a child?  Did they insist they did this night after night?  Did they force the McCanns, under duress, to leave their children in a dangerous situation? (as evidenced by one of them going missing, can't get much more dangerous than that, eh?)

Some people, naming no obvious names, made a judgement call to do all those things voluntarily.  Had they exercised what most people would agree is even a modicum of common sense then they wouldn't have been in this position, would they...?  Regardless of how Madeleine came to be missing, one way or another it was all, 100%, caused by the initial decisions made by the McCanns.

Same old tired mantra.

Why do you excuse the behaviour of the abductor? Don't you ever consider that person to be partly to blame at least?

It is simply wrong to state that it is 100% the fault of the McCanns and by pretending that is the case it would strongly appear that you are condoning the abduction of a little child.

[gilet]

It's not true gilet

...  what you posted is  not true

There  IS  no independent witness who said,  with certainty,  that he saw Gerry McCann  in the tapas bar at 10pm

Wrong.

Folio 122

[C.Edwards]

The name was in one of the posts I made actually. Also I gave the full quotation and the folio page number from the files.

I don't demand of others what I don't do. I provided full references to the material I posted.

You sure about that?  I've been through your recent post history as much as I could bear and all I've found is:

Not one of the so-called mistakes you have highlighted is a mistake.

Every one is fact.

Martin Smith waited after seeing the BBC News report on 9th September a whole eleven days before reporting his suspicion by telephone to the LP on 20th September as recorded by the Holmes Indexer at Braunstone Police Station. (Folio 2873)

A worker at the Tapas Restaurant places Gerry McCann at that scene at precisely the time of the disappearance. (Folio 122)

And I repeat there is only one statement from the Smith family which states that Gerry McCann may have been  the man they sighted. If there are others please give links to them so that we can read where that is mentioned as a possibility. If you cannot provide such links to these statements then we will be forced to the conclusion that it is not in fact me making mistakes here.

Is the member of staff a "Mr A Worker" then?

"precisely" is also the word you used. Feel free to put me right here.

[Luz]

I have been following the libel trial with interest and the common question which arises time after time is did the book or the documentary damage the search for Madeleine?   The answer from the investigating officers comes back each and every time as an overwhelming "no".

So who did hinder, obstruct, curtail, circumvent or damage the search for Madeleine.  I am very sure that if Madeleine is still alive she herself will want to know this some day.

What about if it were those that are claiming the book had any interference?!

They were the ones that contributed to the archival of the process for not cooperating. They were the ones that had the chance to avoid that archival within the first 20 days after the publication of the AG Decision, as assistants to the process.

Even since July 2008 when the investigation was formally filed until last week they had the chance to request for that reopening, simply by offering to present further information.

[AnneGuedes]

Links or folio numbers please.

I'll provide them, but please do first provide the name of the waiter and the complete quote of his statement as Icabodcrane gently asked you.

[C.Edwards]

Wrong.

Folio 122

What is this folio 122 nonsense? Stop being coy and post the bloke's name.

[icabodcrane]

Wrong.

Folio 122

Folio schmolio  ...  what is the witness's  NAME  ?    ...  and what did he say about seeing Gerry McCann in the tapas bar at precisely 10pm  ? 

It's not true 

You have posted something that is not true 

[AnneGuedes]

They were the ones that contributed to the archival of the process for not cooperating. They were the ones that had the chance to avoid that archival within the first 20 days after the publication of the AG Decision, as assistants to the process.

It seems they were badly advised. Short term expedients instead of global analysis of the situation and anticipation of the future. I shouldn't say it because they can't reply, but I really suspect Mr Abreu, Mrs Duarte and Mr Alves behaved too much like lawyers and not enough like caring human beings.

[Luz]

Wrong.

Folio 122

That number doesn't apply to witnesses statements: «121 to 125—External diligences carried with OC staff followed by copies of passports»


Correction, it does, but doesn't display what was insinuated in the above post.

Index may be consulted at http://www.mccannfiles.com/id198.html

[C.Edwards]

Here's one to get you started gilet, totally independent witness:

Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja

Date/Time: 2007/05/08 21H10
Executive Chef
Portuguese

Concerning the issue of the process said;...
. He records that the past Thursday, 3rd of May, he left the central kitchen with the objective of going to the Tapas restaurant in order to determine that everything was functioning smoothly;
. When he arrived there, by vehicle, at around 21:10, he remembers that next to the Tapas reception, he saw a vehicle, dark blue in colour, with Portuguese license plates. Although he cannot be definite, he believes it was a Fiesta or Focus. The deponent furthers that is was not a small car, and for this reason it could very well have been a Focus and not a Fiesta. He tells that he does not remember any sticker indicating that it was a rental car. Inside the vehicle he saw no one.
. After parking his vehicle, he entered through the reception of that restaurant, in the left hand direction, toward the side opposite the pool, and passed by the esplanade. He remembers having seen in that esplanade, one table, occupied by three couples, without children, and all of them adults. On the esplanade, he encountered no one else.
. A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared. Given the importance of this, believed that he should be in the surroundings. At that moment, he did not leave the area of the restaurant, and did not have the opportunity to check if the vehicle mentioned before was situated in the same location;
. Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples;

All done and dusted well before ten.  Your go.

[Luz]

Page 122