Were the half hour visual checks a convenient invention after the fact?

[Miss Taken Identity]

... and you presume to know better than the police forces of two nations the significance of witness statements ... in what way?

Just as the police took statements from Murat and other witnesses ... collated and investigated them ... to their satisfaction and to be able to report back to the Prosecutors that there was no evidence linking him to Madeleine's disappearance ... they did the same with all other witness statements.

They didn't take witness statements for fun.

They were gathering evidence and they found no evidence against Murat ... or any of the other main players.

It is incomprehensible to me why some do not find it incompatible with reason ... that the tale of one cop desperate for justification of his own incompetent handling of Madeleine's ... is preferred to the results of the proper investigation carried out by the Brits and the Policia Judiciaria.

In my opinion your last sentence constitutes libel in so many ways and it says a lot more about you than it does about those you libel.

Let's look at this  closely

1.Not one independent witness was with these parents when they were 'checking'  the children.
2. The statements claim  to see them leave the table  so? where did they go? what do the witnesses tell us? Nothing.
3. which witness was able to give an accurate account of times of all the toeing and froing of the Tapas? None
4. Why was a request made to have the Tapas do a reconstruction- IF they were believed in the beginning about their 'checking' arrangements.? Hm
5. If they were so diligent and accurate about their checking at what time did young Maddie go 'missing'?

My statement is not liable at all- they did claim there were concerned what people would say, their parents etc. Kate did say she was concerned for their reputation in her claim against Amara... and they were worried they would be charged with something in Portugal.

[Brietta]

Let's look at this  closely

1.Not one independent witness was with these parents when they were 'checking'  the children.
2. The statements claim  to see them leave the table  so? where did they go? what do the witnesses tell us? Nothing.
3. which witness was able to give an accurate account of times of all the toeing and froing of the Tapas? None
4. Why was a request made to have the Tapas do a reconstruction- IF they were believed in the beginning about their 'checking' arrangements.? Hm
5. If they were so diligent and accurate about their checking at what time did young Maddie go 'missing'?

My statement is not liable at all- they did claim there were concerned what people would say, their parents etc. Kate did say she was concerned for their reputation in her claim against Amara... and they were worried they would be charged with something in Portugal.

You truly must move on.

The police have fully investigated these sworn witness statements to the nth degree.  In fact they are probably the most scrutinised statements of any witness statement of all time.

They have withstood that scrutiny from people slightly better qualified to evaluate statements than anyone posting their uneducated opinion on the internet.

You are unqualified both morally and legally to make assessments which are at variance with what witnesses have stated under oath and which have been subject to police investigation.

If you contradict what a person ... any person has said in a sworn statement ... you are traducing that person
by  accusing them of dishonesty.  That is libel.

[Miss Taken Identity]

You truly must move on.

The police have fully investigated these sworn witness statements to the nth degree.  In fact they are probably the most scrutinised statements of any witness statement of all time.

They have withstood that scrutiny from people slightly better qualified to evaluate statements than anyone posting their uneducated opinion on the internet.

You are unqualified both morally and legally to make assessments which are at variance with what witnesses have stated under oath and which have been subject to police investigation.

If you contradict what a person ... any person has said in a sworn statement ... you are traducing that person
by  accusing them of dishonesty.  That is libel.

You opine as a moderator my morality? well, well.  forgive me for falling over laughing.

Well, exactly how much do you know about how much I know about this case exactly, to offer your own opinion.?
The answer is nothing.

So not moving on at all as these are pertinant issues. I note you cannot answer any of the above notes I have provided. and the answer is simple  YOU cannot.

So what part in all these statements have I commited libel exactly?  Well, ofcourse I havn't. however, if you want to pursue this in a court of law then please get on with it...

1.Not one independent witness was with these parents when they were 'checking'  the children.

Libel or not libel?
2. The statements claim  to see them leave the table  so? where did they go? what do the witnesses tell us? Nothing.

libel or not libel

3. which witness was able to give an accurate account of times of all the toeing and froing of the Tapas? None

libel or not libel?

4. Why was a request made to have the Tapas do a reconstruction- IF they were believed in the beginning about their 'checking' arrangements.? Hm

Libel or not libel

5. If they were so diligent and accurate about their checking at what time did young Maddie go 'missing'?

Now do tell which bits you don't like. Personally, I don't like any of it, but it is what it is, and it isnt libel!.

All the statements, all scrutinised  by people with better morality and experience them me can't find a child who went missing not proved to have been  abducted as claimed by the parents.

[Alice Purjorick]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

"It is extracted from the files that the McCanns and their friends checked to verify if all was well with their children, as can be concluded from what the members of this group declared, and also derives from the testimony of Jerónimo Tomás Rodrigues Salceda, a waiter at the Tapas [24], who stated that he "noticed, because it was evident, that some of the group's members sometimes went outside of the restaurant to do something, which by and by he realised was to "check" on the children. Nevertheless, he was always convinced that those children were in a space that belonged to the Luz Ocean Club. . ."

Nevertheless, it can also be concluded from the files that this surveillance with the periodicity that was mentioned above was not the one that is alleged in the files, which leaves unexplained why, on that night, the procedures were altered in the sense of reducing the checking intervals.

In effect, this group of friends was enjoying a short holiday period, therefore perfectly relaxed and it would be normal that, having dinner, inclusively with an entertainment service available [25], they were not very concerned with anything that might happen to their children during that dinner period.

[Lace]

Let's look at this  closely

1.Not one independent witness was with these parents when they were 'checking'  the children.
2. The statements claim  to see them leave the table  so? where did they go? what do the witnesses tell us? Nothing.
3. which witness was able to give an accurate account of times of all the toeing and froing of the Tapas? None
4. Why was a request made to have the Tapas do a reconstruction- IF they were believed in the beginning about their 'checking' arrangements.? Hm
5. If they were so diligent and accurate about their checking at what time did young Maddie go 'missing'?

My statement is not liable at all- they did claim there were concerned what people would say, their parents etc. Kate did say she was concerned for their reputation in her claim against Amara... and they were worried they would be charged with something in Portugal.

You are calling the Tapas nine liars aren't you?   Why would these friends of the McCann's lie?

[Benice]

Let's look at this  closely

1.Not one independent witness was with these parents when they were 'checking'  the children.
2. The statements claim  to see them leave the table  so? where did they go? what do the witnesses tell us? Nothing.
3. which witness was able to give an accurate account of times of all the toeing and froing of the Tapas? None
4. Why was a request made to have the Tapas do a reconstruction- IF they were believed in the beginning about their 'checking' arrangements.? Hm
5. If they were so diligent and accurate about their checking at what time did young Maddie go 'missing'?

My statement is not liable at all- they did claim there were concerned what people would say, their parents etc. Kate did say she was concerned for their reputation in her claim against Amara... and they were worried they would be charged with something in Portugal.

So are you saying that unless some total stranger or someone totally unconnected to them walked along with each and every parent and stood next to them while they checked their children - or unless there are people who witnessed every check made by every member of the group -  it is reasonable to assume they could be lying?

The only way any of them could have given totally accurate times of their checking would be if they had checked and kept notes of those times each and every time they left and returned to the table.

To most people that would be a very strange thing for anyone to do - not to mention a totally unrealistic expectation.

Meanwhile, back in the real world......

SY have stated that they believe Madeleine disappeared at some time between Gerry's 9.05 visit and Kate's 10.00'clock check.   I can find no reason to believe SY are lying.

[sadie]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

"It is extracted from the files that the McCanns and their friends checked to verify if all was well with their children, as can be concluded from what the members of this group declared, and also derives from the testimony of Jerónimo Tomás Rodrigues Salceda, a waiter at the Tapas [24], who stated that he "noticed, because it was evident, that some of the group's members sometimes went outside of the restaurant to do something, which by and by he realised was to "check" on the children. Nevertheless, he was always convinced that those children were in a space that belonged to the Luz Ocean Club. . ."

Nevertheless, it can also be concluded from the files that this surveillance with the periodicity that was mentioned above was not the one that is alleged in the files, which leaves unexplained why, on that night, the procedures were altered in the sense of reducing the checking intervals.

In effect, this group of friends was enjoying a short holiday period, therefore perfectly relaxed and it would be normal that, having dinner, inclusively with an entertainment service available [25], they were not very concerned with anything that might happen to their children during that dinner period.

Jeronimo was the wine waiter, wasn't he?

He would spend most of his time in the tapas bar and NOT in the tapas restaurant.  They do adjoin, but are completely seperate buildings.  He came in as wine waiter, but would not be in a position to see everything that went on from next door.

[Brietta]

You opine as a moderator my morality? well, well.  forgive me for falling over laughing.

Well, exactly how much do you know about how much I know about this case exactly, to offer your own opinion.?
The answer is nothing.

So not moving on at all as these are pertinant issues. I note you cannot answer any of the above notes I have provided. and the answer is simple  YOU cannot.

So what part in all these statements have I commited libel exactly?  Well, ofcourse I havn't. however, if you want to pursue this in a court of law then please get on with it...

1.Not one independent witness was with these parents when they were 'checking'  the children.

Libel or not libel?
2. The statements claim  to see them leave the table  so? where did they go? what do the witnesses tell us? Nothing.

libel or not libel

3. which witness was able to give an accurate account of times of all the toeing and froing of the Tapas? None

libel or not libel?

4. Why was a request made to have the Tapas do a reconstruction- IF they were believed in the beginning about their 'checking' arrangements.? Hm

Libel or not libel

5. If they were so diligent and accurate about their checking at what time did young Maddie go 'missing'?

Now do tell which bits you don't like. Personally, I don't like any of it, but it is what it is, and it isnt libel!.

All the statements, all scrutinised  by people with better morality and experience them me can't find a child who went missing not proved to have been  abducted as claimed by the parents.

You still haven't got it.

The police do the questioning.  The police take the statements.  The police do the cross referencing for evaluation purposes.  The police enable prosecutors to decide whether or not proceedings ensue.

What is it you or anyone else on the internet can do that hasn't been done already by the police.

Or is it your contention that the Policia Judiciaria were so remiss and incompetent in detective work that I will be so much better at answering your questions than they were at the time with all the information there was to hand?

You appear not to have a clue what constitutes defamation ~ or is it that you do know but just don't give a damn?

[slartibartfast]

You are calling the Tapas nine liars aren't you?   Why would these friends of the McCann's lie?

You seem to be assuming lying. There are lots of reasons that the recall of timings and actions may be incorrect.

[Alice Purjorick]

Jeronimo was the wine waiter, wasn't he?

He would spend most of his time in the tapas bar and NOT in the tapas restaurant.  They do adjoin, but are completely seperate buildings.  He came in as wine waiter, but would not be in a position to see everything that went on from next door.

I thought he was an Apache Chief but there you go.
I was merely highlighting what the signatories to the archiving report thought.

[Brietta]

You seem to be assuming lying. There are lots of reasons that the recall of timings and actions may be incorrect.

All of which would, I imagine, have been thoroughly checked out by the investigating authorities at the time.  To suggest otherwise questions their professionalism and expertise.

[G-Unit]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

"It is extracted from the files that the McCanns and their friends checked to verify if all was well with their children, as can be concluded from what the members of this group declared, and also derives from the testimony of Jerónimo Tomás Rodrigues Salceda, a waiter at the Tapas [24], who stated that he "noticed, because it was evident, that some of the group's members sometimes went outside of the restaurant to do something, which by and by he realised was to "check" on the children. Nevertheless, he was always convinced that those children were in a space that belonged to the Luz Ocean Club. . ."

Nevertheless, it can also be concluded from the files that this surveillance with the periodicity that was mentioned above was not the one that is alleged in the files, which leaves unexplained why, on that night, the procedures were altered in the sense of reducing the checking intervals.

In effect, this group of friends was enjoying a short holiday period, therefore perfectly relaxed and it would be normal that, having dinner, inclusively with an entertainment service available [25], they were not very concerned with anything that might happen to their children during that dinner period.

Jeronimo had a lot to say, didn't he? Not all of it helpful. His first words were;

He did not notice if from the group of British citizens (in number 8 or 9) that yesterday dined in restaurant (which was partly made up of the parents of the missing [child]), someone left [absented themself] during such dinner;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm

He had seen them leaving the restaurant earlier in the week;

He noticed, because it was obvious, that some of the members of the group would regularly leave the restaurant to do something, which he gradually came to realise was 'controlling' the children.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/J-T-R-Salcedas.htm

Moving on to 3rd May;

Referring to the day of 3rd May when Madeleine disappeared, the witness says that he was working.

At that time, at about 22.20 - 22.30 he noticed that there was only one person sitting at the group's table, the oldest of them and he asked her jokingly whether they had left her alone.

The person in question said that the others had gone to the apartment to look for a girl who had disappeared.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/J-T-R-Salcedas.htm

On the table booking, the time again, and was that Arlindo Epifanio Goncalves Fernandes Peleja? He left the Tapas at 9.40pm, didn't he?


The table was booked then for 19H30 to 20H00......Frequently, when I served the table I noticed that one or two elements of the group had left the restaurant. I could not imagine where they had gone to. After seeing the news stories, I figured that they had gone to check on their children.......I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? ........I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty. .... I saw the head of the Milenium Restaurant in the Tapas and asked him to telephone the restaurant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm

[slartibartfast]

All of which would, I imagine, have been thoroughly checked out by the investigating authorities at the time.  To suggest otherwise questions their professionalism and expertise.

A reconstitution was suggested.

[sadie]

A reconstitution was suggested.

Why didn't Amaral do that at the time, when the 'iron was hot?'

The Mccanns wanted it but his excuse was something of the order that it would be impossible because of the media intrusion.  What Tommy Rot !   

Was he trying to persuade the critical 'audience that the PJ were not capable of doing it at the time?  That they were incapable of denying public access to a relatively small area ?

I dont believe that.  From all that he has said, he had made up his mind within hours that madeleine had not been abducted, so no point in searching for her.  The way forward in his mind was to find anything he could to incriminate The Mccanns.

Another notch to his gun, so to speak

[G-Unit]

A reconstitution was suggested.

The motives for refusing being open to interpretation.