The Tapas Note.

[faithlilly]

I don't know why there isn't a reference to the note, perhaps it indicates sloppy file-keeping?

Isn't it convenient  that one of the only files that does not seem to have a reference number is the one Kate is accused of being dishonest about ?

[Admin]

Topic please!

[Alfred R Jones]

Topic please!

Why was my reply to Faithlilly removed?  It was on topic!

[Alfred R Jones]

And whilst I have your attention Admin, when did it become OK to openly accuse the McCanns of dishonesty on this forum?  A while back we were not allowed to claim that anyone was lying about anything, now it seems positively de rigueur to accuse the McCanns and their friends of a new dishonesty every day, pretty much.  Perhaps you can explain when and why the rules were changed?  Sorry if this is "off topic".

[ShiningInLuz]

And whilst I have your attention Admin, when did it become OK to openly accuse the McCanns of dishonesty on this forum?  A while back we were not allowed to claim that anyone was lying about anything, now it seems positively de rigueur to accuse the McCanns and their friends of a new dishonesty every day, pretty much.  Perhaps you can explain when and why the rules were changed?  Sorry if this is "off topic".

I'm not sure who you think is openly accusing the McCanns of dishonesty on this forum, so I'll pass on that one, thanks.

Kate appears to be inaccurate about what she says in her book and what actually appears in the files, on this particular point.  Is it a deal breaker?

If I ever manage to get my 392 page hardback blockbuster about Madeleine published, I'm guessing it will contain quite a few inaccuracies.  Plus a dash of artistic license.  And quite a few instances of tales ranging from marketing to PR to propaganda. 

[Alfred R Jones]

I'm not sure who you think is openly accusing the McCanns of dishonesty on this forum, so I'll pass on that one, thanks.

Kate appears to be inaccurate about what she says in her book and what actually appears in the files, on this particular point.  Is it a deal breaker?

If I ever manage to get my 392 page hardback blockbuster about Madeleine published, I'm guessing it will contain quite a few inaccuracies.  Plus a dash of artistic license.  And quite a few instances of tales ranging from marketing to PR to propaganda.

Are you not?  Well then let me tell you - it is Faithlilly, whose opening post has now been amended by Admin.  She also writes above:

Isn't it convenient  that one of the only files that does not seem to have a reference number is the one Kate is accused of being dishonest about ?

"Kate appears to be inaccurate" - is that the only explanation, in your view, for this anomaly?

[Carana]

Isn't it convenient  that one of the only files that does not seem to have a reference number is the one Kate is accused of being dishonest about ?

How can anyone accuse someone of being dishonest, if the exact same information can't be proven to be available to both parties?

The child abuse attacks that she mentioned aren't in the accessible files, either. But the Met openly mentioned them.

[G-Unit]

How can anyone accuse someone of being dishonest, if the exact same information can't be proven to be available to both parties?

The child abuse attacks that she mentioned aren't in the accessible files, either. But the Met openly mentioned them.

I think that's because she says the note is in the files;

Cann Page 56
Page56
 
From “Madeleine” by Kate McCann:
 
It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm

[Eleanor]

I think that's because she says the note is in the files;

Cann Page 56
Page56
 
From “Madeleine” by Kate McCann:
 
It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm

So who doesn't believe this?

[Alfred R Jones]

So who doesn't believe this?

and why are we not allowed to point out what a crazy thing it would be to fill a best-selling book with lies which could be easily disproven by the police force you have asked to conduct a thorough case review?

[G-Unit]

So who doesn't believe this?

The note is not in the files available to us and is not listed in the missing pages.

[Eleanor]

The note is not in the files available to us and is not listed in the missing pages.

I asked Who Doesn't Believe This.  How do we know if it wasn't in the missing pages?  Or even why it wasn't in the missing pages, if it wasn't.

[ShiningInLuz]

Are you not?  Well then let me tell you - it is Faithlilly, whose opening post has now been amended by Admin.  She also writes above:
"Kate appears to be inaccurate" - is that the only explanation, in your view, for this anomaly?

Nope, explanations aplenty.

Is this one of those silly challenges where someone says "Team, you now have 5 minutes to come up with as many reasons as you can find with this anomaly?"

Andy managed to sort out 43 anomalies last year.

[Alfred R Jones]

Nope, explanations aplenty.

Is this one of those silly challenges where someone says "Team, you now have 5 minutes to come up with as many reasons as you can find with this anomaly?"

Andy managed to sort out 43 anomalies last year.

Very droll.  No, I  wasn't challenging you to come up with 43 different explanations.  Just one would be fine.

As an aside - why do you feel the need to reply to my posts in such a facetious manner?

[Robittybob1]

I would like to explore the details around this note.  I know very little about it.  Where do we start?