The Tapas Note.

[ShiningInLuz]

It was only after Madeleine's disappearance that it became apparent that Praia da Luz was not the child safe resort that it was advertised to be.
Do you think that any one of the occupants of the holiday apartments in block five would have dined apart from their children had they known about the burglary and the illegal entry made to other apartments in that block and in the adjoining residences?

The booking was requested ~ the reasons given ~ the booking was accepted and a note taken.  Whether anyone had access and was able to read it was probably something a competent investigation would have checked out.

Since I haven't seen such a note, I will rely on what is known, rather than the assumptions and speculation posted here.

By the way, kindly don't sling mud at Luz.  We have lived here for years and not lost a child or grandchild once.

Mind you, we don't dine out leaving our patio doors unlocked.

And we use those funny gizmos called baby monitors.  And child-sitters.

And the alleged note seems not to exist other than in Kate's book.

[Brietta]

Since I haven't seen such a note, I will rely on what is known, rather than the assumptions and speculation posted here.

By the way, kindly don't sling mud at Luz.  We have lived here for years and not lost a child or grandchild once.

Mind you, we don't dine out leaving our patio doors unlocked.

And we use those funny gizmos called baby monitors.  And child-sitters.

And the alleged note seems not to exist other than in Kate's book.

Did she plagiarise its existence from Amaral?

[ShiningInLuz]

Did she plagiarise its existence from Amaral?

If anyone can point me at the note in the files, I would be truly grateful.

Kate claims, I believe, not to have read Amaral's book.  Though how you can sue someone without reading such a slim volume strikes me as unlikely.

[ShiningInLuz]

But you sling mud at the McCann
A tad hypocritical

It is highly likely maddie was abducted
I can understand why the people of Luz would prefer that was not true

'Sling mud at the McCann'?

Oh dear.

I have yet to find a single person in Luz who is anti-Madeleine.

To go further, I cannot remember ever seeing a comment in Portuguese media that is anti-Madeleine.

[ShiningInLuz]

Not at all
You have repeatedly criticised them over many things

Would that be like leaving the patio doors unlocked?

[Mr Gray]

Since I haven't seen such a note, I will rely on what is known, rather than the assumptions and speculation posted here.

By the way, kindly don't sling mud at Luz.  We have lived here for years and not lost a child or grandchild once.

Mind you, we don't dine out leaving our patio doors unlocked.

And we use those funny gizmos called baby monitors.  And child-sitters.

And the alleged note seems not to exist other than in Kate's book.

That post slings a lot of mud at the mccanns

[ShiningInLuz]

That post slings a lot of mud at the mccanns

Which bit is inaccurate?   

[Robittybob1]

It is a shame this thread is being continually derailed by Davel.  Davel can you stop posting off topic posts here please.  The fact that moderators reply to your off topic posts doesn't help.

This topic is so important.  If the Tapas 9 were not given permission to make the block booking for the week, which seems to have gone against OC policy, Madeleine may not have gone missing.  The diary note is made by the receptionist, presumably to confirm this decision was approved by her manager (who was away but still contactable or did someone else approve of it?)
What is also clear it was not Mr McCann who insisted on making the block booking which seemed to contravene some prior arrangement between MW and the OC.
Did this apparent favouritism shown to the Tapas 9 upset other guests who would have liked to do the same?

[Robittybob1]

If the moderators continue to incorrectly contradict me then I should not stop

Whatever is happening your actions are spoiling my thread it is making it very difficult to follow the important information that the others are discussing, please.

[Robittybob1]

On topic the thread is of no importance whatsoever
Imo

That is very insulting Davel.  I started this thread on a particular topic and it is not up to you to say it is not important.  OK you are allowed to say that as a matter of opinion but then to use the thread structure as a part of some obsessive campaign is dreadful and hurtful.  Please respect my thread please show me some respect.

[stephen25000]

It is a shame this thread is being continually derailed by Davel.  Davel can you stop posting off topic posts here please.  The fact that moderators reply to your off topic posts doesn't help.

This topic is so important.  If the Tapas 9 were not given permission to make the block booking for the week, which seems to have gone against OC policy, Madeleine may not have gone missing.  The diary note is made by the receptionist, presumably to confirm this decision was approved by her manager (who was away but still contactable or did someone else approve of it?)
What is also clear it was not Mr McCann who insisted on making the block booking which seemed to contravene some prior arrangement between MW and the OC.
Did this apparent favouritism shown to the Tapas 9 upset other guests who would have liked to do the same?

Quite right Rob.

I've edited this thread, and removed my own comments as well.

[Robittybob1]

Quite right Rob.

I've edited this thread, and removed my own comments as well.

Thanks Stephen, I know your debate with Davel is important too but in its right place.

[stephen25000]

Thanks Stephen, I know your debate with Davel is important too but in its right place.

No problem Rob.

[misty]

I had a go at Google Translate and it translated the passage as:

The deponent has put some obstacles to the request since it is a very requested restaurant and that it has only 20 places daily for the clients of mark warner, nevertheless after insistence on the part of the mentioned host, the deponent was able to make the reservations requested

---

Instead of 'comments' the translation was 'obstacles'.

I'm not convinced there was a note on the booking sheet - is there a copy of the booking sheet in the file that shows the note?

Perhaps, this is another of Amaral's slips?

Thank you for doing that.
There are no copies of the booking sheets for 29th or 30th April in the public files. The booking sheet for 3rd May has a couple of handwritten notes "autorizo(da) Steve"  - Steve being the person who authorised the McCann group booking.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_608.jpg


Amaral must have been working beside a chip shop fryer, given the number of slips his pen made 'twixt files & manuscript.

[Robittybob1]

Thank you for doing that.
There are no copies of the booking sheets for 29th or 30th April in the public files. The booking sheet for 3rd May has a couple of handwritten notes "autorizo(da) Steve"  - Steve being the person who authorised the McCann group booking.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_608.jpg


Amaral must have been working beside a chip shop fryer, given the number of slips his pen made 'twixt files & manuscript.

So do you think it was a type of booking sheet that it was written on?   Can you remind us who this Steve was?

Do you think it was Steven Marcos Rodrigues Cova http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEVEN_COVA.htm 
For he seems to deny any previous contact and surely that would include approving the block booking?