The Tapas Bookings

[ShiningInLuz]

If you're asking me I have no idea, however haven't you already uncovered some vitally important info which suggests it was before they actually went on holiday?  Which would therefore seem to suggest....what exactly, with relevance to Madeleine's disappearance?

The establishment of what happened when in the run-up to Madeleine's disappearance happens to be of interest to me.

The SY idea that the 'time line' starts at 8.30pm on 3 May 2007 strikes me as naïve.

Therefore, getting a grip on what went before strikes me as being important, whether it happens to progress the case or not.

Kate seemed to think so too, given her reference to the block-booking note available to all in the Tapas reception.  A note that I, like G-Unit, cannot find.

Anyone uninterested in the thread has the option of not reading it, leaving the rest of us to get on with it.

[Alfie]

The establishment of what happened when in the run-up to Madeleine's disappearance happens to be of interest to me.

The SY idea that the 'time line' starts at 8.30pm on 3 May 2007 strikes me as naïve.

Therefore, getting a grip on what went before strikes me as being important, whether it happens to progress the case or not.

Kate seemed to think so too, given her reference to the block-booking note available to all in the Tapas reception.  A note that I, like G-Unit, cannot find.

Anyone uninterested in the thread has the option of not reading it, leaving the rest of us to get on with it.

Why is it of importance if it has no actual bearing on the disappearance?  I am entitled to ask this question am I not, or are you politely telling me to do one?

[ShiningInLuz]

Why is it of importance if it has no actual bearing on the disappearance?  I am entitled to ask this question am I not, or are you politely telling me to do one?

You are entitled to ask.  I have no problem with that.

Quite why establishing the mechanics of the booking is unimportant is beyond me.

It establishes or reinforces who knew that a clutch of children were being left in block 5 while the Tapas 9 dined out, and when that knowledge became available.

If this happens to be a pre-planned abduction, then the timing of the booking and the information that went with it is one potential trigger.

Things may or may not have started before this time, but the Tapas booking is critical.  It makes abduction just so much easier.

[Mr Gray]

Not to the disappearance per se but certainly to the subject of neglect. It would seem no matter what the couples had found in PDL to be like it had already been decided before the left England that the children would be left in the apartments alone while the parents dined nearby.

rubbish
The first night they dined in Chaplins with the children

[Alfie]

Not to the disappearance per se but certainly to the subject of neglect. It would seem no matter what the couples had found in PDL to be like it had already been decided before the left England that the children would be left in the apartments alone while the parents dined nearby.

So it's your view that this supposed plan was set in stone in England prior to the holiday and that nothing, not even discovering that the resort was dangerous and non-child friendly would have dissuaded them? 

[Alfie]

You are entitled to ask.  I have no problem with that.

Quite why establishing the mechanics of the booking is unimportant is beyond me.

It establishes or reinforces who knew that a clutch of children were being left in block 5 while the Tapas 9 dined out, and when that knowledge became available.

If this happens to be a pre-planned abduction, then the timing of the booking and the information that went with it is one potential trigger.

Things may or may not have started before this time, but the Tapas booking is critical.  It makes abduction just so much easier.

The big question being posed by this thread seems to have been more "who made the booking", rather than when (though a recent attempt to move the discussion from who to when has been made by the OP).  On that point I fail to see any relevance whatsoever, can you?

[ShiningInLuz]

The big question being posed by this thread seems to have been more "who made the booking", rather than when (though a recent attempt to move the discussion from who to when has been made by the OP).  On that point I fail to see any relevance whatsoever, can you?

I do.

There appears to be confusion over who made it, who logged it, and when it was made.

If it was block-booked on Sunday morning, the clock runs from then.  If it was not block-booked until Monday morning, the clock starts at that time.

The receptionist appears to give a statement that is self-contradictory, such as working hours that would not allow her to observe the T9 behaviour, but simultaneously claiming 2 of the parents were checking.

Whether this Schrodinger's cat dilemma can be resolved is another issue.

[G-Unit]

rubbish
The first night they dined in Chaplins with the children

Did they? I think you've got that totally wrong.

[jassi]

rubbish
The first night they dined in Chaplins with the children

I think you will find it was the Millennium - where they didn't reckon the food.

[Mr Gray]

Did they? I think you've got that totally wrong.

Yes the first night they dined at the millennium with the children

[Alfie]

You are entitled to ask.  I have no problem with that.

Quite why establishing the mechanics of the booking is unimportant is beyond me.

It establishes or reinforces who knew that a clutch of children were being left in block 5 while the Tapas 9 dined out, and when that knowledge became available.

If this happens to be a pre-planned abduction, then the timing of the booking and the information that went with it is one potential trigger.

Things may or may not have started before this time, but the Tapas booking is critical.  It makes abduction just so much easier.

Apparently I am not entitled to ask despite what you have written above and have received a warning for supposedly repeatedly trying to shut down discussion.  What absurd nonsense.  Clearly my input is not welcome here.  Perhaps I should stick to posting pictures of my pets or favourite pop videos.

[faithlilly]

They found the resort to be quiet and child friendly as described, I don't suppose it would have needed a week to come to that conclusion.

But certainly longer than 24 hours.

[G-Unit]

But certainly longer than 24 hours.

On Saturday evening they ate at the Millenium and then went back to the apartments and went to bed. Sunday evening they left the children and went to the Tapas. At that moment they hadn't been out and about in Luz at night so had no idea if it was quiet and safe after dark or not. According to Russell he entered 5A on Sunday night to check the McCann children. The patio door wasn't locked.

[faithlilly]

On Saturday evening they ate at the Millenium and then went back to the apartments and went to bed. Sunday evening they left the children and went to the Tapas. At that moment they hadn't been out and about in Luz at night so had no idea if it was quiet and safe after dark or not. According to Russell he entered 5A on Sunday night to check the McCann children. The patio door wasn't locked.

Precisely. It absolutely makes my stomach churn imagining those children trustingly falling asleep, safe in the knowledge that their parents would be there if they woke, only for those same parents to sneak out like thieves in the night unconcerned how distressed  their children would be on waking  in dark and unfamiliar surrounding and finding they weren't there.

[Alfie]

Precisely. It absolutely makes my stomach churn imagining those children trustingly falling asleep, safe in the knowledge that their parents would be there if they woke, only for those same parents to sneak out like thieves in the night unconcerned how distressed  their children would be on waking  in dark and unfamiliar surrounding and finding they weren't there.

Poor you, try not to take these things to heart so, you'll make yourself ill.