The Tapas Bookings

[Brietta]

The tabloid articles that you insist on posting likewise cast no light on what happened to Madeleine and are almost always based on incomplete and inaccurate information but still you persist in posting them.

Can you see the hypocrisy here ?

Your post would probably have had more relevance had you gone to the bother of locating even one post to illustrate your accusation of hypocrisy ... but not to worry.

Many tabloid articles, particularly the earlier ones, were indeed based entirely on pejorative leaks emanating from the investigation ... and as a result were certainly entirely based on incomplete, inaccurate and downright fabricated information. 

The wonder is that even today there are those who base an entire interpretation of Madeleine's case solely on the inaccuracies so promulgated and the matching misconceptions publicised in Mr Amaral's book.

Where the booking of the tapas table figures ... why it figures ... is all a bit of a mystery to me and probably would be to any disinterested observer.

[G-Unit]

Without access to the full story and accurate translations of the files in my opinion your analysis is based on incomplete and inaccurate information.
It can only be as reliable as the reliability of your source which in my opinion is fatally flawed.

I think you will find that criticism of a group of people making a block booking at a tapas restaurant whether implied or direct but almost entirely negative will probably not satisfy your curiosity.

It certainly will go nowhere in casting any light on what happened to Madeleine McCann ... which I presume is the event to which you refer ... and not either the booking of nor the authorisation for a group of nine to eat at the tapas restaurant.

I started a thread to look at the Tapas booking because the whole group said or implied that Rachael booked it and the receptionist said it was booked on Sunday for the whole week by a tall thin man accompanied by Madeleine McCann. If the receptionist told the truth there was no need for Rachael's input whatsoever.

The thread was approved and some interesting facts have emerged. The thread is clearly not to your taste, but this forum is not yours and your opinion of what should or should not be discussed is irrelevant.

I get the impression that you have relied on various websites of your choice and some questionable newspaper stories to form your opinions. I prefer the official files, which you seem to have dismissed wholesale as inaccurate. I find that quite amusing from one who relies so heavily on articles in the gutter press for 'facts'.

If you disagree with what I have written you need to come up with more than 'in my opinion' to refute it. I can recommend the group's statements, where alternative facts can often be found, sometimes even in the same statement. They are rather more difficult to tackle than a trashy newspaper article I must admit, but much more enlightening.

Perhaps you could start with the answer to just one question. Why did the group say Rachael made the restaurant bookings instead of naming the 'tall thin man'?

[Benice]

I started a thread to look at the Tapas booking because the whole group said or implied that Rachael booked it and the receptionist said it was booked on Sunday for the whole week by a tall thin man accompanied by Madeleine McCann. If the receptionist told the truth there was no need for Rachael's input whatsoever.

The thread was approved and some interesting facts have emerged. The thread is clearly not to your taste, but this forum is not yours and your opinion of what should or should not be discussed is irrelevant.

I get the impression that you have relied on various websites of your choice and some questionable newspaper stories to form your opinions. I prefer the official files, which you seem to have dismissed wholesale as inaccurate. I find that quite amusing from one who relies so heavily on articles in the gutter press for 'facts'.

If you disagree with what I have written you need to come up with more than 'in my opinion' to refute it. I can recommend the group's statements, where alternative facts can often be found, sometimes even in the same statement. They are rather more difficult to tackle than a trashy newspaper article I must admit, but much more enlightening.

Perhaps you could start with the answer to just one question. Why did the group say Rachael made the restaurant bookings instead of naming the 'tall thin man'?

Could it possibly be that they thought she had?   Or do you think they all sat down and said  'Look it's very important that we say Rachael made the booking - even though we know that's not true - so let's agree to lie about it.''    Why??  What possible difference to the case does it make who made the booking?    Why is booking a table even remotely sinister?    I don't get it.

[G-Unit]

Could it possibly be that they thought she had?   Or do you think they all sat down and said  'Look it's very important that we say Rachael made the booking - even though we know that's not true - so let's agree to lie about it.''    Why??  What possible difference to the case does it make who made the booking?    Why is booking a table even remotely sinister?    I don't get it.

What a lot of questions! I can't imagine why you think I have the answers. I could make some guesses but I try to keep my speculations to myself. I have found some slightly strange information and posted it. What people make of it is up to them.

Dianne Webster, when asked, seemed to know who booked the restaurant...then she wasn't so sure. ;

Asked who has done the booking of the restaurant, says that it has been done by RACHEL.......The question asked, regarding the fact that, possibly, on the first day it was RUSSELL who had made the reservation at the restaurant, she admits that as possible, although she cannot be sure which of the two (RACHEL or RUSSELL) would have done it.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm

[Benice]

What a lot of questions! I can't imagine why you think I have the answers. I could make some guesses but I try to keep my speculations to myself. I have found some slightly strange information and posted it. What people make of it is up to them.

Dianne Webster, when asked, seemed to know who booked the restaurant...then she wasn't so sure. ;

Asked who has done the booking of the restaurant, says that it has been done by RACHEL.......The question asked, regarding the fact that, possibly, on the first day it was RUSSELL who had made the reservation at the restaurant, she admits that as possible, although she cannot be sure which of the two (RACHEL or RUSSELL) would have done it.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANNE_WEBSTER_11-MAY07.htm

Unless you can come up with a credible reason why the group would decide it was vital to lie about who made the booking then there is no reason to believe there was some 'hidden agenda' associated with it.  Therefore  -  I think it is reasonable to believe that they all gave their own genuine recollections of who it was  -  at the time they were being asked about it.    Whether they remembered correctly or not - we don't know  - but as it doesn't affect anything IMO -  does it matter anyway?  I think not.

[G-Unit]

Unless you can come up with a credible reason why the group would decide it was vital to lie about who made the booking then there is no reason to believe there was some 'hidden agenda' associated with it.  Therefore  -  I think it is reasonable to believe that they all gave their own genuine recollections of who it was  -  at the time they were being asked about it.    Whether they remembered correctly or not - we don't know  - but as it doesn't affect anything IMO -  does it matter anyway?  I think not.

Okay. Let's assume the receptionist didn't mistake a small dark woman fr a tall thin man. So Russell (?) the tall thin man heads to the Tapas reception Sunday morning with the intention of booking dinner there for the rest of the week. He achieves his objective by insisting on the booking because they're leaving their kids home alone each evening.

It's against the rules to book for the week, the restaurant functions on a daily first-come first-served basis because there are limited places available. The receptionist tells the client so, but still he insists so she 'manages' to make the booking.

I have no idea of the level of responsibility a receptionist enjoyed. Was she able to take the decision to break the rules by tying up virtually half of the MW restaurant places for the week? Would her employers have accepted that leaving children home alone was a good reason for breaking the rules? Did she get into trouble later if she didn't let anyone know about the information she was given? She admits to being puzzled at their actions and refers to the other options available which clients normally opt for.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUISA_COUTINHO.htm

Kate McCann has no problem at all with Russell/Jane telling the receptionist why they wanted the block booking. She's 'horrified', however, to find that the receptionist wrote the information down where people could see it (allegedly, I haven't seen evidence of it myself). Perhaps she should have been annoyed with the one who gave the information out too?

[ferryman]

15 pages to say that a group of friends booked a holiday? 

[jassi]

You know how these things can drag on 

[Alfie]

I started a thread to look at the Tapas booking because the whole group said or implied that Rachael booked it and the receptionist said it was booked on Sunday for the whole week by a tall thin man accompanied by Madeleine McCann. If the receptionist told the truth there was no need for Rachael's input whatsoever.

The thread was approved and some interesting facts have emerged. The thread is clearly not to your taste, but this forum is not yours and your opinion of what should or should not be discussed is irrelevant.

I get the impression that you have relied on various websites of your choice and some questionable newspaper stories to form your opinions. I prefer the official files, which you seem to have dismissed wholesale as inaccurate. I find that quite amusing from one who relies so heavily on articles in the gutter press for 'facts'.

If you disagree with what I have written you need to come up with more than 'in my opinion' to refute it. I can recommend the group's statements, where alternative facts can often be found, sometimes even in the same statement. They are rather more difficult to tackle than a trashy newspaper article I must admit, but much more enlightening.

Perhaps you could start with the answer to just one question. Why did the group say Rachael made the restaurant bookings instead of naming the 'tall thin man'?

Or you could ask why did the receptionist say a "tall thin man" made the booking and not Rachel, but note this question did not seem to occur to you.

[jassi]

Perhaps  the receptionist had never seen Rachel, didn't even know she existed, whereas she had dealt with a tall thin man, which is why she mentioned him.

[Alfie]

Perhaps  the receptionist had never seen Rachel, didn't even know she existed, whereas she had dealt with a tall thin man, which is why she mentioned him.

One thing is for sure we will never know, and the significance of this issue is minor to say the very least.

[ShiningInLuz]

Okay. Let's assume the receptionist didn't mistake a small dark woman fr a tall thin man. So Russell (?) the tall thin man heads to the Tapas reception Sunday morning with the intention of booking dinner there for the rest of the week. He achieves his objective by insisting on the booking because they're leaving their kids home alone each evening.

It's against the rules to book for the week, the restaurant functions on a daily first-come first-served basis because there are limited places available. The receptionist tells the client so, but still he insists so she 'manages' to make the booking.

I have no idea of the level of responsibility a receptionist enjoyed. Was she able to take the decision to break the rules by tying up virtually half of the MW restaurant places for the week? Would her employers have accepted that leaving children home alone was a good reason for breaking the rules? Did she get into trouble later if she didn't let anyone know about the information she was given? She admits to being puzzled at their actions and refers to the other options available which clients normally opt for.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUISA_COUTINHO.htm

Kate McCann has no problem at all with Russell/Jane telling the receptionist why they wanted the block booking. She's 'horrified', however, to find that the receptionist wrote the information down where people could see it (allegedly, I haven't seen evidence of it myself). Perhaps she should have been annoyed with the one who gave the information out too?

I haven't read the thread in detail, my apologies if this has already been covered.

Coutinho's statement is that on 3 May 2007 she worked 09:00 to 17:00.

Yet she also states that on an unspecified occasion, she saw 2 members of the group going to check on children.  If that is correct, she must been there after 20.30 on at least one evening.

Then we have the issue of how the Tapas reception was staffed.  The Tapas restaurant was closed on a Saturday, was it not?  That implies cover for 6 days, 8 hours per day, by one person.  Much worse if duties did extend to 20.30 and beyond.  I'm wondering if someone else covered at times.

I thought, from memory, the rogs described a situation in which the Tapas was tried on the Sunday, then a block booking was made for the remainder of the week.  Does anyone know?  I do not intend plodding through the statements to dig this out.

If there were two instances of booking, rather than just the one, is it the source of the apparent differences?

[G-Unit]

I haven't read the thread in detail, my apologies if this has already been covered.

Coutinho's statement is that on 3 May 2007 she worked 09:00 to 17:00.

Yet she also states that on an unspecified occasion, she saw 2 members of the group going to check on children.  If that is correct, she must been there after 20.30 on at least one evening.

Then we have the issue of how the Tapas reception was staffed.  The Tapas restaurant was closed on a Saturday, was it not?  That implies cover for 6 days, 8 hours per day, by one person.  Much worse if duties did extend to 20.30 and beyond.  I'm wondering if someone else covered at times.

I thought, from memory, the rogs described a situation in which the Tapas was tried on the Sunday, then a block booking was made for the remainder of the week.  Does anyone know?  I do not intend plodding through the statements to dig this out.

If there were two instances of booking, rather than just the one, is it the source of the apparent differences?

There was a trainee who worked Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday at that reception, 9am-7pm.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ELISA.htm

Luisa seemed sure who booked and what was booked;

She remembers that on Sunday 29th April one of the elements of the group arrived with the child Madeleine McCann, she does not know his name and can only say that he was male and tall and thin and that he approached her to request a booking for the whole group, for the whole week and always at 20.30.

When questioned, she confirms that the man was not the father of the girl but one of the members of the group whom was often seen in his company.

The man justified his request by saying that the group had many small children whom they would leave alone when they went to dine. She said that at intervals some two parents would go to the apartments to see if everything was OK. [should this say 'he' - sometimes male and female get mixed up. Gerry was referred to as 'she' in one of his statement translations. Also Russell mentioned elsewhere that the plan was that two people would carry out each check]

The deponent made some comments about the request, saying that the Tapas received many requests and that MW only had a quota of 20 per day, but upon the insistence of the guest she managed to make the bookings requested.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUISA_COUTINHO.htm

[G-Unit]

15 pages to say that a group of friends booked a holiday?

The thread was authorised. They sometimes get overlong because people post comments which either have nothing to do with the subject or add nothing to the debate. Do you have any thoughts as to why the receptionist said a man booked dinner for the week on Sunday and none of the group, including the man in question, agreed with her?

[G-Unit]

Perhaps  the receptionist had never seen Rachel, didn't even know she existed, whereas she had dealt with a tall thin man, which is why she mentioned him.

I tend to lean towards the receptionist's statement because she mentions a child being with the man. She thought the child was Madeleine, but Russell's daughter was very similar looking.