UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on June 28, 2013, 04:04:05 AM
-
On 18 August 2007, the Portuguese national newspaper Sol published an article by Felicia Cabrita as follows...
SOL - AUGUST 18
New contradictions in Maddie's case
By Felicia Cabrita, with Margarida Davim
Translation by astro
The version that the McCann couple and their group of friends have been giving about what happened on the night that Madeleine disappeared, is shaken by new testimonies that were collected by Sol.
The English started by saying they took turns every 15 minutes in order to, through the windows of the rooms where the children were sleeping, listen if anything abnormal was happening. This vigilance system, which they assure was efficient throughout a week of holidays, is questioned by an English citizen who lives in the apartment above the one that was occupied by Kate and Gerry McCann.
Employees deny Russell
Fenn told Sol that, on the night before she disappeared, Maddie cried for quite some time, calling out daddy! daddy!
Also the table waiters that were working in the resort's restaurant, the Tapas, where the group of friends had dinner that night didn't notice much movement of checking on the children. One of them guaranteed to Sol that, since the beginning of dinner (which started between 8.30 and 9 p.m.), only two men got up, almost simultaneously.
One of them was Russell O'Brien, one of the doctors of the group, who was absent for most of the dinner and who returned to the table 5 minutes before Kate went to her apartment and noticed Maddie was missing. Russell then explained that his daughter was sick, and even vomited so it was necessary to change her bed sheets. One of the employees of the Ocean Club, who was heard by Sol this week, contradicts his version: "If that had happened, he would have to ask the housekeeping service for some clean sheets, which did not happen".
During the short hour that dinner lasted, the group asked for, and consumed at their table, eight bottles of red wine and six of white wine, according to the restaurant's records.
GNR was on location since 11 p.m. With the help of a member of staff from the Ocean Club, who helped as a translator until 4 a.m., they collected the first reports. Although Maddie?s mother guaranteed that, when she noticed her daughter was missing, the shutters of the room where the children were sleeping were up and the window was open, the members of this police force did not detect any clues to indicate that these had been forced.
On the other hand, the resort's employee guaranteed to Sol that the shutters are so old and simple that, with the sun exposure they were subject to in these 14 years, if anyone did try to open them from the outside, they would have broken. The main door to the apartment didn't show any signs of a break-in, either.
The McCann family were never alone. Dozens of members of staff at the resort appealed to the local population, mostly English citizens, and the surrounding areas were searched thoroughly. The couple was busy making phone calls.
Aurelio Guerreiro, the owner of a bar at the marina in Vilamoura, was close to being involved. His testimony to Sol confuses the McCanns' time version. Sometime between 0.30 and 1 a.m., Aurelio got a phone call from an old customer: Pat Perkins, the human resources director from a public English organism. She calls him, upset: "She told me the daughter of British friends of her, who were vacationing close to Lagos, had disappeared over 3 hours ago, that they were completely alone and that nobody was helping them to search for her".
Kate McCann had just informed her parents of the tragedy. Pat, who lives in Liverpool, confirms: "I was at Kate's parents' house at that moment. But I have nothing further to add".
Guerreiro tells what he did after Pat called him: "I understood she wanted me to go meet them, but I was an hour away from their location, and I could not close the bar, I decided to call the police". After PJ in Portimao confirmed to him they already knew about the case, Aurelio phoned Kate, at the number that Pat had given him: "An English man picked up. He thanked me, and contrary to what I expected, he didn't ask me for anything".
Minutes after this phone call, Gerry asks for the priest from the Luz parish to be called for him but the Ocean Club staff members refused, given the time it was. At 4 in the morning, Jane was asking a member of GNR: "Have you cut off all the roads already?". Minutes later, Gerry, given the fact that the priest didn't appear, asked another element of GNR to show him the way to the church.
Couple wants to return to England
As Sol has been reporting, the clues that were collected by PJ with the help of English police, lead to a turnaround in the investigation. One of the dogs used by the British marked Maddie's death inside the apartment. On the other hand, blood was found inside the bedroom where the McCanns children were sleeping, which has been dissimulated with the help of whiteners, and is still being analysed in a British laboratory.
The path that the English dogs followed 2 weeks ago, in the surroundings of the apartment, exclude the possibility that the child was abducted and is still alive. The dogs walked the only two paths that Maddie's family and friends knew.
One of them leads to Luz beach. The Irish citizen Martin Smith, a local resident for years, told Sol that on that night he crossed ways with a man who was carrying a child, with the characteristics of Maddie. That path was searched by police and other people. Six days after the disappearance, Gerry, who was accompanied by an unknown individual, also seemed to participate in the searches, but on the opposite side of the way the dogs walked.
Parents are leaving
Throughout this week, much was speculated in the press. The Times published that the blood that was collected inside the apartment is not Maddie's but from an individual from the European northeast. The English lab denied this, stating that they have not finished their work yet. The McCanns were saying yesterday in several newspapers that they were considering going back to their country.
-
I don't think it's fair to be constantly blaming the press, even the tabloids. They sell only what people are ready to buy.
It's a fact that the planet was amazed to learn that educated people, mainly doctors, would leave their kids alone, out of ear and eye shot, in strange flats in a foreign country, just to socialize and laugh at Ms Tanner relieving Mr O'Brien ah ah !
Should we be surprised that the popular press echoed this ?
As for "Rule Britannia", well the UK authorities made it clear that Britannia rules the waves!
Or the papers dumb down their readers enough to make them want to read what they have to sell - and much of it wasn't even true anyway, including Felicia Cabrita and her misinterpretation of the 14 bottles of wine.
I wonder how she got hold of that?
-
Woudn't you agree that many people at the time assumed that the 14-bottles story was true?
I wondered myself in the early days, until I saw the restaurant sheet. How many people bothered to check?
-
Woudn't you agree that many people at the time assumed that the 14-bottles story was true?
I wondered myself in the early days, until I saw the restaurant sheet. How many people bothered to check?
I don't know but I doubt 9 people manage to drink so many bottles in one hour.
Drinking wine before going to a restaurant and have dinner suggests wine is appreciated.
-
I don't know but I doubt 9 people manage to drink so many bottles in one hour.
Drinking wine before going to a restaurant and have dinner suggests wine is appreciated.
Quite possibly. But how did this "interpretation" of this restaurant slip end up in the Sol as indicating that the entire consumption only concerned the T9?
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm)
-
I hardly believe that I am reading this. 14 bottles of wine when we already know that this is not true. It was the entire consumption of every table in that restaurant on that evening. Why do this when it is patently untrue?
The PJ have already discredited themselves, sorry to say. Or at least that corrupt little pocket has. But in the end it doesn't really matter. Some idiot allowed Goncalo Amaral to run that investigation when he was patently incapable and not even trustworthy. What happened after that was ultimately a forgone conclusion.
The entire company of The PJ needs to take a long and hard look at what they thought they were doing.
-
Quite possibly. But how did this "interpretation" of this restaurant slip end up in the Sol as indicating that the entire consumption only concerned the T9?
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm)
I don't know, do you ?
-
Quite possibly. But how did this "interpretation" of this restaurant slip end up in the Sol as indicating that the entire consumption only concerned the T9?
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS_BOOKING.htm)
It seems 14 bottles is excessive for that night seeing as their night out was disturbed at 10 pm, however, a few facts
- a few waiters have said theyhad 8-9 an evening
- tourists do start drinking before their meals so an hour to consume anything is not correct
- Danny Collins wrote the book Vanished, he spoke to the staff, and was told thatnight it was 12 bottles, he also mentioned as the night wore on their checks became more sporadic
- you dont know if that restaraunt sheet was not a photocopy with just their consumption on it instead of the whole evenings consumption by everysingle guest that night
- Gerry himself has stated they each drank more or less a bottle each every night
- That would put ALL the other diners together, drinking hardly if the 14 bottle count on May 3rd sheet was for everyone
- D Payne told Gerry or Kate IIRC that it had been a great day that day, perhaps they all, nearing the end of the hols decided to have a ball!
Anyway, seems to have gone totally off topic here
-
It seems 14 bottles is excessive for that night seeing as their night out was disturbed at 10 pm, however, a few facts
- a few waiters have said theyhad 8-9 an evening
- tourists do start drinking before their meals so an hour to consume anything is not correct
- Danny Collins wrote the book Vanished, he spoke to the staff, and was told thatnight it was 12 bottles, he also mentioned as the night wore on their checks became more sporadic
- you dont know if that restaraunt sheet was not a photocopy with just their consumption on it instead of the whole evenings consumption by everysingle guest that night
- Gerry himself has stated they each drank more or less a bottle each every night
- That would put ALL the other diners together, drinking hardly if the 14 bottle count on May 3rd sheet was for everyone
- D Payne told Gerry or Kate IIRC that it had been a great day that day, perhaps they all, nearing the end of the hols decided to have a ball!
Anyway, seems to have gone totally off topic here
Ok so they were totally pissed, absolutely legless,
but still managed to commit the perfect crime and not leave the tiniest piece of evidence....no...still doesn't make any sense
-
Ok so they were totally pissed, absolutely legless,
but still managed to commit the perfect crime and not leave the tiniest piece of evidence....no...still doesn't make any sense
Very little does in this case, if it did we, the PJ, LP, SY and umpteen others wouldnt be here, ergo there is something very very wrong with this case
-
It seems 14 bottles is excessive for that night seeing as their night out was disturbed at 10 pm, however, a few facts
- a few waiters have said they had 8-9 an evening
- tourists do start drinking before their meals so an hour to consume anything is not correct
- Danny Collins wrote the book Vanished, he spoke to the staff, and was told that night it was 12 bottles, he also mentioned as the night wore on their checks became more sporadic
- you don't know if that restaurant sheet was not a photocopy with just their consumption on it instead of the whole evenings consumption by every single guest that night
- Gerry himself has stated they each drank more or less a bottle each every night
- That would put ALL the other diners together, drinking hardly if the 14 bottle count on May 3rd sheet was for everyone
- D Payne told Gerry or Kate IIRC that it had been a great day that day, perhaps they all, nearing the end of the hols decided to have a ball!
Anyway, seems to have gone totally off topic here
Why do you promote 14 bottles that night, when you know it is totally untrue? You keep pushing incorrect figures, putting out disinformation.
Why do you keep saying they consumed over an hour, when you know it was over an hour and a half. Why tell lies?
The far fewer bottles of wine they had on the table still had wine in them at 10pm. I have forgotten the number of bottles but it was less than the number of people and the bottles were still in use. Why exaggerate. It is totally untrue what you are saying.
.....moderated .....
-
Please keep to topic guys.
-
Felicia Cabrita obviously got her facts muddled up as the evening meal only lasted for about a hour and a half since all but one left the table immediately Kate raised the alarm. I don't believe they got through 6 bottles let alone 14.
-
Felicia Cabrita obviously got her facts muddled up as the evening meal only lasted for about a hour and a half since all but one left the table immediately Kate raised the alarm. I don't believe they got through 6 bottles let alone 14.
If what she claimed was true they would have all been pissed by the time the alarm was raised.
-
Why would those scribbles relate solely to the T9? Wine was included with the meal - there was no reason to keep tabs on individual consumption of wine or water. If there had been, there would have been space reserved to that effect by each table of guests. The restaurant would, however, need an overall tally for restaurant management purposes.
IFF 8 bottles of red and 6 of white had been consumed solely by the T9, then they'd also managed to consume 1.5 litres of water per person as well. All in the space of 1.5 hours (under that for those who arrived later).
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_608.jpg)
-
I don't see the point of this thread. There was obviously a misunderstanding. Though holidayers drink more because wine is much cheaper in Portugal, these people were certainly not drunk.
When you drink your capacity of attention diminishes, one more reason to have invested on a baby sitter.
-
I don't see the point of this thread. There was obviously a misunderstanding. Though holidayers drink more because wine is much cheaper in Portugal, these people were certainly not drunk.
When you drink your capacity of attention diminishes, one more reason to have invested on a baby sitter.
This thread has served an excellent purpose in that it has demonstrated once again that believing the nonsense claimed in the newspapers without referring back to the actual PJ files is sheer insanity.
It has demonstrated that the news story was simply incorrect.
It has also shown that the myths regarding this evening meal being a drunken affair, in which the McCanns and their friends could not have behaved responsibly, which was based entirely on this inaccurate story are also without foundation.
It has in fact enabled people to see what the truth really is about the matter.
I am quite shocked that you don't see the point in threads which enable the truth to be demonstrated in this way. I am equally shocked that Redblossom is still promoting the myths rather than facing up to the truth.
-
I don't see the point of this thread. There was obviously a misunderstanding. Though holidayers drink more because wine is much cheaper in Portugal, these people were certainly not drunk.
When you drink your capacity of attention diminishes, one more reason to have invested on a baby sitter.
A bit of a serious blunder for an investigative journalist, though, one that just happened to reinforce anti-British sentiment.
And as it was repeated ad nauseum, it became a troo fact that they were blind drunk with all the negative implications that that entailed.
-
I'm also curious as to her source for that...
-
This thread has served an excellent purpose in that it has demonstrated once again that believing the nonsense claimed in the newspapers without referring back to the actual PJ files is sheer insanity.
It has demonstrated that the news story was simply incorrect.
It has also shown that the myths regarding this evening meal being a drunken affair, in which the McCanns and their friends could not have behaved responsibly, which was based entirely on this inaccurate story are also without foundation.
It has in fact enabled people to see what the truth really is about the matter.
I am quite shocked that you don't see the point in threads which enable the truth to be demonstrated in this way. I am equally shocked that Redblossom is still promoting the myths rather than facing up to the truth.
Promoting?I already said to me it seemed an excessive number for such a short period of time...though I would have no problem accepting it for any other evening, because 14 bottles is just less than a bottle and half each!...and if they normally spent their evenings until midnight and past, its not such a big deal, I merely added some background on the drink habits, with sources, so people can think for themselves what they want to think and outside the box.
I concede the number 14 seems to have been plucked out of the restaraunt sheet for the whole evenings diners, I merely offered a possibility that it was a copy made for just one table...after all arent way out possibilities always offered up by some people as explanations for x y and z?
I guess you arent going to be expecting any newspaper to be printing 100% truths then, not back then not now or in the future.
That goes to Sadie as well!
-
Promoting?I already said to me it seemed an excessive number for such a short period of time...though I would have no problem accepting it for any other evening, because 14 bottles is just less than a bottle and half each!...and if they normally spent their evenings until midnight and past, its not such a big deal, I merely added some background on the drink habits, with sources, so people can think for themselves what they want to think and outside the box.
I concede the number 14 seems to have been plucked out of the restaraunt sheet for the whole evenings diners, I merely offered a possibility that it was a copy made for just one table...after all arent way out possibilities always offered up by some people as explanations for x y and z?
I guess you arent going to be expecting any newspaper to be printing 100% truths then, not back then not now or in the future.
That goes to Sadie as well!
Promoting it? Yes.
The evidence that there is nothing to show that the McCanns and their friends EVER drank that amount has been given to you.
And even when faced with that evidence you are still suggesting that it is true or could have been true.
That is simply continuing to promote a myth that has been disproved and as such is sheer folly when the aim, surely, is to find the truth. Persisting with unfounded rumour is promoting myth not seeking truth.
And unless I have some kind of corroboration I don't believe what I read in the papers. No.
I prefer fact to tabloid quackery and baseless myths.
And I am glad that the truth about this matter has been exposed. The claim regarding 14 bottles was entirely inaccurate.
-
Well gilet you dont haveto give yourself a hernia each time you post you know
@)(++(*
So, they didnt drink 14 bottles of wine that night,case closed
-
Well gilet you dont haveto give yourself a hernia each time you post you know
@)(++(*
So, they didnt drink 14 bottles of wine that night,case closed
No health problems here.
Thank you for finally accepting the evidence and admitting that this was a myth.
A myth, I might add, which has contributed to the forming of opinions about the McCanns. Such opinions are too often based on such erroneous details from newspapers which never bothered to check the facts.
-
No health problems here.
Thank you for finally accepting the evidence and admitting that this was a myth.
A myth, I might add, which has contributed to the forming of opinions about the McCanns. Such opinions are too often based on such erroneous details from newspapers which never bothered to check the facts.
You cant lay down the law and speak for others, that particular story bore no relation whatsoever to any opinions I formed about them. Neither did any others for that matter.
-
You cant lay down the law and speak for others, that particular story bore no relation whatsoever to any opinions I formed about them. Neither did any others for that matter.
Whatever you say! A shame your own earlier posts seem to contradict you though.
-
Whatever you say! A shame your own earlier posts seem to contradict you though.
Shame you presuppose to know what opinions I have about what issues and where and when I formed them and why.
@)(++(*
For you it seems, the media and Mr Amaral controlled any opinions, not so, the picture is far bigger and more complex than that. And it works the other way around too.
ETA People can be influenced, but its so very arrogant to suggest no one has their own mind or ability to make it up.
-
Shame you presuppose to know what opinions I have about what issues and where and when I formed them and why.
@)(++(*
For you it seems, the media and Mr Amaral controlled any opinions, not so, the picture is far bigger and more complex than that. And it works the other way around too.
ETA People can be influenced, but its so very arrogant to suggest no one has their own mind or ability to make it up.
I have no presuppositions. My knowledge of your opinions comes directly from the posts you make such as the one you made above which based on no evidence at all speculates that the McCanns might have regularly drunk 14 bottles on other evenings.
And it does you no credit to make allegations about me having presuppositions when you include such presuppositions about me in your own post. Quite hypocritical of you in fact.
-
I have no presuppositions. My knowledge of your opinions comes directly from the posts you make such as the one you made above which based on no evidence at all speculates that the McCanns might have regularly drunk 14 bottles on other evenings.
And it does you no credit to make allegations about me having presuppositions when you include such presuppositions about me in your own post. Quite hypocritical of you in fact.
if you are hell bent on being so argumentative you may as well stick to the facts, nowhere did I say or speculate they might have regularly drunk 14 bottles a night as you put it. I added information from various places to show they it seems they did drink a fair deal every night, maybe not the same each night,thats all. And even if they did, so what? No law against it is there?
As for this
And it does you no credit to make allegations about me having presuppositions when you include such presuppositions about me in your own post. Quite hypocritical of you in fact.
@)(++(*
case rested
-
The Mccanns drinking habits are a matter of record and given by witness statements by the waiters serving them.
I have provided a link to the Daily Mail article before which summarizes some of those.
Whatever excuses are given , the effects of alcohol consumption are well known.
-
if you are hell bent on being so argumentative you may as well stick to the facts, nowhere did I say or speculate they might have regularly drunk 14 bottles a night as you put it. I added information from various places to show they it seems they did drink a fair deal every night, maybe not the same each night,thats all. And even if they did, so what? No law against it is there?
As for this
And it does you no credit to make allegations about me having presuppositions when you include such presuppositions about me in your own post. Quite hypocritical of you in fact.
@)(++(*
case rested
There is no information anywhere in the files that states they ever drank 14 bottles a night.
You are now resorting to lying to defend yourself because at 11:18 today you did post such speculation. I quote:
I already said to me it seemed an excessive number for such a short period of time...though I would have no problem accepting it for any other evening, because 14 bottles is just less than a bottle and half each!...and if they normally spent their evenings until midnight and past, its not such a big deal, I merely added some background on the drink habits, with sources, so people can think for themselves what they want to think and outside the box.
You were speculating based on nothing but an erroneous news report. Quite pathetic in itself but to lie and pretend you didn't do it makes you look very silly indeed.
-
The Mccanns drinking habits are a matter of record and given by witness statements by the waiters serving them.
I have provided a link to the Daily Mail article before which summarizes some of those.
Whatever excuses are given , the effects of alcohol consumption are well known.
There is nothing anywhere which suggests the McCanns were in any way incapbable of performing all normal tasks because of alcohol.
I challenge you to provide quotes from these statements which suggests what you are claiming.
As for your reliance on a news article. Sorry, thats just silly but unfortunately to be expected.
-
There is no information anywhere in the files that states they ever drank 14 bottles a night.
You are now resorting to lying to defend yourself because at 11:18 today you did post such speculation. I quote:
You were speculating based on nothing but an erroneous news report. Quite pathetic in itself but to lie and pretend you didn't do it makes you look very silly indeed.
yada yada
I speculated it was possible given the reasons I gave, never stated it as any fact neither speculated as you CLAIMED they did this or could have done this every night, now who is the one looking silly..again the accusations of lies , yawn
Edited typo
-
There is nothing anywhere which suggests the McCanns were in any way incapbable of performing all normal tasks because of alcohol.
I challenge you to provide quotes from these statements which suggests what you are claiming.
As for your reliance on a news article. Sorry, thats just silly but unfortunately to be expected.
Alcohol effects people in a variety of ways, as you will well know.
The drinking occurred on all the nights they visited the Tapas Bar.
Merely because you don't act tipsy, does not mean alcohol inhibits physiological and psychological responses. It is also of course acts as a depressant, but I'm sure you know that already.
As to the newspaper article it is still available.
On the night in question, they had barely started their drinking, before Madeleine 'disappeared'.
As to the most important issue here, well that's very simple isn't it.
The Mccanns and associates socializing came before childcare.
You may want to discount it, but that is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
-
Let's put this myth to bed.
first of all these were not drinkers Red.
It is my understanding that a bottle of wine per person was available free as part of the package, yet usually they only had 4bottles total. Please correct me, if I am wrong on this. but I have seen it somewhere.
The waiter who served them
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
Questioned, he affirms that the group would normally consist of nine people (including Madeleines parents), and would normally dine around 20H30 and 20H40. They would not all arrive at once and before they all arrived, some would have cocktails. On the day of the disappearance, all were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembers them arriving as usual. Had they arrived late, this would have been noted by the staff. He does not remember if they were served cocktails. When they were all together, the group sat at the table, he took their orders, including the starters. As already mentioned, on this occasion, he would immediately take two white and two red bottles of wine and one bottle of water to the table. Their main courses would normally be ready 25 to 30 minutes after their order? a time they used to consume the starters. After starters, the group would normally spend about 15 minutes finishing the main course. Generally, during dinner, he would serve four bottles of wine (two white and two red), which the group completely consumed. On that day, he did not serve any more wine. It was also normal for certain members of the group to order dessert. After this, they would normally stay at the table until after 24H00 but would always leave before 00H00, the time when the bar closed. One or more of them, on another night, asked for an after-dinner drink. He remembers this clearly because they asked for Amareto and the bar did not stock it.
-
yada yada
I speculated it was possible given the reasons I gave, never stated it as any fact neither speculated as you CLAIMED they did this or could have done this every night, now who is the one looking silly..again the accusations of lies , yawn
Edited typo
So when caught out in a direct lie all you can offer as explanation is "yada, yada". That is very informative about your attitude if nothing else.
There is nothing silly about my claim only your continuance with this nonsense.
-
Alcohol effects people in a variety of ways, as you will well know.
The drinking occurred on all the nights they visited the Tapas Bar.
Merely because you don't act tipsy, does not mean alcohol inhibits physiological and psychological responses. It is also of course acts as a depressant, but I'm sure you know that already.
As to the newspaper article it is still available.
On the night in question, they had barely started their drinking, before Madeleine 'disappeared'.
As to the most important issue here, well that's very simple isn't it.
The Mccanns and associates socializing came before childcare.
You may want to discount it, but that is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
Are you teetotal or something Steven? Narrow minded?
Get your facts right. Read the waiters statements FGS
-
Let's put this myth to bed.
first of all these were not drinkers Red.
It is my understanding that a bottle of wine per person was available free as part of the package, yet usually they only had 4bottles total. Please correct me, if I am wrong on this. but I have seen it somewhere.
The waiter who served them
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
Questioned, he affirms that the group would normally consist of nine people (including Madeleines parents), and would normally dine around 20H30 and 20H40. They would not all arrive at once and before they all arrived, some would have cocktails. On the day of the disappearance, all were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembers them arriving as usual. Had they arrived late, this would have been noted by the staff. He does not remember if they were served cocktails. When they were all together, the group sat at the table, he took their orders, including the starters. As already mentioned, on this occasion, he would immediately take two white and two red bottles of wine and one bottle of water to the table. Their main courses would normally be ready 25 to 30 minutes after their order? a time they used to consume the starters. After starters, the group would normally spend about 15 minutes finishing the main course. Generally, during dinner, he would serve four bottles of wine (two white and two red), which the group completely consumed. On that day, he did not serve any more wine. It was also normal for certain members of the group to order dessert. After this, they would normally stay at the table until after 24H00 but would always leave before 00H00, the time when the bar closed. One or more of them, on another night, asked for an after-dinner drink. He remembers this clearly because they asked for Amareto and the bar did not stock it.
Sadie.
This issue has been dealt with repeatedly, on here and elsewhere.
Once again here's the link to the mail article which some prefer to ignore.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491693/Portuguese-police-Were-Kate-Gerry-drunk-night-Madeleine-vanished.html
On the night in question they were up to the 4 th bottle.
on other nights they consumed as a group a lot more, not counting any drinks they had individually before arriving at the Bar.
Like I've said many times before, socializing came first.
-
Alcohol effects people in a variety of ways, as you will well know.
The drinking occurred on all the nights they visited the Tapas Bar.
Merely because you don't act tipsy, does not mean alcohol inhibits physiological and psychological responses. It is also of course acts as a depressant, but I'm sure you know that already.
As to the newspaper article it is still available.
On the night in question, they had barely started their drinking, before Madeleine 'disappeared'.
As to the most important issue here, well that's very simple isn't it.
The Mccanns and associates socializing came before childcare.
You may want to discount it, but that is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
Most adults drink a little when they have a meal on holiday.
Your pathetic attempt to make something of this is quite ridiculous.
Newspapers are not evidential material in such matters. Are you so naive as to think they always contain truth?
The witness statement as provided by Sadie is however factual evidence.
What you care about does not much concern me. I am concerned with getting at the truth and this thread has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the McCanns' reputation was tarnished by lies in the press, by the likes of anti McCanns continuing with the myth/lie about 14 bottles and by the likes of those here who still cannot accept the truth and prefer to speculate and hound the parents of a missing child rather than face the actual evidence.
-
Sadie,
- Gerry Mccann himself states in his september interview, right at the end, it was normal for each of them to have more or less a bottle each per night, thats excluding pre dinner and after dinner drinks
- Some waiter statements support this
- No one has said they were drunk every night
- End of, out of this discussion
-
So when caught out in a direct lie all you can offer as explanation is "yada, yada". That is very informative about your attitude if nothing else.
There is nothing silly about my claim only your continuance with this nonsense.
Sour grapes? I didnt lie, but I couldnt really give two hoots what you think and how you twist things, have bunches more respect for honest posters....
8((()*/
-
Most adults drink a little when they have a meal on holiday.
Your pathetic attempt to make something of this is quite ridiculous.
Newspapers are not evidential material in such matters. Are you so naive as to think they always contain truth?
The witness statement as provided by Sadie is however factual evidence.
What you care about does not much concern me. I am concerned with getting at the truth and this thread has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the McCanns' reputation was tarnished by lies in the press, by the likes of anti McCanns continuing with the myth/lie about 14 bottles and by the likes of those here who still cannot accept the truth and prefer to speculate and hound the parents of a missing child rather than face the actual evidence.
Complete rubbish.
The bottom line remains.
The Mccanns put socializing above childcare.
-
Sadie.
This issue has been dealt with repeatedly, on here and elsewhere.
Once again here's the link to the mail article which some prefer to ignore.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491693/Portuguese-police-Were-Kate-Gerry-drunk-night-Madeleine-vanished.html
On the night in question they were up to the 4 th bottle.
on other nights they consumed as a group a lot more, not counting any drinks they had individually before arriving at the Bar.
Like I've said many times before, socializing came first.
As I have said your reliance on news articles is pathetic when the evidence is in the files.
However I will indulge you and quote directly from that article.
But the group's waiter, Jose Baptista, said they were 'very sensible' about their drinking and usually had eight to ten bottles over the course of two or three hours.
Thats a bottle of wine each over three hours. That is normal in most people's eyes. Perhaps not in blinkered eyes of anti McCanns though.
And "very sensible" is the direct quote. Not what you are suggesting at all even though it is you offering this article as evidence. I suggest you read what you post before exaggerating for effect.
As for your claim they drank a lot more on other nights please prove that or we can discard it as yet more exaggeration from you.
-
Complete rubbish.
The bottom line remains.
The Mccanns put socializing above childcare.
So you cannot answer the points made and simply retaliate by calling the post rubbish. I am sure people will be able to draw their own conclusions from that failure on your part.
And of course the bottom line remains that your opinion matters not a jot because it is not the opinion of the Prosecutor in Portugal who had far more access to files and witnesses than you have and who concluded that the McCanns did NOT do as you claim. That there was no case to answer for neglect or abandoning their children and that the McCanns had in place a perfectly sound (even if not perfect) system of regularly checking on the children.
I know whose opinion matters most to me and it is not yours.
-
Sadie.
This issue has been dealt with repeatedly, on here and elsewhere.
Once again here's the link to the mail article which some prefer to ignore.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491693/Portuguese-police-Were-Kate-Gerry-drunk-night-Madeleine-vanished.html
On the night in question they were up to the 4 th bottle.
on other nights they consumed as a group a lot more, not counting any drinks they had individually before arriving at the Bar.
Like I've said many times before, socializing came first.
How is it that, according to you, the media have more credibility than the police files as a source for case information?
-
How is it that, according to you, the media have more credibility than the police files as a source for case information?
There are so many examples of anti McCanns preferring to believe the media rather than the PJ files.
It does them no credit at all to be seen as naively believing what newspapers tell them.
It makes them look extremely silly in fact.
-
So you cannot answer the points made and simply retaliate by calling the post rubbish. I am sure people will be able to draw their own conclusions from that failure on your part.
And of course the bottom line remains that your opinion matters not a jot because it is not the opinion of the Prosecutor in Portugal who had far more access to files and witnesses than you have and who concluded that the McCanns did NOT do as you claim. That there was no case to answer for neglect or abandoning their children and that the McCanns had in place a perfectly sound (even if not perfect) system of regularly checking on the children.
I know whose opinion matters most to me and it is not yours.
Unfortunately you choose to ignore the truth.
The mccanns put their wining and dining before childcare.
The statement was by one waiter, when we know there were others there as well. Where are their statements ?
To rely on one is insufficient. Where is Jose Baptista's ?
They consumed drinks from the bar. Quantities, not determined
The newspaper is a source of information. Would you care to prove the higher quantities mentioned are a lie ?
-
The Mccanns drinking habits are a matter of record and given by witness statements by the waiters serving them.
I have provided a link to the Daily Mail article before which summarizes some of those.
Whatever excuses are given , the effects of alcohol consumption are well known.
What link?
-
There are so many examples of anti McCanns preferring to believe the media rather than the PJ files.
It does them no credit at all to be seen as naively believing what newspapers tell them.
It makes them look extremely silly in fact.
Yes, along with selective quotes taken from the files.
-
A bit of a serious blunder for an investigative journalist, though, one that just happened to reinforce anti-British sentiment.
And as it was repeated ad nauseum, it became a troo fact that they were blind drunk with all the negative implications that that entailed.
It is not rare to see drunk British people in the Algarve or elsewhere (wine is cheap). That certainly doesn't mean all British drink too much ! There's absolutely no nickname referring to exaggerate drinking. I never heard someone arguing the McCanns were drunk as an explanation of the disappearance of Madeleine. I can't see how actually.
-
Unfortunately you choose to ignore the truth.
The mccanns put their wining and dining before childcare.
The statement was by one waiter, when we know there were others there as well. Where are their statements ?
To rely on one is insufficient.
They consumed drinks from the bar. Quantities, not determined
The newspaper is a source of information. Would you care to prove the higher quantities mentioned are a lie ?
The waiter is a direct witness. His evidence is factual.
You are offering a news report by someone who was not a witness and the speculation about other waiters possibly saying something different.
However you are not actually providing any actual evidence of your claims.
And you are now adding speculation that they went to a bar which is not evidenced anywhere in the files.
Your unevidenced claims about a bar, reliance on news journalists who were clutching at any potential story and nasty speculation is not going to persuade anyone that you are telling the truth. Your own news story even tells us that you are completely and utterly wrong. How stupid does that make you look?
Till you provide some actual evidence rather than your constant repetition of your opinions then I will stick to the facts that we know exist.
The misinterpretation by some clueless journalist of that summation of wine and water consumption that evening has been shown to be the source of the myth that you are unwilling to face up to.
-
The waiter is a direct witness. His evidence is factual.
You are offering a news report by someone who was not a witness and the speculation about other waiters possibly saying something different.
However you are not actually providing any actual evidence of your claims.
And you are now adding speculation that they went to a bar which is not evidenced anywhere in the files.
Your unevidenced claims about a bar, reliance on news journalists who were clutching at any potential story and nasty speculation is not going to persuade anyone that you are telling the truth. Your own news story even tells us that you are completely and utterly wrong. How stupid does that make you look?
Till you provide some actual evidence rather than your constant repetition of your opinions then I will stick to the facts that we know exist.
The misinterpretation by some clueless journalist of that summation of wine and water consumption that evening has been shown to be the source of the myth that you are unwilling to face up to.
Partly deleted.
'The witness served almond bitters to all. He remembers that this happened on Wednesday. He does not remember if they had more after-dinner drinks. He does remember that on Wednesday, certain elements of the group got up, with their after-dinner drinks, and headed to the bar and stayed there until about 00H00/00H10. This was the only night where the group elements were in the bar after closing. He also remembers that they would normally be the last clients to leave. Wednesday was the last night they were at the bar after dinner.'
I presume at the bar they were exchanging pleasantries ?
Did you not read this ?
What of the other waiters, such as Jose Baptista, where is his statement ?
To rely on one statement is insufficient, but you choose to ignore that.
-
Sadie.
This issue has been dealt with repeatedly, on here and elsewhere.
Once again here's the link to the mail article which some prefer to ignore.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491693/Portuguese-police-Were-Kate-Gerry-drunk-night-Madeleine-vanished.html
On the night in question they were up to the 4 th bottle.
on other nights they consumed as a group a lot more, not counting any drinks they had individually before arriving at the Bar.
Like I've said many times before, socializing came first.
Leaks from inside the police investigation suggested the so-called Tapas Nine ordered daiquiris, martinis and beers before dinner, downed up to 14 bottles of wine with their meal, and usually enjoyed almond liqueur afterwards.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491693/Portuguese-police-Were-Kate-Gerry-drunk-night-Madeleine-vanished.html#ixzz2bNp20kzp
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The Mail is repeating the PJ myth of "downing 14 bottles". Perhaps that's Felicia's source as well then.
Some may well have had an apéritif before their meal arrived. Or an after-dinner liqueur. The way it's phrased makes it sound as if they downed several each plus 14 bottles.
They did go to the Tapas bar on the Wednesday for a liqueur. They've said they did, but it appears to be an exception.
-
'The witness served almond bitters to all. He remembers that this happened on Wednesday. He does not remember if they had more after-dinner drinks. He does remember that on Wednesday, certain elements of the group got up, with their after-dinner drinks, and headed to the bar and stayed there until about 00H00/00H10. This was the only night where the group elements were in the bar after closing. He also remembers that they would normally be the last clients to leave. Wednesday was the last night they were at the bar after dinner.'
I presume at the bar they were exchanging pleasantries ?
Did you not read this ?
What of the other waiters, such as Jose Baptista, where is his statement ?
To rely on one statement is insufficient, but you choose to ignore that.
As for the statement you post, yes I have read it previously.
But unlike you I don't guess about things. I can see that they took their after dinner drinks with them to sit and relax in the bar. It is something I have done myself very frequently. I presume they then drank those drinks as I would have done. There is no indication they bought any more, just your nasty speculation as to that happening.
When you provide some evidence for your what you are saying then we might be able to understand why you are making these speculative claims.
-
Why do you keep harping on about the McCann's having a meal and a drink?
They have said they regret leaving the children, it is something they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.
What more do you want?
That does not mean they are guilty of hiding Madeleine's body. SY have said they are not suspects.
Drink or no drink that is the facts.
-
Of the whole group Madeleine's father was without doubt the most noticeable person as he was the most talkative, very pleasant and with a nice manner. In this respect the whole group showed a pleasant friendliness.
They would arrive for dinner according to daily bookings which they did themselves at the reception, he remembers the bookings were always made for 20.30 or 21.00. This booking could be made on the same day until 16.00, it was necessary to show proof of accommodation as well as the number of persons included in the booking. He says that the group arrived in phases but no long delays occurred.
When asked, he said that they would normally stay at the restaurant until 23.30 - 24.00, although some of them would leave earlier, at about 23.00. They were people who showed their satisfaction with the food and would consume on average 8 bottles of wine (4 red, 4 white) between the nine of them, which he considered to be normal consumption for a group of such a number.
They did not drink coffee and as regards after dinner drinks (digestivos) they only consumed these once on 2nd May.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/J-T-R-Salcedas.htm
-
And four bottles of wine between nine of them with their dinner ... Peanuts!
And included in the deal up to one bottle each. So free wine at that.
They are not drinkers/drunks
-
Why do you excuse the Mccanns and associates drinking habits ?
You are still not addressing the real issue at the heart of this matter.
Safety of the children.
Again can you disprove that they didn't drink more than you claim ?
Where are the statements of the other bar staff in this matter who served the party ?
P.S. I apologize for using the term apologist. It has been deleted.
I am excusing nobody. I am interested in facts and truth.
I have stated often that it was (with hindsight) wrong to have done what they did. They have stated the same.
There is no evidence of any drunkenness on the part of the McCanns. Till such evidence is provided by you or anyone else there is nothing to discuss. Either provide such evidence and let the discussion begin or we will conclude there is none.
And your repetition of the serving by bar staff remains unevidenced. Please demonstrate that the McCanns were served by such bar staff. How can their be statements if it never even happened. We know they took drinks from the restaurant to the bar, but you are making an allegation they also bought drinks in the bar. Can you prove that or not?
-
I am excusing nobody. I am interested in facts and truth.
I have stated often that it was (with hindsight) wrong to have done what they did. They have stated the same.
There is no evidence of any drunkenness on the part of the McCanns. Till such evidence is provided by you or anyone else there is nothing to discuss. Either provide such evidence and let the discussion begin or we will conclude there is none.
And your repetition of the serving by bar staff remains unevidenced. Please demonstrate that the McCanns were served by such bar staff. How can their be statements if it never even happened. We know they took drinks from the restaurant to the bar, but you are making an allegation they also bought drinks in the bar. Can you prove that or not?
Where did I say they were drunk ?
I was referring to the effects of alcohol in general.
A lack of statements by other bar staff does not mean nobody else didn't serve the party on any of those days, or can you prove otherwise ?
Can you prove beyond any shadow of a doubt how much each member of the party consumed on each of those nights ?
-
I never understand why people still bang on and on about the babysitting arrangements . The McCann's know that - they will have to live with it for ever,
The Portuguese have said that although unwise after the event it was not unlawful. For me it is there for the grace of god type of thing. It certainly made a lot more people aware on holiday about things.
But surely the reason most people are still involved in the case is to find out WHAT Happened - where is Madeleine who took her , how did they do it and why . It is to solve the mystery .
If the McCann's are involved in the disappearance as some people here think then why go on about the babysitting. That's like accusing Hitler of tax evasion - I mean hello
-
Partly deleted.
'The witness served almond bitters to all. He remembers that this happened on Wednesday. He does not remember if they had more after-dinner drinks. He does remember that on Wednesday, certain elements of the group got up, with their after-dinner drinks, and headed to the bar and stayed there until about 00H00/00H10. This was the only night where the group elements were in the bar after closing. He also remembers that they would normally be the last clients to leave. Wednesday was the last night they were at the bar after dinner.'
I presume at the bar they were exchanging pleasantries ?
Did you not read this ?
What of the other waiters, such as Jose Baptista, where is his statement ?
To rely on one statement is insufficient, but you choose to ignore that.
In the files.
02-Processos Volume II Pages 258 to 260
02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_258
02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_259
02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_260
Processos Volume II
Pages 258 to 260
Joaquim Jose Moreira Baptista
Occupation: Waiter
Place of Work: Tapas Bar, OC
Time/Date: 18H50 2007/05/06
Portuguese National
Comes to the process as a witness. He has worked as a waiter at the Tapas restaurant since 12th Feb 2007. His shift is from 16.00 - 24.00 except for Saturdays when he works from 11.30 to 19.00. The clients who frequent the restaurant are mainly English tourists staying at the OC resort.
When asked he says that he clearly recalls the appearance of the girl's parents, he does not know their names, together with a group of English tourists who generally accompanied them, as for almost a week prior to the disappearance they would dine practically every day in the Tapas restaurant. On the occasions he saw the group dining at the restaurant he never saw the children.
When asked, he says he does not remember ever having seen Madeleine's face, which only happened when he saw her photograph after the disappearance.
When asked, he said that during dinner the men from the group would leave the table, returning to the table a few minutes later. The witness says that he does not know where they went. These absences would last for about 15 minutes. He cannot say with what regularity these absences occurred.
The witness remembers these occurrences well as would often have to take a plate of food requested by one of them back, due to the guest's absence, when he would find that the guest was not at the table when he came to serve the food.
When questioned, the witness says that he remembers on Thursday 3rd May, on the day of the disappearance, that the parents went to dine at the restaurant with the usual people. He cannot be precise, but the witness says that the group arrived between 20.00 and 21.00. He remembers there being about 9 people in total. He states that he received the food orders from the group.
Later, between 22.00 and 22.30, when the witness was in the kitchen, he was informed by a colleague that in the meantime a client had entered the restaurant shouting and that afterwards the whole English had left in a panic. The witness' colleague told him that this individual had said that a child had disappeared. A few minutes later the witness noticed great agitation, with many people everywhere searching for the child.
From information that was coming out, the witness learned that the child was a girl, the daughter of one of the English couple and that she had been in a room nearby.
When asked, the witness says that at the time he was working in the restaurant and referring to the days before the disappearance, he never noticed anything unusual. He said that he was never asked about the habits of the English group nor any questions concerning children. He says that on the day of the disappearance from the time he arrived at work, he did not notice anything unusual.
When asked, he says that at the end of the evening the area surrounding the Tapas is quiet with little circulation of people.
He has no comments as to the motive for the disappearance.
No more is said. Read, ratifies, signs.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAQUIM-J-M-BAPTISTA.htm
I don't see any mention of how much they drank in there.
-
Where did I say they were drunk ?
I was referring to the effects of alcohol in general.
A lack of statements by other bar staff does not mean nobody else didn't serve the party on any of those days, or can you prove otherwise ?
Can you prove beyond any shadow of a doubt how much each member of the party consumed on each of those nights ?
[/b][/color]
Nobody can do, either way.
But the facts point to them being very moderate drinkers
Stephen you are like a stuck record, getting on everyones nerves with your wumming. Give it a rest. There's a good chap
-
Where did I say they were drunk ?
I was referring to the effects of alcohol in general.
A lack of statements by other bar staff does not mean nobody else didn't serve the party on any of those days, or can you prove otherwise ?
Can you prove beyond any shadow of a doubt how much each member of the party consumed on each of those nights ?
It is you making the allegation that drink affected the behaviour of the McCanns.
So far you have shown not one jot of evidence for that other than a news article which actually proved your claims to be wrong.
When you show some evidence of what you are claiming then we will all be a little clearer as to why you are unable to deal with this obsession of yours about neglect (another issue which evidence actually shows did not exist).
The only evidence of what was consumed appears to be from witness statements which show that there was nothing unusual about the consumption of alcohol by this group, that it consisted of a bottle of wine each at most over a period of three hours while eating and some after dinner drinks which were taken to the bar.
As I say, I await evidence of any further drinking on their part and some indication from you as to why you believe the consumption of alcohol as evidenced so far has any bearing on the case at all.
A child is missing not because the parents drank a half bottle of wine each that night as the records you presented us with prove but for other reasons but you cannot get past this obsession of yours to deal with the actual disappearance can you?
Please prove me wrong by either offering your evidence for greater alcohol consumption than the evidence so far proves or by indicating what effect those four bottles on the night of May 3rd had on the actual disappearance.
-
I never understand why people still bang on and on about the babysitting arrangements . The McCann's know that - they will have to live with it for ever,
The Portuguese have said that although unwise after the event it was not unlawful. For me it is there for the grace of god type of thing. It certainly made a lot more people aware on holiday about things.
But surely the reason most people are still involved in the case is to find out WHAT Happened - where is Madeleine who took her , how did they do it and why . It is to solve the mystery .
If the McCann's are involved in the disappearance as some people here think then why go on about the babysitting. That's like accusing Hitler of tax evasion - I mean hello
Sensible post, south and I like your tax evasion analogy. The quality of debate would improve on here if people would stop banging on and on about the children being left, IMO.
-
Sensible post, south and I like your tax evasion analogy. The quality of debate would improve on here if people would stop banging on and on about the children being left, IMO.
The question of the children being supervised by regular checking and the fact that with hindsight that was not a good decision has been done to death here and elsewhere. It has also been fully admitted as an error by the McCanns and one with which, whatever happens in the future, will dog them to their graves.
But it has no bearing on the actual disappearance and what happened on that night. Harping on about this cannot help in any way towards an understanding of what actually happened to Madeleine McCann.
It is perfectly clear that certain posters use it as a kind of mantra to deflect topics which they are unable to respond to on topic. Where they have no reply to the points being made they resort to this mantra of neglect.
The methodology is clear to all readers and reflects very badly on those who continue to do this.
-
Felicia Cabrita, got hold of sensitive documents, of the Taps 7 and Jez Wilkins in May 2007. Witness statements, witness names, addresses and telephone numbers and this is so dangerous it could have ended in tragedy.
The really alarming thing is that no one in authority has done anything about this appalling breach of witness security and confidence.
I could be a good journalist if papers were deliberatly left open in a police station office,on a desk for me to see.
Secrecy Laws an all that erm "Hello"
Why would a journalist be in a police station office anyway?
-
Felicia Cabrita, got hold of sensitive documents, of the Taps 7 and Jez Wilkins in May 2007. Witness statements, witness names, addresses and telephone numbers and this is so dangerous it could have ended in tragedy.
The really alarming thing is that no one in authority has done anything about this appalling breach of witness security and confidence.
I could be a good journalist if papers were deliberatly left open in a police station office,on a desk for me to see.
Secrecy Laws an all that erm "Hello"
Why would a journalist be in a police station office anyway?
Agreed, DCI. The leaks were disgusting. It could very well be that someone has important information but won't go to the PJ even today just because of these leaks in the past. Who could trust them not to blab to journalists?
-
It is you making the allegation that drink affected the behaviour of the McCanns.
So far you have shown not one jot of evidence for that other than a news article which actually proved your claims to be wrong.
When you show some evidence of what you are claiming then we will all be a little clearer as to why you are unable to deal with this obsession of yours about neglect (another issue which evidence actually shows did not exist).
The only evidence of what was consumed appears to be from witness statements which show that there was nothing unusual about the consumption of alcohol by this group, that it consisted of a bottle of wine each at most over a period of three hours while eating and some after dinner drinks which were taken to the bar.
As I say, I await evidence of any further drinking on their part and some indication from you as to why you believe the consumption of alcohol as evidenced so far has any bearing on the case at all.
A child is missing not because the parents drank a half bottle of wine each that night as the records you presented us with prove but for other reasons but you cannot get past this obsession of yours to deal with the actual disappearance can you?
Please prove me wrong by either offering your evidence for greater alcohol consumption than the evidence so far proves or by indicating what effect those four bottles on the night of May 3rd had on the actual disappearance.
The point I have made repeatedly is simple.
Their socializing at the Tapas Bar, for several successive nights, meant the children were not being taken care of.
It was supposed to be a family holiday, so why didn't they have their meals and drink in the apartment, or failing that hire a babysitter to watch over them.
They never needed to go to the Tapas Bar to drink or eat.
All we have from one waiter's statement, was how much he can recollect serving them, but there were others , for whom we have no statements. So you do not know how much alcohol they consumed. Earlier you said 4 bottles, now you are saying one bottle of wine and after dinner drinks...............................
They didn't do either.
On top of that, as is well known, the children were in an unblocked apartment, again inexcusable. Don't bother with hindsight again, commonsense should have told them not to do that. They were in a foreign country and never should have taken risks with their children's security.
However, they did, simply to place their social habits above their duties as parents and guardians of their children.
So why is the drinking relevant ?
Well if you can't see that you never will.
-
The question of the children being supervised by regular checking and the fact that with hindsight that was not a good decision has been done to death here and elsewhere. It has also been fully admitted as an error by the McCanns and one with which, whatever happens in the future, will dog them to their graves.
But it has no bearing on the actual disappearance and what happened on that night. Harping on about this cannot help in any way towards an understanding of what actually happened to Madeleine McCann.
It is perfectly clear that certain posters use it as a kind of mantra to deflect topics which they are unable to respond to on topic. Where they have no reply to the points being made they resort to this mantra of neglect.
The methodology is clear to all readers and reflects very badly on those who continue to do this.
I have seen that tactic many times on here, it seems to be "if in doubt, bang on about the childcare".
Debate would be very much enriched if that old chestnut were left alone. As you said, it has been done to death here and elsewhere over the years.
-
I have seen that tactic many times on here, it seems to be "if in doubt, bang on about the childcare".
Debate would be very much enriched if that old chestnut were left alone. As you said, it has been done to death here and elsewhere over the years.
To the contrary, the lack of childcare is the catalyst which led to Madeleine's disappearance. You can ignore it to your heart's content, but that won't go away.
Do you really believe, that if the apartment had been locked and the Mccanns were there inside, having their dinner and drinks, or just relaxing talking with their friends, Madeleine would have 'disappeared' ?
-
To the contrary, the lack of childcare is the catalyst which led to Madeleine's disappearance. You can ignore it to your heart's content, but that won't go away.
Do you really believe, that if the apartment had been locked and the Mccanns were there inside, having their dinner and drinks, or just relaxing talking with their friends, Madeleine would have 'disappeared' ?
We've done this to death, Stephen. Many, many times. It stifles debate to have this constantly on repeat, like a stuck record. We need to move past this to enrich debate.
-
The point I have made repeatedly is simple.
Their socializing at the Tapas Bar, for several successive nights, meant the children were not being taken care of.
It was supposed to be a family holiday, so why didn't they have their meals and drink in the apartment, or failing that hire a babysitter to watch over them.
They never needed to go to the Tapas Bar to drink or eat.
All we have from one waiter's statement, was how much he can recollect serving them, but there were others , for whom we have no statements. So you do not know how much alcohol they consumed. Earlier you said 4 bottles, now you are saying one bottle of wine and after dinner drinks...............................
They didn't do either.
On top of that, as is well known, the children were in an unblocked apartment, again inexcusable. Don't bother with hindsight again, commonsense should have told them not to do that. They were in a foreign country and never should have taken risks with their children's security.
However, they did, simply to place their social habits above their duties as parents and guardians of their children.
So why is the drinking relevant ?
Well if you can't see that you never will.
It is merely your opinion that the children were not "being taken care of", though I do wonder what you expect the parents to be doing other than regular checking on them in their bedroom when they are asleep as part of this "taking care of" them.
It is not the opinion of the legal authorities who recognised that the regular checking arrangements which the McCanns and the others had in place was indeed a perfectly acceptable checking on their children.
Family holiday or not, you are forgetting that children sleep and do so quite early when young. Taking care of them is then just a matter of occasional checking on them (if even that) which the McCanns did on a very regular basis.
You are stuck in a groove, Stephen25000, obsessively repeating the same old mantra to deliberately disrupt threads because you are simply unable to debate the issues within each of the threads you seek to trash.
-
It is merely your opinion that the children were not "being taken care of", though I do wonder what you expect the parents to be doing other than regular checking on them in their bedroom when they are asleep as part of this "taking care of" them.
It is not the opinion of the legal authorities who recognised that the regular checking arrangements which the McCanns and the others had in place was indeed a perfectly acceptable checking on their children.
Family holiday or not, you are forgetting that children sleep and do so quite early when young. Taking care of them is then just a matter of occasional checking on them (if even that) which the McCanns did on a very regular basis.
You are stuck in a groove, Stephen25000, obsessively repeating the same old mantra to deliberately disrupt threads because you are simply unable to debate the issues within each of the threads you seek to trash.
I am not here to trash threads or disrupt.
I am merely expressing my views on this case.
What you want on here is a forum rather like 2 others I could mention where everyone praises and supports the Mccanns.
From mine and other perspectives, I can equally argue you are here to disrupt and trash threads.
-
No, of course it isn't, but that is blatantly obvious.
Can you explain to me logically, why in order to have a 'good time', you have to drink alcohol ?
So why as I asked earlier, why didn't the Mccanns on their 'family holiday' eat and drink at the apartment ?
Stephen
I personally dont need drink to have a good time and to relax in company.
I am comfortable, relaxed, with all levels of society .. and well used to being left on my own with strangers at parties etc. And, if I am in the mood, can let my hair down as well as the next person. I enjoy a glass of good wine occasionally, but I dont need alcohol actually tbh.
However, I am aware that some need a spot of alcohol to relax and enjoy themselves. Personally that is fine with me, but seems it is not with you? Are you teetotal?
I believe in live and let live, so long as certain boundaries are not crossed. I see no evidence of any boundaries being crossed here and I cannot understand your, at times, vitriolic attacks on the tapas group for having a drink with their meals.
What I will say, is that I do like good meals on holiday ... and not having to cook them myself.
If I have to cook, then it is not a holiday to me.
The eating of meals, expecially trying different foods/chefs abroad is a great pleasure to me. And, I imagine, being with a group of friends would make the experience even more fun.
Additionally, the Mccann children especially (also the Oldfield children IIRC) were used to a certain bedtime routine, with fairly strict timelines. To break that routine could cause awful sleeping problems with unhappy grizzling kids.
Our kids were late at going to bed, they didn't seem to need much sleep, so we never had the problems that some do on holiday. We all ate at about 7 or 7.30, then a bath and off to bed for the little ones, and hopefully before 9 pm to give us a little peaceful time before we retired.
Everyone is different Stephen.
-
I am not here to trash threads or disrupt.
I am merely expressing my views on this case.
What you want on here is a forum rather like 2 others I could mention where everyone praises and supports the Mccanns.
From mine and other perspectives, I can equally argue you are here to disrupt and trash threads.
There is a major difference, though. I can point to many, many threads where you have deliberately gone off topic and introduced your mantra about neglect thus disrupting those threads. I doubt you can find one where I have done anything like that.
People reading can see that I don't do that and you could never demonstrate that I do do it. Whereas people reading can see you do it every single day here. Those people will understand exactly what I mean about your disrupting threads and will recognise that though you claim I do so, I don't in fact do anything of the sort. If you believe I do, please do give examples.
The very evidence of your actions is right here where you have clearly taken this thread from the question of the number of bottles of wine. I have responded to that but will not do so any more as it is exactly what you are so desperate for.
What I want is a forum where posters are capable of actual debate on the issues which the thread is about, not sidetracking as you do.
What I want is a forum where posters are capabale of genuine intellectual debate and don't resort to the throwing of insults like "Liar!" or "McCann apologist" or the more vulgar abusive terms that Redblossom regularly uses when they are unable to contribute properly.
What you think I want is not what I actually want. Truth will come from debate not stuck-in-the-groove repetition of mantras.
-
There is a major difference, though. I can point to many, many threads where you have deliberately gone off topic and introduced your mantra about neglect thus disrupting those threads. I doubt you can find one where I have done anything like that.
People reading can see that I don't do that and you could never demonstrate that I do do it. Whereas people reading can see you do it every single day here. Those people will understand exactly what I mean about your disrupting threads and will recognise that though you claim I do so, I don't in fact do anything of the sort. If you believe I do, please do give examples.
The very evidence of your actions is right here where you have clearly taken this thread from the question of the number of bottles of wine. I have responded to that but will not do so any more as it is exactly what you are so desperate for.
What I want is a forum where posters are capable of actual debate on the issues which the thread is about, not sidetracking as you do.
What I want is a forum where posters are capabale of genuine intellectual debate and don't resort to the throwing of insults like "Liar!" or "McCann apologist" or the more vulgar abusive terms that Redblossom regularly uses when they are unable to contribute properly.
What you think I want is not what I actually want. Truth will come from debate not stuck-in-the-groove repetition of mantras.
No, the only 'debate ' you want is for people to agree with you.
That is your mantra.
It isn't debate.
-
The point I have made repeatedly is simple.
Their socializing at the Tapas Bar, for several successive nights, meant the children were not being taken care of.
It was supposed to be a family holiday, so why didn't they have their meals and drink in the apartment, or failing that hire a babysitter to watch over them.
They never needed to go to the Tapas Bar to drink or eat.
All we have from one waiter's statement, was how much he can recollect serving them, but there were others , for whom we have no statements. So you do not know how much alcohol they consumed. Earlier you said 4 bottles, now you are saying one bottle of wine and after dinner drinks...............................
They didn't do either.
On top of that, as is well known, the children were in an unblocked apartment, again inexcusable. Don't bother with hindsight again, commonsense should have told them not to do that. They were in a foreign country and never should have taken risks with their children's security.
However, they did, simply to place their social habits above their duties as parents and guardians of their children.
So why is the drinking relevant ?
Well if you can't see that you never will.
Here's another then.
He states that on that night, after having received the orders, he went into the bar. Immediately, he put two white wine and two red wine bottles, along with a bottle of water, on the table. He cannot be sure that he served more wine that night.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
So the the general practice appears to be that the waiter serves 4 bottles and a bottle of water, and replaces them if they were empty and people wanted more. That seems to be common practice in most restaurants serving groups.
It doesn't even mean that they necessarily drank all the entire content of the replacement bottles.
-
No, the only 'debate ' you want is for people to agree with you.
That is your mantra.
It isn't debate.
Grow up stephen. You are letting yourself down now. gilets contribution to debate is obvious.
-
No, the only 'debate ' you want is for people to agree with you.
That is your mantra.
It isn't debate.
By posting that you have just proved my point.
This particular thread is about the fact that the myth perpetrated by news media that the McCanns drank 14 bottles of wine on the night Madeleine disappeared is in fact a load of nonsense.
The evidence presented here by me and others has shown that to be the case.
Debate is about presenting evidence and looking carefully about that evidence. That has been done here and the nonsense about the McCanns drinking to oblivion as some people have been led to believe has been debunked well and truly within that debate. No matter how much you wish to detract from that fact, that is the reality.
-
By posting that you have just proved my point.
This particular thread is about the fact that the myth perpetrated by news media that the McCanns drank 14 bottles of wine on the night Madeleine disappeared is in fact a load of nonsense.
The evidence presented here by me and others has shown that to be the case.
Debate is about presenting evidence and looking carefully about that evidence. That has been done here and the nonsense about the McCanns drinking to oblivion as some people have been led to believe has been debunked well and truly within that debate. No matter how much you wish to detract from that fact, that is the reality.
No you have not proved they only consumed only 4 bottles of wine plus aperitifs.
Only the statement of 1 waiter has been provided.
No other.
Again you imply by using the word oblivion, they were drunk. I didn't say that.
I never said they drunk 14 bottles on that evening.
I used the article to display other waiters gave accounts as well. I'd like to know why the PJ didn't interview them.
The facts are simple and straightforward, the Mccanns wined and dined at a tapas bar with their associates, several nights in a row, whilst their children were left in an unlocked apartment. On the last evening Madeleine 'disappeared'.
I'm not interested in 'hindsight'.
You can attack me to your hearts content, but it won't effect my views.
There was no need for what they did, and you can give every excuse under the sun you wish. It won't change the facts you are so tired of hearing.
-
No you have not proved they only consumed only 4 bottles of wine plus aperitifs.
Only the statement of 1 waiter has been provided.
No other.
Again you imply by using the word oblivion, they were drunk. I didn't say that.
I never said they drunk 14 bottles on that evening.
I used the article to display other waiters gave accounts as well. I'd like to know why the PJ didn't interview them.
The facts are simple and straightforward, the Mccanns wined and dined at a tapas bar with their associates, several nights in a row, whilst their children were left in an unlocked apartment. On the last evening Madeleine 'disappeared'.
I'm not interested in 'hindsight'.
You can attack me to your hearts content, but it won't effect my views.
There was no need for what they did, and you can give every excuse under the sun you wish. It won't change the facts you are so tired of hearing.
Are you not aware that the statement of an independent qualified witness carries a great deal of weight in such matters?
Are you suggesting that your wild speculation that they may have drunk more carries anything like the same weight?
As someone else said earlier. Do wake up and smell the coffee.
If you think challenging your views because they are based on speculation rather than genuine qualified witness statements is attacking you, then you really are in need of that coffee aroma.
I am making absolutely no excuses for what the McCanns did other than the one that we are all working with (though you simply cannot bear to admit the fact) and that is the benefit of hindsight. Just because you cannot admit the plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face fact that you are posting in hindsight does not make that fact irrelevant.
Others reading your posts understand that fully and cannot understand (as I cannot) why you are so obsessed on destroying every thread with this pathetic mantra.
When you simply won't accept the evidence of independent witnesses (that bizarrely you contributed to the debate), when you simply cannot understand the concept of posting and discussing the issue with the benefit of hindsight, you are demonstrating a fundamental inability to accept the tenets of normal debate.
-
Are you not aware that the statement of an independent qualified witness carries a great deal of weight in such matters?
Are you suggesting that your wild speculation that they may have drunk more carries anything like the same weight?
As someone else said earlier. Do wake up and smell the coffee.
If you think challenging your views because they are based on speculation rather than genuine qualified witness statements is attacking you, then you really are in need of that coffee aroma.
I am making absolutely no excuses for what the McCanns did other than the one that we are all working with (though you simply cannot bear to admit the fact) and that is the benefit of hindsight. Just because you cannot admit the plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face fact that you are posting in hindsight does not make that fact irrelevant.
Others reading your posts understand that fully and cannot understand (as I cannot) why you are so obsessed on destroying every thread with this pathetic mantra.
When you simply won't accept the evidence of independent witnesses (that bizarrely you contributed to the debate), when you simply cannot understand the concept of posting and discussing the issue with the benefit of hindsight, you are demonstrating a fundamental inability to accept the tenets of normal debate.
Your use of the word 'mantra' to put it mildly is becoming more than just a tad obsessive.
You are relying on only one recorded statement and no more.
The Mccanns had no need to do what they did.
Again you say I called the Mccanns drunk.
I did no such thing.
You are merely trying your utmost to deflect this thread by attacking me.
It reveals as do your numerous comments on other threads what you accuse me of, OBSESSION with this case.
You also say I am trying to destroy every thread.
Precisely how many threads are there, and how many have I commented on ?
I suggest you look on how many threads you have contributed today, before you attack me once again.
-
Your use of the word 'mantra' to put it mildly is becoming more than just a tad obsessive.
You are relying on only one recorded statement and no more.
The Mccanns had no need to do what they did.
Again you say I called the Mccanns drunk.
I did no such thing.
You are merely trying your utmost to deflect this thread by attacking me.
It reveals as do your numerous comments on other threads what you accuse me of, OBSESSION with this case.
You also say I am trying to destroy every thread.
Precisely how many threads are there, and how many have I commented on ?
I suggest you look on how many threads you have contributed today, before you attack me once again.
I repeat the difference is that on every thread I have posted on today and previously, I have (except when replying to your blatant disruption) stuck rigidly to the topic at hand.
Whenever you appear on a thread you resort to the neglect mantra.
It is not obsessive to describe a phrase accurately as a mantra which I am doing in the case of your neglect mantra by the way.
No matter how many times you post this repetitive nonsense of yours you cannot disguise the fact that the myth about the 14 bottles has been solidly debunked. You cannot disguise the fact that the mantra about neglect is simply your obsessive opinion and was not agreed with by the legal authorities of Portugal or by any authorities within the UK. You cannot disguise the fact that you have diverted from the original purpose of this thread with this mantra of yours.
The more you continue with the same, the more obvious it becomes.
-
I repeat the difference is that on every thread I have posted on today and previously, I have (except when replying to your blatant disruption) stuck rigidly to the topic at hand.
Whenever you appear on a thread you resort to the neglect mantra.
It is not obsessive to describe a phrase accurately as a mantra which I am doing in the case of your neglect mantra by the way.
No matter how many times you post this repetitive nonsense of yours you cannot disguise the fact that the myth about the 14 bottles has been solidly debunked. You cannot disguise the fact that the mantra about neglect is simply your obsessive opinion and was not agreed with by the legal authorities of Portugal or by any authorities within the UK. You cannot disguise the fact that you have diverted from the original purpose of this thread with this mantra of yours.
The more you continue with the same, the more obvious it becomes.
Mantra, mantra and yet more mantra.
That word is becoming exceedingly boring.
Tell me exactly what irrefutable proof exists the party only drank 4 bottles of wine per night ?
If you can't don't bother replying.
As to neglect.
Where's Madeleine ?
-
Mantra, mantra and yet more mantra.
That word is becoming exceedingly boring.
Tell me exactly what irrefutable proof exists the party only drank 4 bottles of wine per night ?
If you can't don't bother replying.
As to neglect.
Where's Madeleine ?
There is never irrefutable proof of anything. Some would question whether there is irrefutable proof of the existence of a tree unless it is being observed and even then there is often doubt.
However, an independent qualified witness who reports on a situation is acceptable evidence in most jurisdictions. Apparently your rather fanciful notions do not accept this though.
And you prove my point by repeating your stuck-in-the-groove mantra. You may think it obsessive of me to point it out but I only do so when you actually use the mantra. Don't you even see that? The obsession is yours. I am just picking it out from your posts.
What is perfectly clear is that you are not willing to accept the evidence even when it is staring you in the face.
Neither the qualified independent witness who referred to the quantity of alcohol drunk that night, nor the eminently qualified legal authority who denies even that there was any neglect of the children in a fully logical and reasoned argued case in the archival report.
Simply closing your eyes to the fact that such evidence exists and repeating your inane mantra does not make you look like a skilled debater at all. Quite the opposite.
-
There is never irrefutable proof of anything. Some would question whether there is irrefutable proof of the existence of a tree unless it is being observed and even then there is often doubt.
However, an independent qualified witness who reports on a situation is acceptable evidence in most jurisdictions. Apparently your rather fanciful notions do not accept this though.
And you prove my point by repeating your stuck-in-the-groove mantra. You may think it obsessive of me to point it out but I only do so when you actually use the mantra. Don't you even see that? The obsession is yours. I am just picking it out from your posts.
' independent qualified witness '
Who was that exactly ?
I leave obsessions and use of 'mantra' to your self formulated mobius loop.
Have a good evening.
-
' independent qualified witness '
Who was that exactly ?
I leave obsessions and use of 'mantra' to your self formulated mobius loop.
Have a good evening.
So now you do not even accept a waiter as an independent witness fully qualified to give a statement about the amount of alcohol that was served. I see.
-
Some of those waiters couldnt even tell the time let alone count the number of bottles they had dispensed on any particular evening. Independent maybe...reliable? definately not!!!
-
How would you know?
Have you read their statements? @)(++(*
-
Some of those waiters couldnt even tell the time let alone count the number of bottles they had dispensed on any particular evening. Independent maybe...reliable? definately not!!!
Can you provide evidence for that ridiculous comment or are you simply being facetious?
Please do go ahead and show us some proof of your claim that these people were unreliable. I await your proof with interest.
-
So now you do not even accept a waiter as an independent witness fully qualified to give a statement about the amount of alcohol that was served. I see.
I've asked this several times, but with no satisfactory response.
How much alcohol was served to the party on each of the nights by the other waiters ?
-
I've asked this several times, but with no satisfactory response.
How much alcohol was served to the party on each of the nights by the other waiters ?
Why does that matter to you? They were having a meal and a drink Stephen, so what?
-
I've asked this several times, but with no satisfactory response.
How much alcohol was served to the party on each of the nights by the other waiters ?
You are either simply speculating that more alcohol was served to the party by other waiters or have evidence that such a thing happened?
Which is it?
Are we supposed to look for evidence for something which is only in your head or do you have something for us to actually discuss?
-
You are either simply speculating that more alcohol was served to the party by other waiters or have evidence that such a thing happened?
Which is it?
Are we supposed to look for evidence for something which is only in your head or do you have something for us to actually discuss?
You are not interested in discussion.
As Albertini has put it so succinctly, you are here to defend the Mccanns and no more.
You have no proof other waiters did not serve them drinks do you ?
You also do not know how reliable the waiters statement was ?
How do you know he was telling the truth ?
-
You are not interested in discussion.
As Albertini has put it so succinctly, you are here to defend the Mccanns and no more.
You have no proof other waiters did not serve them drinks do you ?
You also do not know how reliable the waiters statement was ?
How do you know he was telling the truth ?
Re: The statements:
So now we have the waiters telling lies too?
And all the Tapas peeps including the Mccann friends are not to be trusted ?
They are all liars to help the Mccanns ?
Jeez, whats the point in taking statements then ?
-
Re: The statements:
So now we have the waiters telling lies too?
And all the Tapas peeps including the Mccann friends are not to be trusted ?
They are all liars to help the Mccanns ?
Jeez, whats the point in taking statements then ?
Waiters ?
1 only on the statements.
Where are statements from the other waiters ?
-
Waiters ?
1 only on the statements.
Where are statements from the other waiters ?
I cannot quite believe that you are posting such a ridiculous question?
Are you seriously not aware of where the statements are to be found?
Have you not even made ANY effort at all to find them?
Well I will give you some assistance then.
You could try the PJ Files. They are available on a number of online sites. I thought most people were aware that is where statements such as those of the Waiters could be found. But as you have repeatedly asked this question I have to presume that you simply are not aware.
I will give you a few more clues too.
You should find a number in Volume Processos II, more in Volume Processos III and one in Volume Cartas Rogatoria V.
-
I cannot quite believe that you are posting such a ridiculous question?
Are you seriously not aware of where the statements are to be found?
Have you not even made ANY effort at all to find them?
Well I will give you some assistance then.
You could try the PJ Files. They are available on a number of online sites. I thought most people were aware that is where statements such as those of the Waiters could be found. But as you have repeatedly asked this question I have to presume that you simply are not aware.
I will give you a few more clues too.
You should find a number in Volume Processos II, more in Volume Processos III and one in Volume Cartas Rogatoria V.
I have read and found one statement concerning the consumption of alcohol.
Other waiters were questioned but not apparently on this matter.
-
I have read and found one statement concerning the consumption of alcohol.
Other waiters were questioned but not apparently on this matter.
Have you read all 16 statements? Why were you asking where the statements are if you already know?
What you are totally unwilling, it seems, to contemplate is that perhaps the others never served the McCanns any alcohol and therefore there was no need to record any comment from them concerning the subject? As the statements in all but one case are not verbatim, and do not record the questions asked you are simply guessing by this constant inference that the McCanns drank unrecorded alchohol. It is quite ridiculous.
-
Have you read all 16 statements? Why were you asking where the statements are if you already know?
What you are totally unwilling, it seems, to contemplate is that perhaps the others never served the McCanns any alcohol and therefore there was no need to record any comment from them concerning the subject? As the statements in all but one case are not verbatim, and do not record the questions asked you are simply guessing by this constant inference that the McCanns drank unrecorded alchohol. It is quite ridiculous.
No, for you it is ridiculous.
Also, why are you unwilling to accept that the Mccanns and associates drank more than was 'claimed' ?
You accuse me of the very thing you won't accept in reverse !
-
You are not interested in discussion.
As Albertini has put it so succinctly, you are here to defend the Mccanns and no more.
You have no proof other waiters did not serve them drinks do you ?
You also do not know how reliable the waiters statement was ?
How do you know he was telling the truth ?
Just like to the caual obsever it would appear that you are only here to attack The McCans and no more
-
No, for you it is ridiculous.
Also, why are you unwilling to accept that the Mccanns and associates drank more than was 'claimed' ?
You accuse me of the very thing you won't accept in reverse !
No.
My reason for not accepting that speculation on your part is very simple. It is pure conjecture/speculation/guesswork. And unlike you I do not base my conclusions/beliefs on conjecture/speculation/guessowork.
I have read all the statements because I rely on evidence. And there is no evidence for the claim you are attempting to make that the McCanns drank more in the restaurant or in the bar than is recorded by the waiter who served them. When you provide some actual evidence instead of mere conjecture then and only then will I countenance the possibility.
This is now becoming your second mantra and again it is a mantra based wholly on speculation and is directly contradicted by every piece of evidence available.
-
Just like to the caual obsever it would appear that you are only here to attack The McCans and no more
There is a very important difference though between the actions of stephen25000 and myself.
Whereas I am relying on the evidence in the files such as that of the waiter who served the McCanns regarding the consumption of alchohol and the summation of reasons given by the Prosecutor in the Archival report with regard to their being no crime of neglect/abandonment for my conclusions, he is totally disregarding this evidence and simply speculating that it is all wrong and that his notions about greater alchohol consumption and neglect are right.
I am entirely guided by evidence in the files while his entire argument demands that all that evidence be ignored and his speculation become the guiding mantra.
I believe that using evidence from sources who either were present on the occasion or have superior legal knowledge to me is far more likely to lead towards truth than the summary ignoring of such evidence in favour of guesswork. Just my opinion, of course (though I do have an idea that my idea is the one on which almost all civilised legal systems are based and I can think of none on which his is based).
-
Just like to the caual obsever it would appear that you are only here to attack The McCans and no more
To the casual observer you are only here to defend the Mccanns.
-
No, for you it is ridiculous.
Also, why are you unwilling to accept that the Mccanns and associates drank more than was 'claimed' ?
You accuse me of the very thing you won't accept in reverse !
They have been open. Some of them had a glass of wine before they came to the restaurant. So what?
And even with the 2 reds and 2 whites consumed between nine of them, how do you know if the one partner in each couple virtually abstained? You just dont know; you are speculating.
Despite my not being bothered about drinking, as a social thing we used to be members of a wine tasting group, with a cooked dinner. Nine couples. Almost without exception the blokes drank more than the women. No driving involved, we walked to each others homes.
This just illustrates that often one partner imbibes more than the other, yet you seem to think they were all raving drunk. Even shared equally with 4 bottles of wine between nine, and imbibed over a couple of hours, or so, with a full meal, no-one was even borderline drunk.
You have it all out of perspective Stephen.
Do you perchance belong to some religion that does not allow any alcohol?
-
To the casual observer you are only here to defend the Mccanns.
Are we seeing the start of your third mantra?
Why are you just repeating these silly phrases and not prepared to address the evidence?
Why do you not address the actual points made about the failings in your argument?
Why do you rely on speculation and ignore the actual evidence?
-
No.
My reason for not accepting that speculation on your part is very simple. It is pure conjecture/speculation/guesswork. And unlike you I do not base my conclusions/beliefs on conjecture/speculation/guessowork.
I have read all the statements because I rely on evidence. And there is no evidence for the claim you are attempting to make that the McCanns drank more in the restaurant or in the bar than is recorded by the waiter who served them. When you provide some actual evidence instead of mere conjecture then and only then will I countenance the possibility.
This is now becoming your second mantra and again it is a mantra based wholly on speculation and is directly contradicted by every piece of evidence available.
Yet again your obsession with the word 'mantra'.
How do you know the account given by one waiter is correct ?
-
Are we seeing the start of your third mantra?
Why are you just repeating these silly phrases and not prepared to address the evidence?
Why do you rely on speculation and ignore the actual evidence?
Let's try again.
Does a witness statement constitute proof ?
-
Yet again your obsession with the word 'mantra'.
How do you know the account given by one waiter is correct ?
Because no other statement contradicts it for a start.
Because it fits with the overall tally of 14 bottles used by all the tables that night.
Because it matches the fact that none of the McCanns or their friends were reported by any witness that night as showing any effect on their behaviour of alcohol consumption.
Because the witness was present in the restaurant that night.
Because the witness was reporting something he was personally involved in dealing with.
Because there is no evidence that the witness is in any way unreliable.
Because most independent witnesses (as opposed to suspects) giving account of such banal matters as how many bottles of wine served do so honestly.
Because there is absolutely no evidence anywhere which suggests it is not the truth.
Because there is no logical reason why this independent witness should lie.
Now could you please outline your full reasons for disbelieving this statement?
Oh and for your information, I am using the word 'mantra' perfectly correctly when referring to the repetitive, unevidenced claims which you make. Perhaps you should look at a dictionary and then you would realise that?
-
Let's try again.
Does a witness statement constitute proof ?
No, a witness statement contributes to the overall proving of a matter.
When there is absolutely nothing to suggest that there is any dishonesty, inaccuracy or other problem with a statement from a wholly independent witness who is fully qualified by presence on the scene and/or expertise (both in this instance) then it is a very strong contributor to the proof of that matter.
Perhaps you hadn't noticed but that is how all serious legal systems work?
To the best of my knowledge none work on the system you are proposing, that of speculating that because nobody said it didn't happen then it might have happened.
Now I await your specific reasons for disbelieving this particular waiter's statement with interest.
-
Because no other statement contradicts it for a start.
Because it fits with the overall tally of 14 bottles used by all the tables that night.
Because it matches the fact that none of the McCanns or their friends were reported by any witness that night as showing any effect on their behaviour of alcohol consumption.
Because the witness was present in the restaurant that night.
Because the witness was reporting something he was personally involved in dealing with.
Because there is no evidence that the witness is in any way unreliable.
Because most independent witnesses (as opposed to suspects) giving account of such banal matters as how many bottles of wine served do so honestly.
Because there is absolutely no evidence anywhere which suggests it is not the truth.
Because there is no logical reason why this independent witness should lie.
Now could you please outline your full reasons for disbelieving this statement?
Oh and for your information, I am using the word 'mantra' perfectly correctly when referring to the repetitive, unevidenced claims which you make. Perhaps you should look at a dictionary and then you would realise that?
I am fully aware of the meaning of the word mantra, as equally as I am fully aware of your reason for being on this forum.
I was not referring solely to the drinking on that night.
I was referring to the drinking pattern over successive nights, whilst they were at the Tapas bar and not caring for their children.
That was the pattern of behaviour, with intermittent checks not verified by any independent source.
Clearly on the night in question , the drinking was cut short by events.
-
Waiters ?
1 only on the statements.
Where are statements from the other waiters ?
What do you mean only 1 statement? I've already posted a few.
-
My responses in blue.
I am fully aware of the meaning of the word mantra, as equally as I am fully aware of your reason for being on this forum.
But the evidence of your constant questioning of my use of the word when I use it accurately to describe the posts you make indicates a lack of understanding.
And once again you presume too much and do so in quite an abusive way. My reasons for being on this forum are my business and your guesses are utterly irrelevant.
I was not referring solely to the drinking on that night.
I was referring to the drinking pattern over successive nights, whilst they were at the Tapas bar and not caring for their children.
You have specifically decried that particular waiter's statement. I await your full list of reasons for disbelieving him.
And as for your point about other nights, the same response will be forthcoming. Provide evidence of any untoward use of alcohol on the part of the McCanns and we can debate that evidence. If you can provide none, if there is none then I am afraid that I am not prepared to debate with you on pure conjecture.
That was the pattern of behaviour, with intermittent checks not verified by any independent source.
Again you are preferring to wholly disregard witness statements which do in fact corroborate each other and which are corroborated (if not specifically verified) by a number of independent witness statements.
Clearly on the night in question , the drinking was cut short by events.
Stating the obvious while implying something else is not conducive to real debate. There is no evidence that on any night the McCanns over-indulged in any way in alchohol. The whole tenet of your argument is therefore flawed.
-
Yet again your obsession with the word 'mantra'.
How do you know the account given by one waiter is correct ?
I immediately responded to this request by giving a whole range of reasons why I believe this waiter's statement to be accurate.
I would appreciate the courtesy of a response to my own question to you which I posted some time ago.
What are your specific reasons for disbelieving this waiter's statement.
I await your reply and reasons with interest.
-
My responses in blue.
You skirt around the main issue as do the others who follow your line.
The Mccanns ( mantra time again 8**8:/: ) placed the socializing above their children's safety.
You have no proof the waiter's recollections were precise.
I notice one of the mod's was saying the same thing last night.
Alcohol is a depressant, it slows reactions and often has the effect of distracting people. If they wished to drink they could have done so in the apartment without disturbing the children. The 'regular' checking of the children has not been independently verified.
This was a family holiday, not a group of 30 something's without any responsibilities.
They had a duty to protect and look after their children, and they monumentally failed.
Queue the inevitable reply ( which I shall view later ) 8(0(*
-
I am fully aware of the meaning of the word mantra, as equally as I am fully aware of your reason for being on this forum.
I can't believe you have the nerve to say this to any poster Stephen after you have made your reasons quite clear elsewhere why you post on this forum.
What was it you said? "I only post on the justice site to put a spanner in the works."
-
I am fully aware of the meaning of the word mantra, as equally as I am fully aware of your reason for being on this forum.
I can't believe you have the nerve to say this to any poster Stephen after you have made your reasons quite clear elsewhere why you post on this forum.
What was it you said? "I only post on the justice site to put a spanner in the works."
Indeed a 'spanner in the works' of those who make excuses for the negligence of the Mccanns ( oh, is that a mantra again >@@(*&) ).
Meanwhile I wonder why you are on here.
No, not really.
-
Indeed a 'spanner in the works' of those who make excuses for the negligence of the Mccanns ( oh, is that a mantra again >@@(*&) ).
Meanwhile I wonder why you are on here.
No, not really.
Aahhh, so you only post on here to put a spanner in the works, then ?
That explains lots of things.
If that is the case, please get rid of him Admin
-
If that is the case, please get rid of him Admin
Playing the Queen of Hearts, Sadie ? Off with his head ???
-
Aahhh, so you only post on here to put a spanner in the works, then ?
That explains lots of things.
If that is the case, please get rid of him Admin
You didn't read did you Sadie.
I'm here to those who condone neglect.
-
You didn't read did you Sadie.
I'm here to those who condone neglect.
It astounds me that this is the only forum where there are posters who both believe and disbelieve the McCann's, debating together and all we seem to hear from the Mccann supporters is constant requests for posters to be banned.
What do these people want? The same one sided forums that populate the net? What's the point in that? You don't have to have the same opinion to be able to debate things without constanlty asking for posters to be banned!
This persistent bleating to Admin over banning people and removing posters is getting more than tiresome now.
-
You didn't read did you Sadie.
I'm here to those who condone neglect.
By the by, Stephen, you have made your views on parents who imbibe alcohol while on holiday quite plain.
What are your views on police officers who drink on duty?
-
It astounds me that this is the only forum where there are posters who both believe and disbelieve the McCann's, debating together and all we seem to hear from the Mccann supporters is constant requests for posters to be banned.
What do these people want? The same one sided forums that populate the net? What's the point in that? You don't have to have the same opinion to be able to debate things without constanlty asking for posters to be banned!
This persistent bleating to Admin over banning people and removing posters is getting more than tiresome now.
Constant bleating? The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
-
By the by, Stephen, you have made your views on parents who imbibe alcohol while on holiday quite plain.
What are your views on police officers who drink on duty?
Or even worse; a father who drives intoxicated with his daughter in the car (as per the mother of the child's statement).
-
Playing the Queen of Hearts, Sadie ? Off with his head ???
Every bit, Anne, if he is only on here to throw a spanner in the works, then we dont need him
Off with his head! Yep !
Nope, I am gentler than that. Just get rid of him if he posted that.
The evidence seems to be here, on this forum ... for all to see.
-
Or even worse; a father who drives intoxicated with his daughter in the car (as per the mother of the child's statement).
Are you talking about Snr Amaral? A senior Police Officer at the time? ?8)@)-)
Drunk driving?
With a child, his own daughter, in the car ?
Oh, my ! 8**8:/:
-
Every bit, Anne, if he is only on here to throw a spanner in the works, then we dont need him
Off with his head! Yep !
Nope, I am gentler than that. Just get rid of him if he posted that.
The evidence seems to be here, on this forum ... for all to see.
Your true self Sadie.
I didn't post that on this forum, and what's this about NOT bringing stuff from other forums/places ?
As to the reason I said it, NEGLECT of children.
That's why Madeleine is missing.
-
So Sadie, why are you on this forum supporting parents whose behaviour resulted in the disappearance of their eldest daughter ?
-
So Sadie, why are you on this forum supporting parents whose behaviour resulted in the disappearance of their eldest daughter ?
Stephen where is your proof that if the McCann's didn't drink or leave the children unattended that Madeleine would not have gone missing? Where is your proof that even though all measures were taken to secure the children that an abductor wouldn't still have had the opportunity to take Madeleine?
-
Are you talking about Snr Amaral? A senior Police Officer at the time? ?8)@)-)
Drunk driving?
With a child, his own daughter, in the car ?
Oh, my ! 8**8:/:
"Was Amaral somewhat of a hypocrite in condemming the McCanns?
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:52:38 AM »
Quote by Jonh:
We know that Amaral likes his tipple and has often been described as drunk. It has also been claimed by his wife that he drives often while intoxicated. As he appeared to have a child under his care do members feel he is or was a responsible parent? Was he not just a little bit hypocritical in blaming the McCanns for the very same thing for which he himself was guilty?"
-
Stephen where is your proof that if the McCann's didn't drink or leave the children unattended that Madeleine would not have gone missing? Where is your proof that even though all measures were taken to secure the children that an abductor wouldn't still have had the opportunity to take Madeleine?
Here we go again on your MANTRA.
What abductor ?
-
I am sorry this is very long, but better to post in one piece, I think.
Carana was in touch with me late last night, asking me to go over all the Waiter statements. There are quite a number! But I did so. As far as I could find, only two waiters said anything of interest about the wines and drinks. Jeronimo Salcedas and Ricardo. A. D. Oliveira
Copied below relevant parts of their statements about the drinks ... in bright blue.
In teal .... their words about the groups visits to check their children.
In maroon .... their observations about what happened immediately after the abduction.
Despite the telephone lists, it seems the Police were called by the waiter very early on. Maybe another line was used?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/J-T-R-Salcedas.htm (Jeronimo Salcedas)
2007/05/06
When asked, he said that they would normally stay at the restaurant until 23.30 - 24.00, although some of them would leave earlier, at about 23.00. They were people who showed their satisfaction with the food and would consume on average 8 bottles of wine (4 red, 4 white) between the nine of them, which he considered to be normal consumption for a group of such a number.[/color]
They did not drink coffee and as regards after dinner drinks (digestivos) they only consumed these once on 2nd May.
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/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm 2(Jeronimo Salcedas)006
22008.04.23 008.04.23 2008.04.23
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. On some occasions, I also saw some infant monitors on the same table but never related this to the facts.
In relation to alcohol consumption, it never appeared to me to be excessive. The wine was included in the dinner at Tapas and the functionaries were very generous in this respect. The permission was approximately one bottler per person . According to what I remember, and relative to the consumption of alcohol, there were seven bottles between the nine adults. I believe that on the first or second night they dined in the Tapas, they drank a bit more, perhaps eight or nine bottles of wine. I believe that they were also offered liquor this night, as they had been such good clients. The behaviour of the table did not change the night in questions. If anything, the group jested more than usual but no one appeared drunk.[/color]
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
Not the statement dated 2007/01/30 21H00 <<<<< !!! ERROR !!! 30th JAN 2007 ... 4 months before the abduction !!!
Nothing in that statement
but the statement of Date: 2007.09.07
He states that on that night, after having received the orders, he went into the bar. Immediately, he put two white wine and two red wine bottles, along with a bottle of water, on the table. He cannot be sure that he served more wine that night. The appetiser/starters were served by one of his colleagues. After 25 to 30 minutes, it was the witness who served the main dishes. He remembers that at this moment, the taller male, whom he now knows to be Russell, had left the table. He did not know where he had gone. The witness was asked to keep Russell?s meal warm. After a certain amount of time (he is not able to be exact), he was asked to serve Russell, who had returned to the table. He remembers that the rest of the group had practically finished their main courses. Asked if he remembers having seen all the elements of the group at this time, he cannot remember exactly. He also cannot state the length of time Russell was away from the table. The witness states that he had already served all the clients of the bar and for this reason, believes that Russell was away for some time.
He served Russell and shortly thereafter, he was alerted to strange movements in the restaurant perimeters. He refers to the movements of two men from said group? David Payne and Matthew, who appeared to be searching the gardens the areas near the bar. The witness went to the esplanade zone and saw that the table that had previously been occupied by nine adults was now occupied only by the older woman, called Dianne Webster. It was also at this time that he saw that Russell's food was only half eaten and that the others had all finished their dinner.
David Payne and Matthew were nervously searching the area.
The witness went to them, he does not remember which one, and asked what was happening. One of them responded to the witness in English stating 'A GIRL IS MISSING?' that a child had gone missing. After a few moments, around 5 or 10 minutes, he heard screaming from the apartment zone and saw a woman on the balcony of 5 A. He did not understand what she was saying. As it was night, and given the distance from the Tapas bar to the apartment, he was not able to determine if there was someone else next to the woman on the balcony. At that moment his colleague, Joe, met up with him and asked the witness to call the police, and that a child has gone missing and could not be found. Immediately afterwards, Joe left toward the street. He does not know who gave this information to Joe but the witness (or his colleague who believes the witness did so) called the reception asking them to inform the police. [/u] Questioned, he affirms that the group would normally consist of nine people (including Madeleines parents), and would normally dine around 20H30 and 20H40. They would not all arrive at once and before they all arrived, some would have cocktails. On the day of the disappearance, all were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembers them arriving as usual. Had they arrived late, this would have been noted by the staff. He does not remember if they were served cocktails. When they were all together, the group sat at the table, he took their orders, including the starters. As already mentioned, on this occasion, he would immediately take two white and two red bottles of wine and one bottle of water to the table. Their main courses would normally be ready 25 to 30 minutes after their order? a time they used to consume the starters. After starters, the group would normally spend about 15 minutes finishing the main course. Generally, during dinner, he would serve four bottles of wine (two white and two red), which the group completely consumed. On that day, he did not serve any more wine. It was also normal for certain members of the group to order dessert. After this, they would normally stay at the table until after 24H00 but would always leave before 00H00, the time when the bar closed. One or more of them, on another night, asked for an after-dinner drink. He remembers this clearly because they asked for Amareto and the bar did not stock it.
The witness served almond bitters to all. He remembers that this happened on Wednesday. He does not remember if they had more after-dinner drinks. He does remember that on Wednesday, certain elements of the group got up, with their after-dinner drinks, and headed to the bar and stayed there until about 00H00/00H10. This was the only night where the group elements were in the bar after closing. [ please note, from googling, almond bitters is often a cake type pudding, or there is an almond bitters drink ... both are called Amaretto. However, the bar does not stock Amareto (see above) so were they served the cake?]
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAQUIM-J-M-BAPTISTA.htm
2007/05/06
Nothing in this statement about drinks
-
"Was Amaral somewhat of a hypocrite in condemming the McCanns?
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:52:38 AM »
Quote by Jonh:
We know that Amaral likes his tipple and has often been described as drunk. It has also been claimed by his wife that he drives often while intoxicated. As he appeared to have a child under his care do members feel he is or was a responsible parent? Was he not just a little bit hypocritical in blaming the McCanns for the very same thing for which he himself was guilty?"
"Alexandra Sofia de Sousa Manjua Leal
Excellency
Dr. Guilhermino Encarnação
Faro's Director of the Judiciary Police
Faro, 23/12/2007
Dear Sir:
As you know I'm the wife of the Coordinator of Criminal Investigation Gonçalo Amaral, with whom I have a daughter minor of age, with 4 years old, named Inês Sofia. You know also that Inês Sofia is living temporarily with her father.
By the present way I want to expose to you:
1. As agreed with my husband, Inês Sofia should spend Christmas with me, since last Thursday, day 20th. In that day, I contacted Gonçalo by mobile phone, and I was informed that Inês was with him, in trip to Coimbra and would only return on the following day;
2. On Friday 21st, I called again my husband, around lunch time. He informed me they were still on trip and at soon he arrive to Faro he will give me Inês. I waited until 8 PM without any news and Gonçalo never answered my phone calls. I then decided to go to a pub where I encountered Gonçalo and other colleagues of him consuming alcoholic beverages, asking him by Inês Sofia, he answered, visible drunken, that “she was resting” and that he will give me the child the following day. Then he departed, driving an Audi car from the police.
3. On Saturday 22nd , and after many attempts, my husband finally answered the phone in the middle of the afternoon, and asked me to get Inês in home. I rushed to the residence, but nobody was there. After a while, Gonçalo appeared driving the same car, and again in a notorious state of drunkenness. Having asked him for Inês Sofia, he ordered me to go inside the house, where he insulted me and threatened me of death. I abandoned the place.
4.Today, Sunday 23rd, and after numerous attempts, Gonçalo never answered his phone and he is not at home.
Unfortunately, this situation is not a unique and isolated act, and you Sir well know about other times in the past where I've also asked for your help. Once more, I ask again for your help, in order to guarantee Inês Sofia integrity, and in order to localize her.
Best Regards,
Alexandra Sofia de Sousa Manjua Leal "
-
Stephen where is your proof that if the McCann's didn't drink or leave the children unattended that Madeleine would not have gone missing? Where is your proof that even though all measures were taken to secure the children that an abductor wouldn't still have had the opportunity to take Madeleine?
Meaningless questions.
They drank,left the children unattended and no security.
I'm glad you admitted that.
-
"Was Amaral somewhat of a hypocrite in condemming the McCanns?
« on: June 06, 2013, 01:52:38 AM »
Quote by Jonh:
We know that Amaral likes his tipple and has often been described as drunk. It has also been claimed by his wife that he drives often while intoxicated. As he appeared to have a child under his care do members feel he is or was a responsible parent? Was he not just a little bit hypocritical in blaming the McCanns for the very same thing for which he himself was guilty?"
Yes as reported more than once, by his wife to the PJ. He was in the pub when she asked where their daughter was, when he wouldn't hand her back in December 2007. He said she was resting, Resting at home?, who with?
-
Yes as reported more than once, by his wife to the PJ. He was in the pub when she asked where their daughter was, when he wouldn't hand her back in December 2007. He said she was resting, Resting at home?, who with?
Well there's a novelty ?
Police officiers drinking ?
Well I never.
What has this got to do with the disappearance of Madeleine ?
-
Meaningless questions.
They drank,left the children unattended and no security.
I'm glad you admitted that.
You are obviously ducking the question.
They drank yes but were not intoxicated as you imply. They did regular checks, so while unattended not for long periods as you imply. Ones own bed or the bed you are in while on holiday should be seen as 'secure' but not by intruders or abductors.
You try spin as much as you want Stephen, just try remember while you going around and around that the authorities in this case have said:
-parents and friends are not suspects
-are looking into a stranger abduction
-social services have not taken action against the McCann's for child neglect
-Attorney General has seen no crime committed by them
That should say a lot, but not for you, you too busy spinning.
-
You are obviously ducking the question.
They drank yes but were not intoxicated as you imply. They did regular checks, so while unattended not for long periods as you imply. Ones own bed or the bed you are in while on holiday should be seen as 'secure' but not by intruders or abductors.
You try spin as much as you want Stephen, just try remember while you going around and around that the authorities in this case have said:
-parents and friends are not suspects
-are looking into a stranger abduction
-social services have not taken action against the McCann's for child neglect
-Attorney General has seen no crime committed by them
That should say a lot, but not for you, you too busy spinning.
There is no question or questions to duck.
If you're so confident the Mccanns have nothing to bother about, why post on here and why answer my posts ???
-
There is no question or questions to duck.
If you're so confident the Mccanns have nothing to bother about, why post on here and why answer my posts ???
To voice my opinion and rebut misinformation. I have as much right to be here as you have.
You posting here isn't going to change anything in the McCann case, so why are you here? SY is not going to read your posts and decide they wrong.
I note your concern for child neglect only extends to the McCann's. What about the hundreds if not thousands of children in the world who need your services fighting their corner?
-
Your true self Sadie.
I didn't post that on this forum, and what's this about NOT bringing stuff from other forums/places ?
As to the reason I said it, NEGLECT of children.
That's why Madeleine is missing.
As you well know, stuff is being brought to this forum all the time. Just happens this very interesting stuff features you!
And that is why you are protesting
It is of interest to us all and explains why you have been so obstreperous all the time ... and ruined much in this forum. That was your intention, you said
I have now changed my mind and hardened my attitude
As Anne said, "OFF WITH HIS HEAD" ... LOL !
-
Yes as reported more than once, by his wife to the PJ. He was in the pub when she asked where their daughter was, when he wouldn't hand her back in December 2007. He said she was resting, Resting at home?, who with?
Exactly DCI
Something I have wondered before
Just who was looking after after Amarals daughter whilst he was at work and drinking.
Was SHE ON HER OWN?
-
Exactly DCI
Something I have wondered before
Just who was looking after after Amarals daughter whilst he was at work and drinking.
Was SHE ON HER OWN?
I hear she was sadie but don't worry Amaral was checking every thirty minutes just to make sure she wasn't screaming her head off.
-
Stephen - if you dont my saying so you do seem to be evading the question.
What do you think of policemen who drink on duty?
-
I hear she was sadie but don't worry Amaral was checking every thirty minutes just to make sure she wasn't dreaming her head off.
Very funny ... NOT
-
BUMPED
Jean-Pierre.. quote
Stephen - if you dont my saying so you do seem to be evading the question.
What do you think of policemen who drink on duty?
-
Exactly DCI
Something I have wondered before
Just who was looking after after Amarals daughter whilst he was at work and drinking.
Was SHE ON HER OWN?
Exactly DCI
Something I have wondered before
Just who was looking after after Amarals daughter whilst he was at work and drinking.
Was SHE ON HER OWN?
Unfortunately, this situation is not a unique and isolated act, and you Sir well know about other times in the past where I've also asked for your help
-
I am sorry this is very long, but better to post in one piece, I think.
Carana was in touch with me late last night, asking me to go over all the Waiter statements. There are quite a number! But I did so. As far as I could find, only two waiters said anything of interest about the wines and drinks. Jeronimo Salcedas and Ricardo. A. D. Oliveira
Copied below relevant parts of their statements about the drinks ... in bright blue.
In teal .... their words about the groups visits to check their children.
In maroon .... their observations about what happened immediately after the abduction.
Despite the telephone lists, it seems the Police were called by the waiter very early on. Maybe another line was used?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/J-T-R-Salcedas.htm (Jeronimo Salcedas)
2007/05/06
When asked, he said that they would normally stay at the restaurant until 23.30 - 24.00, although some of them would leave earlier, at about 23.00. They were people who showed their satisfaction with the food and would consume on average 8 bottles of wine (4 red, 4 white) between the nine of them, which he considered to be normal consumption for a group of such a number.[/color]
They did not drink coffee and as regards after dinner drinks (digestivos) they only consumed these once on 2nd May.
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/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm 2(Jeronimo Salcedas)006
22008.04.23 008.04.23 2008.04.23
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. On some occasions, I also saw some infant monitors on the same table but never related this to the facts.
In relation to alcohol consumption, it never appeared to me to be excessive. The wine was included in the dinner at Tapas and the functionaries were very generous in this respect. The permission was approximately one bottler per person . According to what I remember, and relative to the consumption of alcohol, there were seven bottles between the nine adults. I believe that on the first or second night they dined in the Tapas, they drank a bit more, perhaps eight or nine bottles of wine. I believe that they were also offered liquor this night, as they had been such good clients. The behaviour of the table did not change the night in questions. If anything, the group jested more than usual but no one appeared drunk.[/color]
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICARDO-A-D-L-OLIVEIRA.htm
Not the statement dated 2007/01/30 21H00 <<<<< !!! ERROR !!! 30th JAN 2007 ... 4 months before the abduction !!!
Nothing in that statement
but the statement of Date: 2007.09.07
He states that on that night, after having received the orders, he went into the bar. Immediately, he put two white wine and two red wine bottles, along with a bottle of water, on the table. He cannot be sure that he served more wine that night. The appetiser/starters were served by one of his colleagues. After 25 to 30 minutes, it was the witness who served the main dishes. He remembers that at this moment, the taller male, whom he now knows to be Russell, had left the table. He did not know where he had gone. The witness was asked to keep Russell?s meal warm. After a certain amount of time (he is not able to be exact), he was asked to serve Russell, who had returned to the table. He remembers that the rest of the group had practically finished their main courses. Asked if he remembers having seen all the elements of the group at this time, he cannot remember exactly. He also cannot state the length of time Russell was away from the table. The witness states that he had already served all the clients of the bar and for this reason, believes that Russell was away for some time.
He served Russell and shortly thereafter, he was alerted to strange movements in the restaurant perimeters. He refers to the movements of two men from said group? David Payne and Matthew, who appeared to be searching the gardens the areas near the bar. The witness went to the esplanade zone and saw that the table that had previously been occupied by nine adults was now occupied only by the older woman, called Dianne Webster. It was also at this time that he saw that Russell's food was only half eaten and that the others had all finished their dinner.
David Payne and Matthew were nervously searching the area.
The witness went to them, he does not remember which one, and asked what was happening. One of them responded to the witness in English stating 'A GIRL IS MISSING?' that a child had gone missing. After a few moments, around 5 or 10 minutes, he heard screaming from the apartment zone and saw a woman on the balcony of 5 A. He did not understand what she was saying. As it was night, and given the distance from the Tapas bar to the apartment, he was not able to determine if there was someone else next to the woman on the balcony. At that moment his colleague, Joe, met up with him and asked the witness to call the police, and that a child has gone missing and could not be found. Immediately afterwards, Joe left toward the street. He does not know who gave this information to Joe but the witness (or his colleague who believes the witness did so) called the reception asking them to inform the police. [/u] Questioned, he affirms that the group would normally consist of nine people (including Madeleines parents), and would normally dine around 20H30 and 20H40. They would not all arrive at once and before they all arrived, some would have cocktails. On the day of the disappearance, all were seated at the table between 20H35 and 20H45. He remembers them arriving as usual. Had they arrived late, this would have been noted by the staff. He does not remember if they were served cocktails. When they were all together, the group sat at the table, he took their orders, including the starters. As already mentioned, on this occasion, he would immediately take two white and two red bottles of wine and one bottle of water to the table. Their main courses would normally be ready 25 to 30 minutes after their order? a time they used to consume the starters. After starters, the group would normally spend about 15 minutes finishing the main course. Generally, during dinner, he would serve four bottles of wine (two white and two red), which the group completely consumed. On that day, he did not serve any more wine. It was also normal for certain members of the group to order dessert. After this, they would normally stay at the table until after 24H00 but would always leave before 00H00, the time when the bar closed. One or more of them, on another night, asked for an after-dinner drink. He remembers this clearly because they asked for Amareto and the bar did not stock it.
The witness served almond bitters to all. He remembers that this happened on Wednesday. He does not remember if they had more after-dinner drinks. He does remember that on Wednesday, certain elements of the group got up, with their after-dinner drinks, and headed to the bar and stayed there until about 00H00/00H10. This was the only night where the group elements were in the bar after closing. [ please note, from googling, almond bitters is often a cake type pudding, or there is an almond bitters drink ... both are called Amaretto. However, the bar does not stock Amareto (see above) so were they served the cake?]
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAQUIM-J-M-BAPTISTA.htm
2007/05/06
Nothing in this statement about drinks
Thank you, Sadie, for all that work.
-
Very funny ... NOT
It isn't supposed to be funny.
Amaral allegedly left his child ( who was older than the McCann's children ) for a drink and a bite to eat, so did the McCanns. I really don't see the difference.
-
It isn't supposed to be funny.
Amaral allegedly left his child ( who was older than the McCann's children ) for a drink and a bite to eat, so did the McCanns. I really don't see the difference.
There is proof that Amaral was intoxicated. Whereas the amount of alcohol listed in the files consumed by several people over a lengthy period of time, does not make them intoxicated.
Child care arrangements of Amaral vs child care arrangements of the McCann's. Amaral can thank his stars the abductor wasn't targeting his child!
-
It isn't supposed to be funny.
Amaral allegedly left his child ( who was older than the McCann's children ) for a drink and a bite to eat, so did the McCanns. I really don't see the difference.
He went to work and left her too, didn't he? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Not sure.
-
It isn't supposed to be funny.
Amaral allegedly left his child ( who was older than the McCann's children ) for a drink and a bite to eat, so did the McCanns. I really don't see the difference.
If he had to drive, he was presumably more than 70 m away. How often did he check on her during the time he was away?
-
It isn't supposed to be funny.
Amaral allegedly left his child ( who was older than the McCann's children ) for a drink and a bite to eat, so did the McCanns. I really don't see the difference.
I beg to differ Faith.
2003 – Daughter, Inês (Agnes), born.
-
I beg to differ Faith.
2003 – Daughter, Inês (Agnes), born.
So the same age, thank you DCI. Doesn't change my initial point though.
-
Stephen - if you dont my saying so you do seem to be evading the question.
What do you think of policemen who drink on duty?
There isn't.
Whatever country they are in.
How will you stop people drinking on duty or in jobs ?
-
As you well know, stuff is being brought to this forum all the time. Just happens this very interesting stuff features you!
And that is why you are protesting
It is of interest to us all and explains why you have been so obstreperous all the time ... and ruined much in this forum. That was your intention, you said
I have now changed my mind and hardened my attitude
As Anne said, "OFF WITH HIS HEAD" ... LOL !
Stop putting words in my mouth and read what I said.
-
There is proof that Amaral was intoxicated. Whereas the amount of alcohol listed in the files consumed by several people over a lengthy period of time, does not make them intoxicated.
Child care arrangements of Amaral vs child care arrangements of the McCann's. Amaral can thank his stars the abductor wasn't targeting his child!
So Amaral was drinking. The Mccanns were drinking.
-
There isn't.
Whatever country they are in.
How will you stop people drinking on duty or in jobs ?
So according to you it's okay to drink alcohol while on duty? There is a thing called an employment contract that doesn't allow any intoxicating substances to be consumed while on duty.
-
So Amaral was drinking. The Mccanns were drinking.
- The McCanns were 77m away, didn't need to drive anywhere and did regular checks.
- How far away was Amaral's restaurant? How often did he check on her during that time? He had to drive home. What if he'd had a car crash on the way back?
-
So Amaral was drinking. The Mccanns were drinking.
Amaral was drunk, the McCann's weren't.
-
So the same age, thank you DCI. Doesn't change my initial point though.
Well younger, than Madeleine, if I'm correct with Ines's birthday being the same as her fathers. I believe Sofia said they shared a birthday.
-
So according to you it's okay to drink alcohol while on duty? There is a thing called an employment contract that doesn't allow any intoxicating substances to be consumed while on duty.
Can't you read my first line in response ???
-
- The McCanns were 77m away, didn't need to drive anywhere and did regular checks.
- How far away was Amaral's restaurant? How often did he check on her during that time? He had to drive home. What if he'd had a car crash on the way back?
Regular checks ???
Independent verrification please.
-
Amaral was drunk, the McCann's weren't.
Alcohol distracts and slows reflexes and response time.
Also , rather more pertinently, did Amaral leave his children by themselves in an unlocked abode whilst out drinking ?
If he did, he is every bit as reckless as the Mccanns.
-
So according to you it's okay to drink alcohol while on duty? There is a thing called an employment contract that doesn't allow any intoxicating substances to be consumed while on duty.
On this occasion, I don't think he was on duty, Mo.
2. On Friday 21st, I called again my husband, around lunch time. He informed me they were still on trip and at soon he arrive to Faro he will give me Inês. I waited until 8 PM without any news and Gonçalo never answered my phone calls. I then decided to go to a pub where I encountered Gonçalo and other colleagues of him consuming alcoholic beverages, asking him by Inês Sofia, he answered, visible drunken, that “she was resting” and that he will give me the child the following day. Then he departed, driving an Audi car from the police.
Saying that, it would have been dark at that time in December. But he was driving visibley drunk. So not in walking distance. His favourite haunts were in Praia da Rocha!
He also drank every 3 hour lunch times though, he himself has admitted that, also journalists, who interviewed him have said.
-
On this occasion, I don't think he was on duty, Mo.
2. On Friday 21st, I called again my husband, around lunch time. He informed me they were still on trip and at soon he arrive to Faro he will give me Inês. I waited until 8 PM without any news and Gonçalo never answered my phone calls. I then decided to go to a pub where I encountered Gonçalo and other colleagues of him consuming alcoholic beverages, asking him by Inês Sofia, he answered, visible drunken, that “she was resting” and that he will give me the child the following day. Then he departed, driving an Audi car from the police.
Saying that, it would have been dark at that time in December. But he was driving visibley drunk. So not in walking distance. His favourite haunts were in Praia da Rocha!
He also drank every 3 hour lunch times though, he himself has admitted that, also journalists, who interviewed him have said.
I wasn't replying regards Amaral on the day. I was replying in general to this statement made by Stephen: " How will you stop people drinking on duty or in jobs ?"
-
There is proof that Amaral was intoxicated. Whereas the amount of alcohol listed in the files consumed by several people over a lengthy period of time, does not make them intoxicated.
Child care arrangements of Amaral vs child care arrangements of the McCann's. Amaral can thank his stars the abductor wasn't targeting his child!
and
Mo Amaral was drunk, the McCann's weren't.
8@??)(Good points, but bet someone here will try and rubbish them
-
There isn't.
Whatever country they are in.
How will you stop people drinking on duty or in jobs ?
Thank you Stephen. Although your response does seem to be rather obscure.
I can understand this. You are between a rock and a hard place.
You are content to condemn the McCanns for drinking while on holiday. But to extend the same standard to Amaral would mean that you would have to condemn him also - his responsiblity was to investigate a crime, and imbibing alcohol would reduce his capacity.
-
Thank you Stephen. Although your response does seem to be rather obscure.
I can understand this. You are between a rock and a hard place.
You are content to condemn the McCanns for drinking while on holiday. But to extend the same standard to Amaral would mean that you would have to condemn him also - his responsiblity was to investigate a crime, and imbibing alcohol would reduce his capacity.
John-Pierre I condemn anyone including Amaral , who uses alcohol in a situation which impairs their work or endangers others.
Some wonder why I have this antipathy towards alcohol. I'm not tee-total, but I have seen first hand what it can do to a close family member over a prolong period.
-
Thank you Stephen. I agree.
-
What I haven't come seen is a statement from anyone in the Tapas Bar saying that the McCann's or their friends were rolling around drunk.
-
John-Pierre I condemn anyone including Amaral , who uses alcohol in a situation which impairs their work or endangers others.
Some wonder why I have this antipathy towards alcohol. I'm not tee-total, but I have seen first hand what it can do to a close family member over a prolong period.
Stephen. On this point I also agree with you.
I would even go so far as to mention that I've had communications with Admin asking them if it's acceptable to allow posters here to post intoxicated. In doing so they enable them; instead of extending a helping hand they are allowed to be the laughing stock of the board. Not nice at all, when there is an opportunity to genuinely help someone with an obvious drink problem. We have a moral obligation towards others, even if we don't agree on certain issues. As people we should support and help others.
-
John-Pierre I condemn anyone including Amaral , who uses alcohol in a situation which impairs their work or endangers others.
Some wonder why I have this antipathy towards alcohol. I'm not tee-total, but I have seen first hand what it can do to a close family member over a prolong period.
Thanks for sharing that. It's given me a better understanding of where you're coming from. It must be painful to watch someone close acting irrationally and going downhill.
I wonder if that hurt might be distorting your perception of the McCanns in this respect?
I agree that we all have different tolerance levels and views about alcohol consumption, but there is simply no evidence that their consumption was anything but moderate.
-
Moderate, I'm not sure, but they were holidaying.
The WHO, considering a glass contains 10cl of wine and then 10g of alcool, advises :
2 glasses of wine maximum a day if you're a woman, a youth or an old person, 3 if you're a man (it's a question of weight)