Wandering Off Topic

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

No hint there that he thinks he may be proven wrong by technological advances.

You have to read or listen to more of the interview for the full context.... I'll try and find it for you.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Who is Baptiste and what did he say?

Sorry one source I had misspelled the name. It's Batista

JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA (residing at Rua Ilha Terceira, no. 15, Lagos, Telephone No 91 277 ####) - table employee [waiter].
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.
- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

No hint there that he thinks he may be proven wrong by technological advances.

Listen between 25:20 and 27:42

https://omny.fm/shows/maddie/red-flags

It may be two different interviews I'm quoting.... but here he uses the same words an earlier poster quoted:

"So of course the first people you suspect are the parents, because they are there, they are in proximity, it is their child.
"Did I believe at the beginning that the parents could possibly have done it? Yes. As time went on, did I see evidence that supported that hypothesis? No, I did not."

The poster missed that he went on to say:

"Now that's not to say that something couldn't turn up in the future where I think: 'Oh flip, you know I was right in the beginning and I'm wrong now'. But I've seen nothing, been briefed on nothing and heard nothing that would make me think that Gerry and Kate McCann [had] something to do with their daughter's disappearance."

We know from the other interview what evidence he expects might turn up in the future:

"I  genuinely believe that either a prompt to someone’s conscience or the advances in modern technology will take us to a point in my lifetime where we find out what happened to Madeleine."

The point I was making is that he is open minded.... he knows something might turn up in the future to prove "oh flip" he is wrong now.

[Brietta]

Sorry one source I had misspelled the name. It's Batista

JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA (residing at Rua Ilha Terceira, no. 15, Lagos, Telephone No 91 277 ####) - table employee [waiter].
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.
- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;

It is very difficult trying to decipher what goes on from one witness statement to another.  Even times don't fit in quite as they should.  According to Joaquim he was in the kitchen when the alarm was raised.

Snip
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAQUIM-J-M-BAPTISTA.htm

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

It is very difficult trying to decipher what goes on from one witness statement to another.  Even times don't fit in quite as they should.  According to Joaquim he was in the kitchen when the alarm was raised.

Snip
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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAQUIM-J-M-BAPTISTA.htm

Yes of course... but in their statement the day before maybe their memory of things was a little more precise imo.

[Brietta]

Yes of course... but in their statement the day before maybe their memory of things was a little more precise imo.

To what end do you think.  Brueckner is the prime suspect at the moment and I think if you looked hard enough amongst witness statements from 2007 there might be some indications pertaining to that.

I think sceptics are very transparent in their aims and I don't think they are the slightest bit interested in what might have happened to Madeleine unless it fits with their agenda.  I really feel quite sad about it - that and poor groundhogs.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Listen between 25:20 and 27:42

https://omny.fm/shows/maddie/red-flags

It may be two different interviews I'm quoting.... but here he uses the same words an earlier poster quoted:

"So of course the first people you suspect are the parents, because they are there, they are in proximity, it is their child.
"Did I believe at the beginning that the parents could possibly have done it? Yes. As time went on, did I see evidence that supported that hypothesis? No, I did not."

The poster missed that he went on to say:

"Now that's not to say that something couldn't turn up in the future where I think: 'Oh flip, you know I was right in the beginning and I'm wrong now'. But I've seen nothing, been briefed on nothing and heard nothing that would make me think that Gerry and Kate McCann [had] something to do with their daughter's disappearance."

We know from the other interview what evidence he expects might turn up in the future:

"I  genuinely believe that either a prompt to someone’s conscience or the advances in modern technology will take us to a point in my lifetime where we find out what happened to Madeleine."

The point I was making is that he is open minded.... he knows something might turn up in the future to prove "oh flip" he is wrong now.

I think anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that but right now, with all the evidence that is available to him, having probably more access and insight than any of us here, he is firmly of the opinion that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile and that her parents had nothing to do with it.  I’m glad you’re able to credit people with this opinion as worth listening to and not to sneer at them as if they are deluded sheeple (or something more sinister) like so many sceptics do - it’s refreshing.

[Eleanor]

Sorry one source I had misspelled the name. It's Batista

JOAQUIM JOSE MOREIRA BATISTA (residing at Rua Ilha Terceira, no. 15, Lagos, Telephone No 91 277 ####) - table employee [waiter].
- Of the group of 8/9 British citizens who dined at the restaurant last night, as usual, of which the parents of missing were part (he didn't know them) he noticed that two individuals left the table, of the male gender.
- The first to leave was about 40/45 years old (tall, skinny, white complexion, with large [a full head of] hair of color gray) and the period of his absence was about 15 minutes, being that they had to [re-]heat his food, which had cooled;
- The second to leave (about 40/45 years of age, having the physical characteristics of the first, but having less bulky hair) did so for about 30 minutes, and that shortly after he returned, all left the table, except for an elderly person, who told him that a child had disappeared, the daughter of a member of the group, due to which he thought that the second person to leave could have been the father of the child;

That doesn't make a lot of sense does it.

[Brietta]

That doesn't make a lot of sense does it.

I think that reading between the lines the focus of the investigation had changed.  I think it is indicated by the type type of question asked by the content of the answers.  Bearing in mind there is never any transcript of the questions asked ~ the exception being Kate's forty eight questions.

Just as the repeated answers in police statements saying they hadn't seen Murat indicates they might have been asked if they had.  Statements regarding the "timeline" had obviously been asked of staff and customers.  I think the answers from two members of staff both of whom seemed to have kitchen duties incorporated in whatever else they were doing are a bit disjointed.
The internet is awash with such statements that cannot possibly make much sense because there is no context but are used to "prove" all sorts.
It is a waste of time and just doesn't work particularly when comparison is made between different statements made by the same witness on different occasions are thrown into the mix.

[Eleanor]

I think that reading between the lines the focus of the investigation had changed.  I think it is indicated by the type type of question asked by the content of the answers.  Bearing in mind there is never any transcript of the questions asked ~ the exception being Kate's forty eight questions.

Just as the repeated answers in police statements saying they hadn't seen Murat indicates they might have been asked if they had.  Statements regarding the "timeline" had obviously been asked of staff and customers.  I think the answers from two members of staff both of whom seemed to have kitchen duties incorporated in whatever else they were doing are a bit disjointed.
The internet is awash with such statements that cannot possibly make much sense because there is no context but are used to "prove" all sorts.
It is a waste of time and just doesn't work particularly when comparison is made between different statements made by the same witness on different occasions are thrown into the mix.

I am putting all of this disjointed nonsense down to lack of things to talk about.  But the nonsense is very easy to spot so I don't suppose that anyone is taking it seriously.

[G-Unit]

I think that reading between the lines the focus of the investigation had changed.  I think it is indicated by the type type of question asked by the content of the answers.  Bearing in mind there is never any transcript of the questions asked ~ the exception being Kate's forty eight questions.

Just as the repeated answers in police statements saying they hadn't seen Murat indicates they might have been asked if they had.  Statements regarding the "timeline" had obviously been asked of staff and customers.  I think the answers from two members of staff both of whom seemed to have kitchen duties incorporated in whatever else they were doing are a bit disjointed.
The internet is awash with such statements that cannot possibly make much sense because there is no context but are used to "prove" all sorts.
It is a waste of time and just doesn't work particularly when comparison is made between different statements made by the same witness on different occasions are thrown into the mix.

[/b]

Which can also be said about the statements of the T9, despite people trying to deny/explain those differences away.

[Vertigo Swirl]

[/b]

Which can also be said about the statements of the T9, despite people trying to deny/explain those differences away.

There is a very simple explanation for all witness statement variation over time but it seems some people just refuse to accept it and prefer  to assign suspicious motives to it (but only when it’s the Tapas group statements).

[Eleanor]

There is a very simple explanation for all witness statement variation over time but it seems some people just refuse to accept it and prefer  to assign suspicious motives to it (but only when it’s the Tapas group statements).

60 to 80% certain is now 100% certain despite what's been said since.

[G-Unit]

There is a very simple explanation for all witness statement variation over time but it seems some people just refuse to accept it and prefer  to assign suspicious motives to it (but only when it’s the Tapas group statements).

I have seen their statements presented as absolute truth, when their variations show that they are not. I highlight those variations to highlight that point, not to assign suspicious motives. That is an accusation levelled at me by others who believe that's my aim.

[Eleanor]

I have seen their statements presented as absolute truth, when their variations show that they are not. I highlight those variations to highlight that point, not to assign suspicious motives. That is an accusation levelled at me by others who believe that's my aim.

So what do you hope to achieve?