The McCanns say they thought they might not get into the tapas restaurant the night Madeleine disappeared

Marian wrote:Good morning Solva. I think we can safely assume that you are a McCann supporter and that's not a problem; everyone is welcome here. I give you a lot of credit for being civil and polite; sadly there have been some very unpleasant individuals on this site who had to be banned because of their offensive behaviour.

You are spending a lot of time debating particular issues, some of which don't seem to be of great importance, particularly one where you wanted to prove that there were packs of wild dogs in the area when Kate said that there were. We can debate endlessly about who may or may not have been at the tapas restaurant

There is documented evidence of who was in the tapas restaurant that night.

or whether the bedroom window was open or shut but we weren't there so I don't suppose we'll ever agree.
As the evidence currently stands. Kate and only Kate's fingerprints was found on the inside of that window. Goncalo Amaral has clearly informed us that Kate said she never touched that window. It is as simple as that. There is nothing to agree or disagree with here.
Could I ask you how you feel about other matters which happened later and about which there is no room for doubt because they were made public? There are many points that I could mention but for now I'll just go with the completely unprecedented setting up of a limited company to raise funds and an online shop to sell goods, plus long-term plans being made to mark anniversaries of Madeleine's disappearance. In an interview earlier this year Gerry said that, even in the early days, he never thought that any reported sightings could be of Madeleine. To me, there is no explanation for this other than he knew exactly where she was and thus the sightings could not be of her.
This particular thread is about the tapas bookings, can we keep it on topic please and not divert to other topics.
I feel that if you answer these points you will be accepted as a genuine contributor and not a time waster.
Marian. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this comment, but I think it is best that you leave these sorts of decisions to Admin and Mods please.

Stella wrote:

Marian wrote:
[/color]I feel that if you answer these points you will be accepted as a genuine contributor and not a time waster.
Marian. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this comment, but I think it is best that you leave these sorts of decisions to Admin and Mods please.

solva wrote:

lj wrote:Still choosing and picking and avoiding to answer questions. So how is the religious welfare of the expats doing?

I chose and picked a statement by an independent witness because it confirms that KM's account of tapas booking is correct, and BTW it confirms that it is not KM's dates which are back to front, but someone here's
Of your religious question the only connection with the Tapas topic I can think, is months later a church person helped the mother by trying to contact the person in charge of Tapas bookings.

Stella wrote:(snip) unless you start to back up some of your assertions, you may run the risk of being shown the door as an unwelcome guest (snip) Your ramblings that have no meaning or reference (snip) This is now the 3rd request. In future, please provide names and sources for your information, or your posts will be deleted (snip)

solva wrote:

Stella wrote:(snip) unless you start to back up some of your assertions, you may run the risk of being shown the door as an unwelcome guest (snip) Your ramblings that have no meaning or reference (snip) This is now the 3rd request. In future, please provide names and sources for your information, or your posts will be deleted (snip)

I posted the sources for 3 quotes in the rogs, see my posts, two from JT rog, one from RO rog. I posted the exact volume and page number in the Processos for 1 quote - what better source do you want than that? The remaining 2 quotes, you indicated you already knew the sources for. You have all the information you need to read and check the sources. Rudest and most incompetent bit of moderating I have ever seen, I am surprised anyone here puts up with it, and just in case Thursday is not the forum administration's "Moderator List Drastic Quality Review" day, I wish all the many polite posters here - Hasta La Vista :)

solva wrote:
Here are a few quotes from statements made to police, all referring to Thursday:
"we could not get a table at the Tapas" Graham McKenzie - but doesn't state when tried to book tapas
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"I tried to reserve a table at the Tapas Bar for that night but it was fully booked" Neil Berry - again no time of trying to book tapas

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Thursday morning (snip) had tried to book the Tapas and they couldn’t get in because it was already full" - Jane Tanner re someone in her tennis group
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"they were not able to arrange a table" Raj Balu - Had table booked but chose to eat in apartment with with Neil Berry
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"they’d been there at nine o’clock to book in and they still couldn’t get in" - Jane Tanner again about the tennis player in her statement

solva wrote:Another one
"you could only book in the morning (snip) eight or
nine o’clock"

Stella wrote:Another case in blue of someone booking for more than their party size.

2/5
7.00	Handy (4)	Naylor (3)
7.15
7.30	O'Donnell (2)	McCormick (3)	Weinburger (3)
7.45
8.00	Bulrton (2)
8.15
8.30	Oldfield (2)	Obrien (2)	McCann (2)	Payne (3)
8.45
9.00
	missing 2 children
	missing 1 child
	missing 1 child
	missing all children
	party of 3 booked for 4

Guest wrote:This is a really important one.  Why did Sperrey with no children, book in as a table for 3 ?  Who are all these extra people ?

3/5
7.00	Edmonds (4)	Mann (3)	Carpenter (2)	Bullen (4)
7.15
7.30	Patel (4)	Cox & Balu - cancelled
7.45
8.00
8.15
8.30	Irwin (2)	Oldfield (2)	Obrien (2)	McCann (2)	Payne (3)
8.45
9.00	Sperrey (3)
	missing 2 children
	missing all children
	party of 3 but booked for 4
	party of 2 but booked for 3

Portia wrote:

Guest wrote:This is a really important one.  Why did Sperrey with no children, book in as a table for 3 ?  Who are all these extra people ?

3/5
7.00	Edmonds (4)	Mann (3)	Carpenter (2)	Bullen (4)
7.15
7.30	Patel (4)	Cox & Balu - cancelled
7.45
8.00
8.15
8.30	Irwin (2)	Oldfield (2)	Obrien (2)	McCann (2)	Payne (3)
8.45
9.00	Sperrey (3)
	missing 2 children
	missing all children
	party of 3 but booked for 4
	party of 2 but booked for 3

Carpenter, leaving two children someplace else when eating out, COULD hypothetically have been Crecheman?

As, come to think of it, COULD have been also: MO, ROB and GM?