"What's the evidence that Madeleine died on Sunday 29 April?"

i always have a bit of a problem when the sun is calling out, what the sun says is having a bit of a reputation, and that is not a good one.

even when people say it in person, you hardly have a way to be sure it is true. 

and with witness statement, their is a cultural barrier too, in portugal it is far more usual that a witness seeks contact to tell what he knows and wants to bring to the knowledge of the police. where in other countries most people are waiting until the police gets around asking questions. 

house to house calls are not even that old. and we still have the same notation in a news covering about a crime, translatable to the police ask your attention, to who it concerns, that he who has any information aout the event to seek contact with, usually followed with the number of the police force who works the case, or your local police, or for about the last 20 years to call to mma meld misdaad anoniem, or translated into tell about crime anonymus. 

and you are burnt if you do them and when you do not. they are very time consuming, with very little effect, but there are cases. like one we had with an abduction and murder of a young girl by the man across the street. the perp waas even a police officer, but at least it became known if they had done a house to house call, in the classic way, as in talking  within the houses the girl would still not been saved. 

and in this case that is in almost all aspects a bit special, a house to house call would hardly matter, i can not remember another case, where almost all occupants of a block of apartments had been interviewed within 24 hours at the police office. 
and it is not the pj did not activated house to house calls, the results are in the files, and much more than only ringing at the door and asking if they had seen somethings odd. they even got access to not occupied living area's. 

there is a lot not in the files. no casebooks, no daily debrief notes, no listing of the house to house calls, no listing of all incoming calls about the case, no list of people who presented themselves at any police office anywhere. no list of informal statements. 
a lot about informal things will never be archived , but are just kept in your personal notebooks, what is to be understood as only there to refresh your memory into detailed information. also not the full forensic files, no listings of goods taken for forensics outside 5a. or later on other places. not even a full list of all the sightings.

so what is presented as the pj files looks very equal to what we would call the file for the cps. the material that can be used in a court case. i do think operation grange got indeed all documents, one standard leitz folder, all others are just equal to that as a standard can hold 500 standard printing papersheets a4, but to keep it usable you keep it under 250. and if you put a lot of other stuff in it, like true photo prints a 100 is even better. you cannot take so much with you in a court case or even try to let a cps read it all. 
even now, when you can use computer files, a lot you get are just only original letters, you can not search them really good. 

and most has no say in the outcome of a case in the end, but never keep back if you think it can mean something, it would not end up in the garbage, all is at least read, looked at and kept until the case is truly done. but you also do not need more than 2 witnesses for everything or nothing. investigations are very fluid, so what is important can be different on different times and stages. it is okay if you have multiple witnesses, but in court one is usually enough, so you do look for someone who is probably can hold itself up in the court, and the rest is reserves. so you would take two written statements, and the rest is listed in the casebooks. 

this case has a high average of people who did see nothing that could be bound to a possible criminal event around 5a, and the witnesses in the files with a written statement about seeing nothing happening are together a nice overview of the evening. enough to agree with kate mccann, when she said it happened differently, she knows because she was there, only problem she did not talked much about that different happening when asked under questioning. but of course later on, on camera she could not tell it twice the same. but both parents would be a disaster if they would be asked to be witnesses for any cps. far to much versions out already. it would be no problem of course if they where the ones in the docks, suspects have in most continental court systems the free choice what version they tell about.

Silentscope wrote:There are a lot of things that point to Tuesday night Tony.

Kate’s book never mentioned the ‘Chekaya incident’ and she claims that it was Gerry, not her that returned to the Apartment.

The PJ Final report writes:

Mrs Fenn, the McCann's neighbour, reported that Madeleine had cried for her father between 22.30 and 23.45. The evidence shows that Kate McCann was in Apartment 5A 14 minutes before Madeleine started crying. Tuesday 1st May 2007 is the only night (except, of course, for Thursday 3rd May 2007) that either of the McCanns or any of their friends made calls after dinner.

Mrs McCann volunteered to the PJ that on the night of Wednesday 2nd May 2007, she had slept in the spare bed in her children's room because her husband had not paid her enough attention over dinner. Or put another way, does she mean the amorous Scot was paying someone else (like Miss Chekeya) too much attention, causing her to stomp out of the Tapas Bar before him: ultimately leading to the spare bed in a strop? Gerald McCann said he thought the reason his wife had slept in the children's bedroom was because of his snoring and that he did not even bother asking her the following morning what the problem was.

Could it be that their timings are wrong by 24 hours and that Kate McCann's nocturnal shenanigans took place on the night of Tuesday 1st May 2007? It would fit, but why be untruthful about it? A possible reason is that they wanted to conceal both Kate McCann's state of mind and the fact that she had returned to Apartment 5A, just before Madeleine's cried for help.


Source:
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id174.htm

The PJ Final Report did not write that ^^^.

It was a summary of information taken from various sources presented by a journalist and written for what was the journalists internet domain.

The same journalist who was for a time in cahoots with another questionable journalist - both of which have long since taken cover.

I just found this on Gerry McCann's blog byPamalam.
In all the newspaper reports on Pamela Fenn, not one states what she put in her PJ statement 2 day's before she made it.

https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id331.htm

I think the thread on Mrs. Fenn should be put to bed now, there is zero proof she was involved in any way.

Rundown for Sunday to Monday


Sunday 13:15 Madeleine seen by a Cleaner.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FATIMA_ESPADA.htm

McCanns and Entourage go to the Millenium Saturday and Sunday which opens at 19:00 - 19:30. Press reports Madeleine is seen by Staff in the Restaurent.
25 Milllenium Staff are Interviewed by the PJ.

Change of Plan Monday.

Usually around 09:00 Guests would be attempting to Book places at the Tapas Bar.

From Luis Barros Statement:

When asked he says that on a date he cannot remember, the group, just the adults because the children were dining with the nannies, had been too late in making their dinner reservation at the Tapas, and an exception was made, authorised by his boss Steve, as the Tapas only provides for 20 dinners for half board clients as was the case.

He think that this request was made in order to be close to the children who had their meals with the nannies, and to be close to the apartments.

Source:
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LUIS_BARROS.htm

Luis had Thursdays free. So it cannot have been Sat, Sunday or Thursday.
Which leaves Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.

If Fenns Statement is an invention to make us believe that Madeleine was alive, her Death must have occurred BEFORE Tuesday 22:30 possibly on the night of Sunday to Monday morning?

But why did Luis say he spoke to his Boss Steve? 

He was the Catering Manager, based at the Millenium but he oversaw all the on-site restaurants. 

He was absent from Portugal between Sunday 29th April and Wednesday 2nd May, so when was this exception requested and granted?

Source:
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEVEN_COVA.htm

He think that this request was made in order to be close to the children who had their meals with the nannies, and to be close to the apartments.

From “Madeleine” by Kate McCann:
 
"It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently. "

A Coincidence surely?

From Luis Barros Statement:

When asked he says that on a date he cannot remember, the group, just the adults because the children were dining with the nannies, had been too late in making their dinner reservation at the Tapas, and an exception was made, authorised by his boss Steve, as the Tapas only provides for 20 dinners for half board clients as was the case.



Am I correct in assuming that the only time when all the children were in the Lobster Creche together was the morning of 2nd May?


Could that have been the day Luis means?

I don't understand what you're talking about - what is the source of your information?

Madeleine McCann was booked in every day at the Lobster club, the twins were booked in every day at the Jellyfish Club.

Each day when the children were collected from their respective club's afternoon session by the parent 5/5.30'ish, the children their parents and the nanny would go to the Tapas Bar for the children's high tea.

What are you trying to suggest or establish?

Silentscope wrote:From Luis Barros Statement:

When asked he says that on a date he cannot remember, the group, just the adults because the children were dining with the nannies, had been too late in making their dinner reservation at the Tapas, and an exception was made, authorised by his boss Steve, as the Tapas only provides for 20 dinners for half board clients as was the case.



Am I correct in assuming that the only time when all the children were in the Lobster Creche together was the morning of 2nd May?


Could that have been the day Luis means?

We are unsure as to whether the Creche was open on Sunday, but if was one of Jane Tanners daughters may not have been there due to some issue with her foot.  If Madeleine died on April 29th, she may never had even been in the creche.  The other children may well have all gone to creche from Monday onwards.  However, they would have been in different creches due to their ages.  Where was Dave and Fiona,s baby?

The only time the children were dining together with the nannies was at high tea, sounds like Barros means the group booked then.

crusader wrote:The only time the children were dining together with the nannies was at high tea, sounds like Barros means the group booked then.

That is if high tea actually happened.

It would be pretty easy for the PJ to find out if there was a high tea or not.
Why would Barros say there was if there wasn't?

crusader wrote:It would be pretty easy for the PJ to find out if there was a high tea or not.
Why would Barros say there was if there wasn't?

Tony did some detailed research on the high tea.  I will look for thread.

Steven Cova catering manager was absent from Portugal between 29th April and 2nd May, Sunday to Wednesday.
So did they contact him by phone.
The booking was arranged by the receptionist Luisa Coutinho anyway.

crusader wrote:So did they contact him by phone.

My thoughts exactly, yes of course it could be the only logical conclusion.

No point trying to implicate all and sundry for no reason but obfuscation.

This plays right into the hands of forum critics.

@Verdi wrote:
Madeleine McCann was booked in every day at the Lobster club, the twins were booked in every day at the Jellyfish Club.


I accept that. Richard D Halls film raised the logical point of WHO was most likely to have been picked up first, the Twins or Madeleine?


@crusader
Do we have a match in the Phone records that he called Cove?
That would prove your theory.

From Luisa Courtinho Statement 


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


I see only two possible reasons.
They were not wanting to Trek to the Millenium any more.
Or something else changed their minds.

If there was a phonecall to the catering manager, Steven Cova, it would have been made from the reception, there is no record of Cova's phone number. I can't personally see why it makes a difference who made the booking, who took the booking and who authorised the booking.
Surely if the catering manager was away for a few day's, someone would cover for him.
The booking was made either on the Sunday or Monday by one or more of the tapas 7.
It's not the employees of the Ocean club who are under suspicion, it's the McCann's.

From Steven Cova Statement 

He never had any contact with the girl or her family before the disappearance and heard about them from the press.

He did not see or hear anything strange in the days preceding the disappearance. He has no further information.

@crusader     NO mention of a phone call?
Or did he just not register the call as being Suspicious because he felt it was normal,or unconnected?

https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEVEN_COVA.htm

I don't think there was a phonecall, L Coutinho the receptionist who made the booking, never mentioned a phonecall, only that she managed to make the bookings requested.

It would be logical to assume that in Mr Cova’s absence, she had his Authorities to organise the Block booking.

Cove never got a call, and that would explain why.

Sunday and Monday booking sheets for the Tapas Bar are missing from the PJ Files. Different paper formats were used after the ‘Abduction’ was reported. It is assumed because the PJ took the Originals.

So which version of the PJ Files did Kate read which had her famous ‘ ‘Note about being close to the Apartment’ in it? 

Did they send her a ‘Specially prepared’ copy I wonder?

All this only reinforces the preferred stance of the press and media and the die hard McCann support network .... 'the sardine munching beer swilling incompetent Portuguese yokels botched the investigation'.

Well I don't buy it.

I have to distance myself before I blow a gasket.

The possibility that the Receptionist called her Manager for permission, and so getting a TIME on Sunday when that happened from the Telephone Company has born no fruit. We can only guess it was around 09:00? This was when Guests used to Queue up to Book.

Steve is noted in the Margins of the Tapas Bookings as having Authourised any extra places.

But no Sunday or Monday Booking sheets are in the PJ released Files.
Probably because of ‘Ermittlungstaktischen Gründen?’
Investigational tactical reasons?

first an investigation starts with very little, and it results in starting to decide what the first part of a timeline you need, usually most will have happened in 24 hours before something becomes known, only if you get enough information you will go further back. there are even 3 separate parts under investigation, the period before, during and after a possible crime has taken place. 

the first two are usually taken as one at the start, because you can use a set time that it became known a possible crime did take place. the separation is usually a bit later.

you do not know what happened, who did what, who tells porkies or is telling the truth, or at least their own concept of a truth. 
but we can not have both, we can not say all told lies and use the same words as gospel. 

something little as the arrangements of the tapas dinners, the chef of arrangements was not there, and usually there will be another person that will stand in for the chef. it does not mean that the first witness proves there was a phone call, it could be just his concept as what was usual to happen, if something was asked by guest outside the guidelines, a higher rank in the hierarchy would be able to decide about it.

we have no idea what the first witness really can and does know. how much is from past experience, because 'we always do such thinks in that way or manner' or he truly does know someone indeed has taken a phone and made a call to the chef steve, and ask his verdict. 

there is information chef steve was not there, so could not have been asked on the spot to deal with the question. but there is simply no information if there was a phone call to steve, or another person, or that another member of the personnel could decide as if it was a decision like the steve would have made. 

but has it anything to do at all with anything, only if you choose to think all and everything that week was a lie, but that means you can not use anything else, because to make it into that, you can not trust anything and it could also not become facts at all. 

and there was the tapas restaurant, more a kind of grill restaurant, guest could book there, there was a maximum amount of plates for guest of mark warner. there was staff working. there was a cook.

what is missing is who have been all these guests of mark warner, well a bit we know because the pj took the reservations and pro forma billing documents. and after that it becomes interesting. 
you can not pay so much staf as they had and a cook and the rest for 20 plates an evening, so who have been the other guests each night. who are they, and why does no one of them came out to tell about their experiences. we know of some other mark warner guest the balu and berry party and the jenssens who made use of the bar and take away, and changed places with each other because there was no room for booking them all. 

why do i think there must have been a lot more transfer of people in that area, because you can not run a restaurant on 20 plates a day in that setting, and the only restricted number was for mark warner guests, but not the others as far we know.
but there are little snippets about the tapas bar and the restaurant who call it busy. and they even say they held a quiz night. but when you look at the times and kind of people on the booking sheets, there are early ones and some with children, the early ones are usually not the people who take part in quiz nights and people with children under 5 would usually not stretch a meal out into late hours, 9 o' clock would be a bit late for such young ones, the very young is even easier you could hold them in a buggy a sleep or on your lap. 
but all in all it is not very likely to stay around with tired young children night after night. 

so the pj got a booking sheet, but did they got a booking sheet from the tapas bar and restaurant, no, they got a booking sheet of the mark warner bookings. it was that one who had the names of the mccanns on it.

there is no guest list of others who had booked and dine there that week, the tapas bar and restaurant was part of the ocean club , not mark warner only at all. 

and that is a bit of an overall problem in this case. the lack of a full insight in who was where, and did not belong to the mark warner bunch. there are guest listings of the full ocean club, not complete, there looks to be no real checking in who was in and not of the owners, and not known guests, as the apartment 5j shows.

the sports and child care arrangements are mostly in the files only from the mark warner company. but when you did read up at the time when you could book with another company you could do that too, thomas cook for probably the uk, and neckermann was still around in the netherlands at that tame, but their guest review also talked about doing things, but it never became clear how that was arranged, what child care was there for these guests, could they use the creches too, could they book freely at any restaurant including tapas and millenium. could they book for tennis and water sports too.

so there is quite a large group who can tell something if they wanted, or when they had been asked, but going by the names it never happened. 
but it could be people from these groups who can tell who and how many have been in the tapas bar. 
the overall stance is that it was not that quiet in the tapas bar or the restaurant part. 

and i do not find it very strange, because other travel companies have been the concurrent and would prefer to distance themselves from trouble. even from the ocean club parts you see it shown, they found it a matter for mark warner, not so much the ocean club. all heads have been out there on thursday evening late, and already in distancing mode. and i would expect that. 

it is the standard mode in tourist business, if something goes bad, keep it out of your garden. all will go of immediately into push away mode. so the manager that said no break inn, the translating silvia , who was not there to be in her finest manners. robbed from het free evening because some probably dumb and drunk tourist has a lost child walking about somewhere.

and when you use all the statements with that push it out of our garden line of thinking, and what would be just the standard habits of running the ocean club, it tells mostly a story of we have not seen anything, we are not sure about anything, go away, it is not our problem but theirs. 

you will get the same responses when there has been a fatal accident in a large company and that company could get into a negative spiral. because all these people who works there get also payed by that company, all they have is based on that being payed. 
these people do know for themselves they have no role in what happened and that is usually enough to try to keep a distance. 

and because it was so early about an abduction of a very young girl, that was something that has very little left to be wanted to be associated with. the other possibility what most would have had in their minds was, just lousy parents, you wanted to have free time do wine and dine without their kids, so they got that coming for them. it was their mistake, not of the people working at the ocean club. 

you can not use statement analysis on these statements, at least not in the you tube populair version of it, and you always have to paint the full picture, who is telling what and are there 'why's' that lay outside the scope of the affairs you are interviewing them about. usually there are. 

also because it was a timeline pretty early set in stone by the mccann's, all these workers could feel free to keep distancing on, because they had all each other as their alibi, so they not only know they had themselves nothing to do with it all, the others who had been directly around them could not have been part of it. 

but we simply cannot paint a good picture of that night in the tapas bar and restaurant, was it really so silent? look at the older pictures, how many tables, yes it was early season, but others speak of a much busier place. 
and there is no logic in pay so much personnel and only let 20 guests in that restaurant, if it was mark warner who would not have paid any bills over 20 plates, it would be offered to eat there for paying on their own. and we have no idea who ever have been guest in the bar itself. you could pay contant. there was no active screening who got in to the bar in the evening, the reception was not manned after 19.00 hours. 

but there is more, it was very early made known it was all a mark warner affair, their guests, their misery to get rid of. the mccanns had only a client relation with mark warner, and mark warner already had bad publicity on their 'so good' child care arrangements. and there are a lot of very strict rules and regulations for schools, but not for these kind of child minding things. so there is very little to weigh them on in quality, it is not school time, it is holiday time. people have of course expectations about it, but that is from their own way of thinking, it has very little grounded on law. the only thing mark warner had to worry about was what their insurance company had to say about it. 

and minding young kids is not seen as a science, it is fully accepted that any girl you know over 12 years to sit in when you want to go out in the evening hours of the weekends. very stupid even, but only after something goes wrong people start to think about that, but not so much. most will just ask the girls who are at least 14. you never would lent them your car or your credit cards, but kids are no problem. 

very young girls made responsible to handle kids, or leaving very young children alone at home for a short amount of time, it does happen very often, and it does not even goes that often wrong at all. but we like to forget that it does not matter at all when all goes alright, it is only when things go wrong, they usually go very wrong, and with hindsight both would be just stupid. 

people do like to talk themselves into a safe haven, so yes most of what is written and said about leaving 8 children between 9 months and 4 years old alone, and let your hair loose is and was stupid, it is not about the ample minutes all was okay when and if they had been near them, it is about all other time, children of these ages are fully capable to bring harm to themselves. they have proven that for ages. so when awake they need to be in eyesight, when not awake in hearing distance, with so much meters you can reach them in your eyesight in time. parents or legal carers are responsible to that, nothing more nothing less. 

but the people who worked in the tapas bar and restaurant had simply their own job responsibilities. it was not in their sayings to think about child care of clients who they served foods and drinks too. people do stand up and are not telling them why or for how long, it is usually only accidentally they get into knowledge about why their clients do things outside eating, or drinking. 

if it was as silent as the paper works like to show, most would have been busy with doing something that looked useful with their hands, but mostly would have been just talking to each other, with the usual glances at the guest there about. they would not have been studying their clients as lab rats. 

and you cannot use the same wordings to say it all is a lie, and use it to paint the same words into a another story and say they must be true words. if they all told lies, the truth must be different from it, not the same. 
you can not have your cake and eaten it. 

and an investigation needs facts to build out all the lines, you can not endlessly keep on trying to fit theories around, until one sticks for a bit. 

i do know of some information given by the mccanns that can not be seen different than lies, because they retracted it , or just told another very different version of it. 

i would fully think it could be very likely, the ocean club and mark warner had already briefed their own staff into stay out of it, it is not your business, do only answer when a question is asked, and it is okay when you keep your mouth shot, when you are not sure about what things ment. 

the ocean club and mark warner have waited until the pj asked for paperwork, guest lists, etc. and they have responsibilities to their own companies too, they can not earn anything of bad stories about some kid. and you can easily find how both handled it. both did not offer anything freely, the ocean club was directing the pj to mark warner, kept other companies out of it. 

mark warner could not have any bad publicity or the slightest link to their child care, they had to accept even some by the tapas9 for it, who nicely have told why they found the childcare arrangements from mark warner not fitting for them. 
what is nicely followed up with the rumour of 'mark warner did not used nanny walking by- service because of the laying of all the accommodation was to far apart.'  the tapas9 arranged to stay near each other to be able to escape that themselves. so the local working company said it was no safe way to look after children of guests, but the guests thought they could do it even better, than an experienced company, with local knowledge. 

sending the nannies out , is something what was wise, quite some have been very willing in talking to the media, with a lot of their own fantasies in it. girls who only took these jobs, because they could have a lot of nice spare time near a beach, away from home, and free to act as they liked. these jobs are known as 'being payed to party'. 

and the tourist business is set up to give the idea all is simple and easy, no hard decisions in front of a guest, it needs the pretenses of nothing difficult of bad has to be experienced. and when something bad happens they still have to think out for the day after, with the next bunch of guests. 
and from that the only thing i never could understood, was why they kept the mccann's, on the ground of the ocean club, in between the next guests on their holiday, with the extra media attention. giving them a more distant property, with a personal nanny service even, would have been easily be sold as giving the mccann's rest and privacy, out of confrontations of having to see all the other happy faces of holiday guests. 
from pr standpoints i can not see anything useful to keep them for so long at block 4. 

mostly for the picture it did give to other guests, who would have seen police officers walking around, media in their way, and a family that had to be tiptoed around, but was present on the beach, the village, the tennis courts, the creche, it is not something most people would be favouring during their holiday times. 

mark warner must have been able to get in a 48 hours, there was no conflict of interest as in their company was to blame directly, same for the ocean club. it was very early out, it was as the story was told, by their own will of these guest to leave the children alone. 

and again, there was and is a accommodation to serve food and drinks to costumers, no one ever have get out with anything that can make you to start thinking it was just an empty building, or that is was closed for business in that week. so the basics are there. 
and if there was no daily tapas restaurant serving, what did take place than, and what are the facts for that. there are been many reviews about the ocean club and the experience in the tapas bar and that restaurant from around that time, that do not differ from what is become to known from the staff and tourist statements. even the restriction on number of plates to serve for mark warner have been part of these. and many places well before that specific week in 2007. 

and no, in europe it is never allowed to just ask for all phones used in a so large a time span , without a prosecution officer signing that of, and it is easy to find in the files, portugal has the very usual head shy officers, very normal, you step so much in privacy of common people you have at least give a sound reason to make it even possible to look at phone connections. 

also why would a call between 2 people also be made on a company phone at all. it is easy if one is directly near you, but in 2007 a local call with a mobile device was not that high in prices, and often a lot would have been used to use what was in the pocket. and prepaid cards was far more the norm, so it would not at all be easy if both ends have made use of a pre paid card. in 2007 it was not needed to register your number to name in most eu countries, and it was certainly not needed to be a criminal to use one. 
common, the complete dutch police forces used them, payed by head quarters because radio or c2000 was both not reliable, the first not private the second worked not out of cities all the time. 

and yes you could just buy a cheap card with just another number in supermarkets, the post offices, or wholesalers, or phone stores. 

so even there was a call, you can not very easily proof it was made as 'the call', and you also end up with the kelly bar receipt effect, multiple customers or calls in a same time frame. and even with the numbers given, you do still have no knowledge of the conversation. 

and i have been in many situations, that others who had themselves to ask others for permission, i had not. 
and most people talk and think often a bit too much from their own positions. so if the one had to ask, the other maybe already had that permission, because that was normal practice when the chef was not around. 

and what would it really bring to the case as factual information, more as the statements about it already do. 
no phone call is needed when permissions to decide already had been instated before the chef steve gone of duty. proving a call was made does tell nothing about the conversation. so usually this is typically seen as time wasting exercises, that have no direct relation to a possible crime at that time in investigation.
only the facts and circumstances has to guide the investigation, not all possible fantasies you can think of. because most never be part of it all. even a investigation hypotheses or theory goes by facts and circumstances. 

even if luisa was deciding outside her job standard, would that tell you anything at all. and would a call between a number that could have been maybe used, or not, by luisa to a number that maybe could be used by steve the chef, or not proof anything happened or not? 

there are many snippets information in many different statements, about activity in the tapas bar and restaurant. i think the bigger problem is, the more exact timings you do nee for a timeline, to see what could have been happening also, people need time to do things. i do think that the group of the tapas 9 was in the tapas restaurant that evening, but only each individual is not there all the time, and also that honest about it all.  and that stays the same matter, if you look for an earlier time any possible criminal event could have taken place. 

and it will always end that their timeline is also their downfall, unless they all retract it. what would make the witnesses themselves breaking the law and become a criminal. you can not present it so surely to the world and retract is as being mistaken by accident. 

and i do think too, that the pj on points is mislead by the companies around, to make it a mark warner at the ocean club show, a lot of other counter material never surfaced. i understand why, but in the ethical sense, was this really needed when it was about one little girl. i think a true victim, that can never have been able to be responsible for anything herself, she does certainly do deserve justice, and that means all the help that is needed for it. 

and there is something else, if your lines of thinking are in the line of a full inside job, it means it is a true one off scenario, no chance to see the perps doing it again and again. 
if you go for a lot of outsiders the chance of more and even more serious crimes over and over is more realistic. 
there even is a line of thinking one bad apple had an active hand in almost all serious criminal events in southern portugal and abroad during many years. and it is easy and feels probably also very safe, to lock up one, because on or few nasty people is easier to think about. 

i still have no preference for when it all happened, just because facts and circumstances are not enough available to do that, most likely i have changed positions, i still think it is an insider case, with a lot of mingling in of others after the facts and most of them protect their own companies and personal life. but is it possible on that one and only thursday evening of may 3 2007, i say yes it is possible. can i prove it , no, it still needs to much speculation. still to little facts and circumstances. and because of the same, it is pretty easy to make write up for any moment after the sunday, but the earlier means, you have to make a lot more people telling rubbish or dead out telling lies. and i can not always found a agreeable reason why these people would do that.

most common people do like to stay away of criminal matters, at least until a culprit is in view, brought in by others. people are directly and immediately very curious, filling the gaps is human, but offering them in a statement to the police takes usually even for the eagerly fantasist more time. they have more chance to end up in the media. and will end up with some extra gravy of course.

well are people more eager to help when it is like in this case, just a little child. 

on the other side people do take much for granted, if you are there on every monday, they would not look around if you are really there the next one, but when you ask did you have seen mister x, it is easy to hear, well he must be somewhere, he always is. and if that is in the moment when all are there, it is easy to check, but when that only happened in your mind is is not so easy to tell if mister x was there on a specific monday, or not. the more the days are a bit the same, how easier you are taken for granted.

i see my neighbours going to work most days, but do i really see that, or do i see them only leave their home. they once told me they do work, but that does not mean i really see them go to work, each time at around the same time that they also really do go out to their work. 
there are a lot of bits in the statements that are the result of the same. 

and what is the true quest you after, you want to make a timeline, because you need to look for possible gaps, gaps something could or not could have taken place in relation to a possible crime. you want first to take out as many of the people with the easy access, so you want to know if persons x, or y and c and k could have been in or around your possible crime scene. 

the result of the statements are not enough to be sure who of the people near the child was 'when' around that evening and if that give enough time for more specific deeds. so even if they all tell lies, it does still not tell anything about the question you was after. from the staff it are also not direct statements, but counter statements, the stories as given by the tapas 9 versus bystanders. both are never proof in itself, but they also did not deliver near enough the same story lines. the same goes for the second circle of counter statements, people who have been near 5a, without direct contact/connection with the tapas 9. 

the tapas 9 have also told at different times stories with differences, that can not be explained by simply being mistaken. 

there is no need to prove they did wine and dine in the tapas, you want to look if they could have a role in the missing of their child. the complete tapas restaurant saga is not strong enough to fill holes with facts and circumstances. the timeline is still useless. and the tapas 9 was not interested to bring clearance to do a reconstruction of the night. 
at most we can make a bit of a sketch in the 3 series of statements and lay them together, but they are not equal. 

the tapas restaurant affair has no direct influence on anything that could have happened in 5a itself against a child. so even if they have never been there at all, but elsewhere it would not make the crime if one truly happened different. 

and the result of this will always play havoc if a case as this ends up in a court, it does not matter against who. it will just ends up with who is the best in story telling and believed the most by judges and jury if there is one. not the way i like justice see played out.

and why would chef steve be suspicious of a wish of some guests. it was stil low season, and without the tapas 9 it still had 11 plates to sell. it was not about extra places, it was a question for a block booking for the rest of the week. and really 20 plates a night between 19.00 hours and 22.00 hours, is little, the tapas 9 have been booked for the late round. usually kitchens close an hour before closing hours, going by their workings schemes, that would be most likely 22.00 hours, an hour for cleaning up the kitchen and prepare for the next day is very common. 
they normally let guest just line up for the front desk in the morning. 
there is old footage of brunt inside the restaurant part in 2007, they had much more than only 20 chairs.
it was just a mark warner agreement. the amount of plates is even different in reactions of other holidaymakers well before and after may 2007.

these sheets are usually send to the account office, so they could be checked and billed to the clients, so any extra's would be payed before leaving. so they probably no longer have been at the reception at all. high season the would probably collected even more times every day. holiday companies are not the ones who give you freebies, if they can escape it. look at the date in the guest list of the ocean club, and extra's are behind at the right side.

Cammeriga wrote:Thanks @onehand for explaining the format of assessment the police would take, to form a timeline of events. I note the McCanns presented 2 timelines themselves, so it must be of importance to their 'truth'.

I believe the MCanns and their team presented FOUR (4) timelines.

Two on the night, written on the sticker book cover, which are radically different in content
Then one much longer one done on a computer and printed out, on 3 sheets of A4, which is different again but fills in too much detail
Then yet another one was found in Kate's possession.  Less well known and it is tricky to track down a copy of it