Re: Dinner seating of the Tapas 9

by crusader 16.04.22 7:52

I'm more interested in why the tapas lot were allowed to book for the week than who sat where.

The system had been working fine with people booking early to get a table at the tapas until the tapas lot arrived.
There were very few covers for Mark Warner guests, Kate admitted they were stopping other guests from eating there.
Priority was given to a party of 9, with a reserved table for the week, they were treated like VIPs from the beginning.

by sequested 16.04.22 8:55

You’re assuming they did what they said/wrote they did. I doubt much of it is true, like the rest of their story

by crusader 16.04.22 9:24

I assume nothing, they ate at the tapas that week with a reserved table, fact, unless you believe the receptionist who made it possible ,waiters and guests were lying about them being there.

As for the checking system, all is not what they claim in my opinion.

by Verdi 16.04.22 14:52

Kate McCann wrote:Sean and Amelie were enrolled in the Toddler Club for two-year-olds in a building adjacent to a bar and the open-air Tapas restaurant, just across from our apartment on the other side of the main pool.

by Verdi 16.04.22 14:53

Today we’d been able to make a dinner reservation for the adult contingent at the poolside Tapas restaurant. Apparently, this restaurant, a canopied outdoor addition to the bar, catered for only up to fifteen diners in the evenings, and reservations could not be made until the morning of the day in question. Being so close, it was far more convenient than the Millennium.

The children could have their tea together earlier, play for a while and then go to bed at their usual time, which meant they wouldn’t get overtired and out of sorts, and we could eat later on.

by Verdi 16.04.22 14:55

If we’d had any concerns we could have hired a babysitter. I could argue that leaving my children alone with someone neither we nor they knew would have been unwise, and it’s certainly not something we’d do at home, but in fact we didn’t even consider it. We felt so secure we simply didn’t think it was necessary.

Our own apartment was only thirty to forty-five seconds away, and although there were some bushes in between it was largely visible from the Tapas restaurant. We were sitting outside and could just as easily have been eating on a fine spring evening in a friend’s garden, with the kids asleep upstairs in the house.

Kate McCann

by Silentscope 16.04.22 17:40

From the Statement of Dr K Gaspar, it seems that Dining outside at night time was a standard form of Entertainment since 2005.

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

One night, when we were on holiday, the adults, in other words, the couples that I mentioned were on a patio outside the house where we were staying. We had been eating and drinking.

by Verdi 16.04.22 17:50

Irrelevant!

It would depend where you are and when you are.

by Silentscope 16.04.22 18:22

“It seemed a fairly natural sort of thing to do, it was so close,” Gerry McCann said. “You could actually see the apartment and it didn’t feel that different to dining out in the back garden. It was the furthest thing from my mind that something like that might happen.”

Relevant to establishing a pattern I find.

by Verdi 17.04.22 1:57

And your point is?

by Milo 24.04.22 12:13

Dinner seating

There is a video of the reconstruction of the night that Madeleine "was taken". Not all actors were present. I noted that Gerry got very agitated as he wanted the other people there to pay attention to THE table and how it lined up with the apartments etc. I remember thinking that he was paying far too much attention to the table than it warranted. You know that "mummy, mummy, watch me" stuff. Why was the position of the table sooo important. Now I cannot remember whether that table was round or not. Maybe the shape is not significant but it sure seemed like that actual position (precisely) was significant. Wonder if we can re-open that ... just a little bit please Verdi...

by Guest 24.04.22 13:59

at milo,

you mean this video; https://youtu.be/atfDV7imHHY

from 6.24 on

Madeleine McCann - Cutting Edge Show 070509 - Tapas 9 Reconstruction

by Verdi 26.04.22 14:14

Professor McCann is sort of very precise about where on the floor he and Kate where sitting and the horticultural view between the Tapas Restaurant and apartment 5a but he conveniently forgets to mention the opaque awning between them and the apartment block.

by Verdi 26.04.22 14:20

Milo wrote:Dinner seating

There is a video of the reconstruction of the night that Madeleine "was taken". Not all actors were present. I noted that Gerry got very agitated as he wanted the other people there to pay attention to THE table and how it lined up with the apartments etc. I remember thinking that he was paying far too much attention to the table than it warranted. You know that "mummy, mummy, watch me" stuff. Why was the position of the table sooo important. Now I cannot remember whether that table was round or not. Maybe the shape is not significant but it sure seemed like that actual position (precisely) was significant. Wonder if we can re-open that ... just a little bit please Verdi...

I think Milo you are merging two separate videos into one. The Cutting Edge show uploaded above ^^^ and the Panorama Madeleine McCann Special 2013, the Tapas dining refabrication, shows a completely different scenario.

Hang on a minute, I think I posted it up-thread ....

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

@ 12minutes onward

ETA: Oh and not forgetting the PJ reconstruction the case coordinator thought would be beneficial to assist the investigation, the reconstruction the group of holiday pals declined to participate after seeking legal advice thinking

.

by **PeterMac** 26.04.22 18:02

Love the way this Mockumentary shows them sitting by the pool, not INDOORS behind a screen.
And once again KM tells the world she was NOT going to check the children at all, but was concerned with
the angle of the door . . .

by Milo 27.04.22 1:11

I, too, am interested in Crusader's question about why the tapas lot were allowed to book the restaurant for the week.

Do you think it might have something to do with the events on Sunday or Monday when Madeleine was "taken"? That is, they would have needed their concrete selves in the restaurant every night rather than going out or varying their routine? Did they want the staff to see them there every night to support the McCann's developing narrative about checking on the children? Or of being able to see through the canvas!

by Verdi 27.04.22 2:17

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

by Verdi 27.04.22 2:38

Milo wrote:I, too, am interested in Crusader's question about why the tapas lot were allowed to book the restaurant for the week.

Do you think it might have something to do with the events on Sunday or Monday when Madeleine was "taken"? That is, they would have needed their concrete selves in the restaurant every night rather than going out or varying their routine? Did they want the staff to see them there every night to support the McCann's developing narrative about checking on the children? Or of being able to see through the canvas!

I guess there could be any reason to explain why the group were allowed to reserve a booking every night for a large group, firstly it was the beginning of the season so maybe it was quiet as regards restaurant bookings or maybe there was sufficient space within the Tapas restaurant to accommodate clan McCann.

Whatever, the focal point appears to be the need to convince the world that the parent's McCann could see apartment 5a from where they were wining and dining - which is of course nonsense, no matter how may times they tell you otherwise.

Just suppose they were keeping a watchful eye, what then of the front elevation of the building, the opposite side - the side showing the ground floor bedroom occupied by Madeleine and the twins. The side, the window, that Kate McCann insists to this day was open and blew the children's bedroom door open, whooshed the curtains and opened the shutter. The other side of the building!

Are we expected to believe they diligently watched the veranda where they left the door unlocked, which they couldn't clearly see anyway, whilst the front elevation of the building was unguarded by their watchful eye?

What of the other group members, did they not bother to diligently watch their own apartments with their own children slept within unsupervised by an adult?

Fact remains, they were there at the Tapas restaurant every night eating and drinking. Twist it however you like, they, the whole group were not attentive in any way, they were out for the night enjoying their freedom whilst their children were ....

by **PeterMac** 27.04.22 6:44

And on Kate's own admission, the McCanns were sitting with the BACKS to the screen, rendering everything else they said about the system nugatory.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.04.22 8:25

Milo wrote:I, too, am interested in Crusader's question about why the tapas lot were allowed to book the restaurant for the week.

Do you think it might have something to do with the events on Sunday or Monday when Madeleine was "taken"? That is, they would have needed their concrete selves in the restaurant every night rather than going out or varying their routine? Did they want the staff to see them there every night to support the McCann's developing narrative about checking on the children? Or of being able to see through the canvas!

re: Do you think it might have something to do with the events on Sunday or Monday when Madeleine was "taken"?

REPLY: Yes, but more specifically...IMO...

It had everything to do with an event Sunday afternoon or early evening when Madeleine was "taken"

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

by crusader 27.04.22 9:55

David Payne said in his rogatory statement, they went to Portugal with the mindset they would check the children themselves, knowing that Mark Warner didn't offer the service they wanted.

They knew before they left the UK what the situation was relating to childcare, they fully intended to leave the children on their own whilst they went out to dinner, the Payne's and Obrien's even took child monitors with them.

Payne said he wanted assurances they would all be placed near to each other
Mark Warner said they couldn't guarantee they would be, but they would do their best.

Leaving the children alone and doing their own checking system could only work if they were housed near the tapas bar or the millennium restaurant.

by Vera Krista 27.04.22 9:59

crusader wrote:David Payne said in his rogatory statement, they went to Portugal with the mindset they would check the children themselves, knowing that Mark Warner didn't offer the service they wanted.

They knew before they left the UK what the situation was relating to childcare, they fully intended to leave the children on their own whilst they went out to dinner, the Payne's and Obrien's even took child monitors with them.

Payne said he wanted assurances they would all be placed near to each other
Mark Warner said they couldn't guarantee they would be, but they would do their best.

Leaving the children alone and doing their own checking system could only work if they were housed near the tapas bar or the millennium restaurant.

But the creche was open & they provided door listening services?

by Milo 28.04.22 2:52

My question about the week-long booking being requested at the beginning of the week was that they decided, after Madeleine was "taken", to introduce the charade of being close to home for dinner and to be seen jumping up and down to check on the children - well Madeleine because others besides the parents were said to do that also. And all of this was very useful when Kate was able to slip in the story of the open booking sheet that EVERYBODY including the abductor could read and presumably work out a safe time to "take" M. But then the thing about being observed jumping up and down does not make sense given that staff reported not seeing them jumping although they saw one seat vacant at a time (nicht wahr?). I wonder what Granny (Tapas [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) was thinking or doing. But the clinch for me was when they said they had no watches or phones. Poor things - Gerry even lost or had stolen his credit card when he returned to the UK for some short visit. No credit cards, phones or watches (not that you need watches if you have a cell phone. The task I have now set for myself is to go back and read everything (which is what I have being doing forever) through the prism of just one thing - the saga of the restaurant. Unless anybody thinks that is a waste of time. I do hope Lady Muck (aka Cressida) gets he come-uppance.

by Milo 28.04.22 3:21

I welcome Tony's inclusion of the make-up photo. Of late, I have been thinking that it had slipped into the background.

Although others have found my theory unsavoury but the images it conjures up are no worse than that of a body in a freezer (as in often discussed in this forum).

I believe it was the last photo, and that it was taken after she died (as was often done in the Victorian era), and in line with the blue eye-shadow and lipstick. To summarise what I wrote in my original message, I see her being propped up - like we did with our children as babies; hence the angle and the comments of others about the position of her ears (coming to the fore), with her eyes having what is referred to as pools of death, and the porcelain skin, which cannot be explained away as the peaches and cream of an English girl but perhaps the sort of make-up that undertakers use (not saying an undertaker did it); it certainly is not the tone and colour of a child who has been out in the sun of Portugal. Others have mentioned the tear-stained cheeks. Behind her is a blue object, which could be a plastic chair or a man's shirt, the man who is propping her up.

Last time I wrote about this, there were a few negative responses about undertakers (called morticians in those responses). Well, I won't go so far as to tell you all about my mother's ancestry - a convict from Cambridge, and on my father's side (both parents), German free settlers. My grandfather started a business as a funeral director. My father became a surgeon. With both of them I had (respectful) conversations about death. And before somebody yells at me, let me say that I do not consider myself to be an expert. Just curious.

by Guest 28.04.22 9:11

never wrong to read over and over. how you look at what is told is often already a bit colored by what you are looking for. there are always snippets to find.

but on a more personal level, if you look into the family mccann, gerry's grandfather in ireland was besides the local pub owner, also said the local undertaker.

often such things could mean, families had a bit of a different view and feeling about this matter, dead people. often a more divided interpretation between the person when alive, and the body that is left behind.
i think a bit the same as is common in police officers, you always keep in mind it was once a human being, but for the task it become the material to work from and with.

you can not undo experiences, for me it meant a dead body, human and animal does mean something very different, than others in mij direct family. it has little to do with mourning a person, but the body that is left behind means for me a very different chapter.

in this case there is a lot said about what happened with the body, most peoples minds would not go there very deep in. the part between to die and putting up to take a last look, is seen as improper and nasty, and morbid to talk about.

i do not think it is even off topic, because if it all had to take place that very evening, there has to be someone who had 'found' a dead body, and someone who take it away from 5a, and every other scenario had that as a important component to deal with.

to handle a body, and hide it, takes time and effort. and i do think it could have different settings, if that was done by someone who had a less common concept of being dead and dead bodies.

from my own observations parents are not shy of the dead body of their child, so a possible crime scene, around a young child is rarely undisturbed, parents pick the body up, cradle it, handle the child as if it was still alive. with adult bodies, there is usually more natural, or cultural distancing, so a hand can be touched, the hair, the face, but there is far more realizing the person is dead. we are speaking in this case of people of a western european culture. overall there is the do not disturb the dead mantra, but individuals could react differently.

in this case it could have been as simple as the result from upbringing in a family were dead people are handled in a different mindset, or experiences from an occupation that gives the same results.

milo,this could be something to keep in view when you do a fresh read up in the dinner time statements, take the raw experiences you have from your own upbringing, to see little signs of how each member of the tapas 9 reacts on the concept of a dead body to handle. as if they had to handle it, or assist in it at that evening, or reflect on that aspect earlier. if you feel okay with that of course.

no expert maybe, but you have other experiences than usual, that could get just a view from that angle in such parts of this case. one set of life experiences does not equal all, but they often help to look from a more different point of view. the all humans are and act different concept is not very true, we join a very basic set of ways to express ourselves.

that is still the big difference between working a case and being just following a case, working a case means you do not have points to say stop, i do not like that aspect, as a follower you can. so if the realistics of a dead body are to much out of your comfort zone, just leave it be.

something like the dinner setting can tell far more than just what they could see or not. not in itself, but how the tapas 9 talk about it, and keep talking about it later on. the concept of hiding is something we learn very early in life, from putting something under your bed, behind a door, that same hiding you can do with words.
and they had something to hide.