Saturday 18 June 2011

The Tapas Duet



Remember our post, the Hymns Singers, where we showed how some Tapas Staff "sang" from the same "hymn sheet"?

Well, today we’re glad to present you with the latest Tapas “musical” sensation, the duet “Sandro and Luisa”.

Sandro, says he’s the resort receptionist, implying that there is but ONE, and only ONE reception in the entire Ocean Club Resort, but Luisa corrects him by stating that she’s the “Garden” receptionist.

We’re supposing that by “Garden” she means the “Tapas” Complex within the OC Resort.

Like the true artists they are, they do go into “studio” to "record" separately, Sandro on May 7th, Luisa the day after.

But are they in harmonious synch!

Almost to the point of perfection. Just read what each has to say, especially how they say it.

Remember, they're not "singing" together.

This is Luisa Coutinho’s statement on May 8th, at 12:00 [1], partly of which you’ve read on a previous post:

“Adds that this family, as all Mark Warner clients had a half-board regimen, ie breakfast and dinner.
For dinner, customers can choose between two restaurants, the "Tapas" and "Millennium", in the first being an “á la carte” service, and in the second "bufett", the customers choose not only because of food but also for reasons of proximity to their accommodation.
However, the deponent refers that the guests tell her that states that restaurant "Tapas" has better quality but that it's difficult to get a booking since it has a few seats reserved for, "Mark Warner" customers, 20 to be concrete.
In this concrete case the rational choice for the family’s dinner would be the "Tapas" as it’s 40 meters from the accommodation, while the "Millennium" is about 200 meters from it.
(…)
The deponent states that, from the the restaurant, it’s possible to see the front part of the apartment, in which includes the living room window.
The deponent doesn’t know the location of the room where the couple's three children slept, however, on being informed that it was situated on the opposite side of the apartment, the deponent states that this room is completely out of sight from someone that is at the "Tapas” restaurant.
Therefore, the most viable solution would be to leave the kids either at the "baby sitter", which is the procedure that is normally adopted by the clients.
About the question of being offered a "Baby Sitting " service, between 19.30 and 23.30, says that she knows of its existence and that it is free.
Questioned, the deponent replied that she doesn’t understand how, being a free service, Madeleine Maccann’s parents didn’t use it.”

 Now this is Sandro Silva’s statement, taken the day before, May 7th at 18:45 [2].

“Adds that this family, as all Mark Warner clients had a half-board regimen, ie breakfast and dinner. For dinner, customers can choose between two restaurants, the "Tapas" and "Millennium", in the first being an “á la carte” service, and in the second "bufett", the customers choose not only because of food but also for reasons of proximity to their accommodation.
However, the deponent refers that the guests tell her that states that restaurant "Tapas" has better quality but that it's difficult to get a booking.
In this concrete case the rational choice for the family’s dinner would be the "Tapas" as it’s 40 meters from the accommodation, while the "Millennium" is about 200 meters from it.
The deponent states that, from the the restaurant, it’s possible to see the front part of the apartment, in which includes the living room window.
The deponent doesn’t know the location of the room where the couple's three children slept, however, on being informed that it was situated on the opposite side of the apartment, the deponent states that this room is completely out of sight from someone that is at the "Tapas” restaurant.
Therefore, the most viable solution would be to leave the kids either at the "baby sitter" or take the children to a small playground, fenced that exists in front of the “Tapas” restaurant where they were easily controlled from where the parents were having dinner.
About the question of being offered a "Baby Sitting " service, between 19.30 and 23.30, says that he knows of its existence and that it is free.
Questioned, the deponent replied that she doesn’t understand how, being a free service, Madeleine Maccann’s parents didn’t use it.”

I’ve highlighted, in both statements, by putting in bold, not what is relevant about what they say, but the differences between them.

Amazing isn’t it? I’d dare say that we’re before twin souls, such is the harmony. So much so that when you read this on Luisa’s statement [3].
“It should be referred that the family in question, came through the "MARK WARNER" company, this company has as a policy to handle all with respect to their customers, meaning that, there is virtually no contact between the customers and the receptions, since the latter deals directly with the Mark Warner company.”

And compare it with this on Sandro’s statement [4]: “With regard to the facts now being investigated, the deponent states that the family of Madeleine Maccann they received as normal, it should be referred that their stay was done through the Mark Warner agency, of which Mr. John Hill is its representative. It should be referred that this company has as a policy to handle all with respect to their customers, meaning that, there is virtually no contact between the customers and the receptions, since the latter deals directly with the Mark Warner company.”

You wouldn’t believe they’re saying the exact same thing, which they are, just because, this time, they use different wording from each other to express what they had to say.

We hope sincerely that you, by now, understand who composed the music, and who was conducting it... tasks not exactly befitting a group of British doctors, recently arrived on the premises.

Notes:

[1] Acrescenta que esta família, tal como todos os clientes Mark Warner dispunham de regime de meia-pensão, ou seja, pequeno almoço e jantar.Para o jantar, os clientes podem optar por dois restaurantes, o “Tapas” e o “Millenium”, sendo no primeiro o serviço é “à la carte”, e no segundo é “bufett”, os clientes escolhem náo só pela comida, mas também por questões de proximidade em relação aos seus alojamentos. No entanto, o ora depoente refere que os hóspedes lhe transmitem que restaurante “Tapas” tem melhor qualidade mas que é difícil arranjar reserva uma vez que tem poucos lugares reservados a clientes “Mark Warner”, mais concretamente 20. Neste caso concreto a escolha racional para jantar da família seria o “Tapas” uma vez que dista 40 metros do alojamento, ao passo que o “Millenium” dista cerca de 200 metros do mesmo (...) O ora depoente afirme que, do restaurante é possível ver a parte da frente do apartamneto onde se inclui a janela da sala. O ora depoente desconhece a localização do quarto onde dormiam os três filhos do casal, no entanto ao ser informado que se situava no lado oposto do apartamento, o depoente afirma que esta divisão sai completamente fora do campo de visão de alguém que se encontre no restaurante “Tapas” Porquanto a solução mais viável seria deixar as crianças ou na “baby sitter”, que é o procedimento que normalmente é adoptado pelos clientes. Quanto à questão de ser disponibilizado um serviço de “Baby Sitting”, entre as 19h30 e as 23h30, afirma que sabe da sua existência e que este é gratuíto. Questionado, o ora depoente respondeu que não entende como, sendo o serviço gratuíto, os pais de Madeleine Maccann não usufruiram dele. (In PJ Files pgs 569-570)

[2] Acrescenta que esta família, tal como todos os clientes “Mark Warner” dispunham de regime de meia-pensão, ou seja, pequeno almoço e jantar.Para o jantar, os clientes podem optar por dois restaurantes, o “Tapas” e o “Millenium”, sendo no primeiro o serviço é “à la carte”, e no segundo é “bufett”, os clientes escolhem náo só pela comida, mas também por questões de proximidade em relação aos seus alojamentos. No entanto, o ora depoente refere que os hóspedes lhe transmitem que restaurante “Tapas” tem melhor qualidade mas que é difícil arranjar reserva uma vez que tem poucos lugares. Neste caso concreto a escolha racional para jantar da família seria o “Tapas” uma vez que dista 40 metros do alojamento, ao passo que o “Millenium” dista cerca de 200 metros do mesmo O ora depoente afirma que, do restaurante, é possível ver a parte da frente do apartamento, onde se inclui a janela da sala. O ora depoente desconhece a localização do quarto onde dormiam os três filhos do casal, no entanto, ao ser informado que este se situava no lado oposto do apartamento, o dpeoente afirna que esta divisão sai completamente fora do campo de visão de alguém que se encontre no restaurante “Tapas”. Porquanto, a solução mais viável seria deixar as crianças ou na “baby sitter” ou levarem as crianças para um pequeno parque infantil, vedado que existe mesmo em frente ao restaurante “Tapas” onde eram facilmente controladas do local onde os pais se encontravam a jantar. Quanto à questão de ser disponibilizado um serviço de “Baby Sitting”, entre as 19h30 e as 23h30, afirma que sabe da sua existência e que este é gratuíto. Questionado, o ora depoente respondeu que não entende como, sendo o serviço gratuíto, os pais de Madeleine Maccann não usufruiram dele. (In PJ Files pgs 420-421)

[3] Importa referir que a família em questão, veio por intermédio da empresa “MARK WARNER”, esta empresa tem como política tratar de tudo em relação aos seus clientes, ou seja, não há praticamente nenhum contacto entre os clientes e as recepções, uma vez que esta última lida directamente com a empresa Mark Warner. (in PJ Files pgs 569-570)

[4] No que concerne aos factos que ora se investigam, o ora depoente afirma que, como normal receberam a família da Madeleine Maccann, importando referir que a sua estadia foi feita por intermádio da agência Mark Warner, da qual é representante o Sr. John Hill. Importa referir que esta empresa tem como politica tratar de tudo em relação aos seus clientes, ou seja, não há praticamente nenhum contacto entre os clientes e a recepção, uma vez que esta última lida drectamene com a empresa Mark Warner. (in PJ Files pg 420)
Link

13 comments:

  1. John hill, from mark Warner, composed the music, obvious. Based on common sense that two people testifying the same, make the event true. The problem, is they have to testify the shame trough different words. This two, act like parrots, repeating everything from a text they memorized. Wonder if they were not allowed to have some free time to go home and memorize the roll they had to play in the police offices.
    Just a curiosity: was not sandro the boyfriend or husband of luisa? Was not John hill who hand over the keys of the church to the McCann's and their rented car and the keys of the villa, when they runaway to UK on sept. 2007? Is reported on the pj files that susanne Hubbard went to the villa to pick some boxes, but a old man, who was not named, handed the car and the keys from the villa, back to the rental car and to who rented the villa. I had always the feeling that that guy was the same who gave the keys from the church and he must be close by and available at night on may 3. Could only be somebody from the resort, knowing well pdl and speaking well English to avoid been lost in translations. That case has few people really involved. They play different rolls to protect their backs. The rest, are people, worried, persecuted and left in a limbo without knowing which direction to take- taking the risk of going to the police to tell what they saw and suspect, without being certain that the police will do something to solve the case, or close their mouths to protect the McCann's and their helpers, and live with such painful secret that hunt them everyday.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bem, quem quer que tenha "composto a letra" para esta "modinha" enganou-se redondamente ao descrever a parte do apartamento que fica virada para o Tapas bar! Não é a "frente", mas sim as traseiras. Que eu saiba a parte da frente de qualquer casa é onde está a porta de entrada, a porta principal, essa sim é a frente.

    However composed the lyrics for those two birds to sing made one mistake: the side of the apartment that faces the Tapas bar is described as "the front". We all know it is not such, it is the back, the front is where the main entrance door is. I have no idea if this was an innocent mistake or else...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another duet or just one hymn sheet between 2 people? Did someone forget who the words were supposed to refer to and both McCanns claim the same thing happened to both of them?

    G Mc

    Between April 28th, the day of arrival, and the time when MADELEINE disappeared, the deponent reports having noticed nothing unusual, except that on the morning of May 3rd, MADELEINE asked her father, GERALD, why he had not come into her bedroom when the twins were crying. The deponent had heard nothing and therefore had not gone into the room, yet he thought his daughter’s comment was strange, even because it was the first time that she made it.

    K Mc

    Between the day of the arrival, April 28th, and the time at which the disappearance was discovered, the witness says that she noticed nothing unusual. She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday the 3rd, Madeleine asked the witness why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying. The witness states that she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom, nevertheless she found her daughter’s comment strange because it was the first time she had made it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So many parrots on that story, are telling us, without assuming it, the Tapas dinner could never happen that night. They were too busy writing statements to be memorized by them and by others, manipulating creche records and restaurant booking sheets. Planning their way to escape. Everything done in a rush could only result in many wrong details.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon @ 11.34 AM

    Was it John Geraghty who gave the McCanns the the keys to the church and Michael Wright who handed the car back to the rental company. If I remember correctly John Geraghty also stored the car.

    ReplyDelete
  6. At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
    Kate McCann, in a statement to the Policia Judiciária, may 4th, 2007
    ~

    At 10pm, Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment, using her key and saw that the bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open. The doors were locked except the one at the back as already noted above.
    Gerry McCann, in a statement to the Policia Judiciária, may 4th, 2007

    ReplyDelete
  7. Textusa

    All we need is a confession - just the one. It doesn't matter who or why they were there . Staff, friend, victim - just a confession to start the ball rolling.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Angelique,

    You're right, but you're not being realistic. Imagine yourself in the position of wanting to confess. Who would you go to? The OFFICIAL AUTHORITIES of both Countries involved have shown clear commitment in the protection of these criminals. And ONLY when these SAME AUTHORITIES will decide to act will there be OFFICIAL Justice. No need for a confession, as the evidence is evident enough, although one would sure get the ball rolling. What you need is POLITICAL WILL and POLITICAL COURAGE. And the only way to obtain these, is by showing the politicians it's preferable to bring these criminals to Court, than have their nation be continuously mocked by blogs like this one. The way the tide has turned, and the way the winds are blowing, I think the said politicians are doing their best to get out of this mess the best way possible. We fully understand that there are boundaries that cannot be crossed, and the McCanns are making sure that people know that they're holding on to "that" fence as if their life depended on it, which it does. Once the politicians find a way to have them let go of this hold, then, we will see a lot of COURAGEOUS people, and a lot of "shocked" media... Until that day, we must continue what we must.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In my comment made @ Jun 18, 2011 11:52:00 AM, I made a typo, sorry! I wrote "However composed the lyrics", but of course it should be "Whoever composed"...


    I see someone alredy told poster #1 that the John who gave a LOT of help to the McCanns is John Geraghty. He is one of the local expats and an influential one...

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have once commented in another post that I feel it is a pity the police interviews in Portugal are made the way they are! It relates in the third person what the deponents said, and this is influenced by the person who is taking the deposition and then transcribes it to paper. "Mr. so-and-so said this or that". If two people tell more or less the same thing about something it is quite probable that the interviewer transcribes what they said with the same words, with the same or very similar phrases, but in reality the deponents might have told they did or saw the same things but not used the exactly same words or phrases. Maybe I'm not making myself clear, I don't know how to explain it better in english, it's just that in my opinion it would be much better and clear if the depositions were taped and transcribed word for word of what was said. Then one could indeed see if they were all "parroting" the same script!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon
    Jun 18, 2011 10:45:00 PM

    Pertinent remark.

    The way it’s done, although meant to save “tyspist” having to write down the question, the question asked has to be implicitly clear in the answer.

    For example, if a witness is said to have said “it was Wednesday”, it’s a personal observation from the witness, but if said to have said “Questioned, said that today was Wednesday”, or “That he fully conscious that today was Wednesday”, because there are details in the answer which you can infer that came from answering a specific question.

    There are other details which, are evidently said out of free will, like guests coming and stating that the Tapas was much better than the Mill. The Police do not ask that sort of question. That is a detail the witness deems relevant to say, to justify other things said in response, or not, to a question. Not questioning the importance, just stating the reasons.

    In this particular case, with many, many witnesses to hear, the PJ must have kept the questions as simple as possible:
    - What’s your job at the Ocean Club / What’s your relationship with events?
    - What was your contact, if any, with the missing child and her family?
    - Are you aware of the Creche Service, how much does it cost, and why do you think this family didn’t use it?
    - From the Tapas restaurant, can you see the apartment that this family occupied?
    - If someone took a child from this room (showing which) do you that that would’ve be seen from the Tapas restaurant?
    - Notice anything or anyone strange during this last week in the Tapas area or in other part of the resort, or Praia da Luz?
    - Do you have anything else to add?

    For example, when Luisa speaks of the reservation by Russ (a no-brainer, as the only other possibility of a tall, thin, male of the T9, other than Gerry would be David who has two distinct characteristic to be described by: glasses and receding hairline) she says this out of her well, with regard to clarify her relationship with the group, otherwise Sandro would have been also asked a similar question.

    Yes, a same person writing might write the same idea the same way, but the idea has to the same, hasn’t it? And the amount and sequence of the information, and the time difference between the two statements can only mean that Inspector Hugo Silva was told the SAME ideas by these two people, not from his questions (I repeat, from his point of view, it’s irrelevant the guest’s preference for Tapas over the Mill, to use but one example), but more likely from two people who must make sure that they tell the Police certain specific, and pre-determined, details, that when put together, will justify what is intended: a group of NEGLIGENT self pleasure seeking people.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I didn't read mates book and i'm not intending to read it, but Dr. Martin Roberts has a very good analyze of some passages from the book, on his last post at Mccannfiles.
    trough Kates book came the confirmation of the creche records been manipulated. Kate says that until May 4, 2007 she was Kate Healy and she always signed Kate healy. On her bank account and all her documents she is Kate Healy. It was on May 4 she becomes Kate McCann. Not buy her decision, but forced by the circumstances because the media started calling her like that.
    IF so, because the creche records were reporting the days until May 3, before Madeleine being missing, who signed the entrysvand outs of Madeleine with Kate McCann? trough her book, we can imply was not her and must not be any of her friends because thiey also know she is Kate
    Healy.
    They pile the polices(both) with lies since minute one, leading the police to waste a huge amount of money coming from country taxes. They have to be charged for that swell. The disappearance of Madeleine seems to be more sinister then what we think at the beginning. An accident did not deserve so much work behind scenes .
    That leave the police with more doubts. If Amaral and the police based their assumption of Madeleine last seen alive around 5:30( when she was picked up from the creche), on the creche records, their assumption could be wrong because the creche records were manipulated. Madeleine could be death already in the afternoon and the Tapas 7 could went to Cafe Paraiso intentionally to be recorded in the CCTV and have an alibi, while the McCann's were looking for help to conceal the body. The Tapas 7 were useless for that job. They need somebody knowing the resort, the surrounds, speaking well English and knowing Portuguese to avoid translation problems and having a car to move the body. I don't believe the body was concealed on any apartment near by. Too risky because the police could arrive with dogs which can easily recover the body. The body, could even be moved for few hours into a place with a fridge by an employee, without him/ her knowing what was inside the bag. The McCann's were at the end of their holidays, if the manager of the OC asked one employee to store a luggage for few hours because needs to be in the fridge and they will travel to the airport soon. Anybody will do it innocently without questioning. It was too late when he/ she realized the problem. Worried he/ she has to keep her mouth closed to avoid being involved, specially because the parents already spread the idea of an abduction by a stranger. just my feeling. Thanks to Dr. Martin Roberts who Has always great posters, and thanks to this blog who allows very interesting discussions and works hard, looking for the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't thing it was michael wright who gave the car back. The files said it was an old man. Michael is Kate cousin and looks more or less same age as the McCann's. Was maybe John geraghty. But Michael who trough his statements said that he did not use to visit his cousins so frequently in UK, become available very easily in PDL, to be even one of the legal drivers of the scenic. His services were payed by the fund. That is my feeling, and together with McCann's, he must know where is Madeleine. For me, that guy is a person of more interest for the investigation then some of the tapas 7.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Textusa