This part in the book I have never heard before..
Previously she mentions that they were unable to book a table at the tapas bar until the morning of the day they needed the table as it was small and only held space for 15 or so people. Then she says this:
'In spite of what we'd been told about booking the Tapas restaurant, Rachael managed ti get a table for 9 people at 8.30pm pencilled in for the rest of the week after having a word with the receptionist and Tapas area'
'Its wasnt until a year later when I was combing through the portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note reuestiong our block booking was written in a staff message book which was sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day, this book was by definition accesible to all staff and visitors too.'
Missing the next couple of lines she writes this:
'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.'
If thats true then someone could of seen it.. So far since reading I do think she is innocent..
They are very convincing Laura ... but it's really worth comparing what Kate McCann says in her book to what she and others said in Police interviews and statements at the time.
There are some HUGE discrepancies ... there are also major discrepancies between what Kate says in the book and what she has previously said in televised interviews and documentaries
Bear in mind too that the book was written to be an exoneration of them and as such is hardly impartial
She is, of course, going to show them in the best possible light and gloss over any inconvenient facts like the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever re an abductor, or the dogs' findings.
I think one way to clarify things in your mind is to imagine the whole scenario from a different angle and see how you feel then ...
Lets imagine that the McCanns had gone out to eat for the whole evening, without checks BUT with employing a sit in babysitter to watch the children.
Now lets imagine that the babysitter got hungry and went out to eat at the Tapas bar but popped back every 15 minutes to check the children.
How would you feel if the McCanns had then returned from their meal to find everything in uproar and their daughter had vanished?
Would you feel sorry for the babysitter? Would you want the babysitter punished to the full extent of the law for endangering those children? Would you watch the dogs alerting for blood and cadaver scent and just dismiss them as being unreliable, or would you wonder if the babysitter was covering something up? Would you believe in abduction even though there was no evidence to suggest it? Would you implicitly believe that everything the babysitter said was true? Would you understand if the babysitter refused to answer 48 questions under caution on the grounds that her solicitor told her to?
Do you see what I mean? Try to divorce yourself from the fact that it goes against the grain to imagine parents doing anything like this (although history shows that they sadly do 
) and try to think impartially ... as if the babysitter had written this book
)...
sometimes i can't quite work it out
