Re: A few lies

by Garth 26.05.11 11:00

No, dont try and worm your way out of it.

It is claimed they lied.

And its got nothing to do with semantics. 'Lied' is a very easy word to understand.

Have a read again roll

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

Lets just stick to this one claim because believe brother, it will explain many of your other misgivings.

Im asking you, to show me how YOU KNOW THEY WERENT JUST MISTAKEN and that there intention was to deceive

So far its a case fo EPIC FAIL.

If I spotted you walking down the bleedin street with high heels and a wig on and said you were a girl and it was later proven that you were a man in drag, does that make me a bleedin liar is it just a case of being mistaken?

Crikey, how much more simple is it to expain. Its no wonder you struggle to understand anything.

Incidentally, the above was just a metaphor, I dont want to be accused of being a liar. A few lies - Page 2 110921

by Guest 26.05.11 11:03

Gerry McCann Witness statement 4th May 2007

esterday, after the daily routine, MADELEINE and the twins were put to bed in their respective beds, and he stresses put to bed, at 7.30 pm. The deponent and his wife remained in the apartment to relax and drink a glass of wine until 8.30 pm. After checking the children, the deponent and his wife and the adults went to the "Tapas" restaurant, around 50 metres away, where they had dinner together. As usual, every half hour and considering that the restaurant was close to the apartment, the deponent or his wife went to check if the children were ok. Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment, and then crossed ways with someone with whom he had played tennis, who had a baby buggy, also a British citizen, with whom he had a brief conversation. He then returned to the restaurant. At around 9.30 pm, his friend MATT (a member of the group) went to his apartment where his own children were, and on his way he went into the deponent's apartment, going in through a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked. He went into the room, saw the twins and didn’t even notice if Madeleine was there, as everything was quiet, the shutters closed and the bedroom door half-open as usual. Then MATT went back to the restaurant.

At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key and saw right away that the children’s bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open. The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed.

Gerry McCann witness statement 10th May

he walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide, and while he was entering the living room, he noticed that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought was strange, having then thought that possibly MADELEINE had got up to go to sleep in his bedroom, so as to avoid the noise produced by her siblings. Therefore, he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and he is certain of this, that the three were deeply asleep. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, then went to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the shutters, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the living room.

He adds that he did not enter any other part of the residence, where he was for only two or three minutes, leaving yet again through the back door, that he closed but did not lock. He clarifies that he returned without checking any other couple’s children, even because he

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta4

by Guest 26.05.11 11:05

Calm down Garth .

Now, how can Gerry have been "mistaken" about the shutters being "jimmied" open. Please explain.

by Guest 26.05.11 11:05

Why did the above statements change so drastically? First we have them going through the front door with a KEY, both of them, and then on 10th May it's through the patio doors?

First statement on 4th May, everything would be fresh in their minds, surely they knew which door they used, why was it changed 6 days later?

by Garth 26.05.11 11:08

Hello Stella

I've given up on our mate me.............its like trying to train a monkey to dislike a banana!

You wrote

Are you trying to say that the McCann's were "mistaken" about the shutters being forced open?

If so, how could that have happened when Gerry himself claims to have inspected and handled them?

Stella, in Kates book she claims that Gerry made a discovery...and I quote

'in the childrens room, Gerry lowered the shutter at the open window. Rushing outside he made the sickening discovery that it could be raised from this side too, not just from inside as we'd thpugh'

A question for you......why do you think she describes it as 'sickening'?

by Garth 26.05.11 11:11

Last word is supposed to read 'thought'........just in case we go off in tangents again! A few lies - Page 2 847771

by Baronstu 26.05.11 11:12

Garth wrote:Hello Stella

I've given up on our mate me.............its like trying to train a monkey to dislike a banana!

You wrote

Are you trying to say that the McCann's were "mistaken" about the shutters being forced open?

If so, how could that have happened when Gerry himself claims to have inspected and handled them?

Stella, in Kates book she claims that Gerry made a discovery...and I quote

'in the childrens room, Gerry lowered the shutter at the open window. Rushing outside he made the sickening discovery that it could be raised from this side too, not just from inside as we'd thpugh'

A question for you......why do you think she describes it as 'sickening'?

Good one Garth, an excellent example of perpertrating a lie.
There is absolutely no way that these shutters can be opened from the outside, end of.

by Me 26.05.11 11:13

Garth wrote:Hello Stella

I've given up on our mate me.............its like trying to train a monkey to dislike a banana!

Don't worry about me, pal, i'll be back with a suitable reply to (once again) rain on your parade.

Just working at the moment.

by Me 26.05.11 11:15

candyfloss wrote:Why did the above statements change so drastically? First we have them going through the front door with a KEY, both of them, and then on 10th May it's through the patio doors?

First statement on 4th May, everything would be fresh in their minds, surely they knew which door they used, why was it changed 6 days later?

Becuase we don't know why that they were lying and cant prove why they were lying, according to Garth we have to believe therefore they were "mistaken".

LOL!!

by Garth 26.05.11 11:15

It .does say 'raised' Baronstu just to be clear.

Now, going on your last post, I take it you've tried to raise them? BTW....where did you holiday on 3rd May 2007? A few lies - Page 2 847771

by Guest 26.05.11 11:19

Well Garth, how do you account for the HUGE shall we say discrepency, that they said originally they were using the FRONT door and using a KEY? Then suddenly 6 days later they were using the patio door? Are you telling me they couldn't remember which door they used, the day after the event? Why did it change 6 days later?

by Garth 26.05.11 11:19

Oh dear. me wrote

Becuase we have do not know why that they were lying and cant prove why they were lying, according to Garth we have to believe therefore they were "mistaken".

You've answered my point. If you cannot prove they were lying YOU DONT KNOW THEY WERE.

If this were a court of law you'd have to prove your claims or be subject to prosecution for libel. Simple as. A few lies - Page 2 935245

by Baronstu 26.05.11 11:20

Garth wrote:It .does say 'raised' Baronstu just to be clear.

Now, going on your last post, I take it you've tried to raise them? BTW....where did you holiday on 3rd May 2007?

Raised as in about 1-2 inches max.
I don't need to try to raise THOSE shutters, i've had the same type, also as an engineer, I know the mechanism.
I suspect YOU may have been in PDL in may 2007 winkwink

by Garth 26.05.11 11:22

Sheeeeez, if its that hard to explain how long is it gonna take for the remaing 3000. lol

by Guest 26.05.11 11:25

Still waiting for your explanation Garth as to the quotes I put up form GM's two statements?

by Garth 26.05.11 11:26

Raised as in about 1-2 inches max.
I don't need to try to raise THOSE shutters, i've had the same type, also as an engineer, I know the mechanism.
I suspect YOU may have been in PDL in may 2007 A few lies - Page 2 302873

Get on Baronstu!

Let me tell you, our double garage has a roller shutter door (not any more I hasten to add) and one evening...a few years ago mind, my sons 50cc KTM had been stolen. The shutters had been raised from the outside with brute force. No damage whatsover. And how did we know this.............because they were open.

Now, unless you know for sure that these shutters cannot be pushed up from the outside, and I mean testing them yourself, then we dont know for absolute certainty do we?

by Baronstu 26.05.11 11:27

Garth wrote:Raised as in about 1-2 inches max.
I don't need to try to raise THOSE shutters, i've had the same type, also as an engineer, I know the mechanism.
I suspect YOU may have been in PDL in may 2007

Get on Baronstu!

Let me tell you, our double garage has a roller shutter door (not any more I hasten to add) and one evening...a few years ago mind, my sons 50cc KTM had been stolen. The shutters had been raised from the outside with brute force. No damage whatsover. And how did we know this.............because they were open.

Now, unless you know for sure that these shutters cannot be pushed up from the outside, and I mean testing them yourself, then we dont know for absolute certainty do we?

Rubbish.
Either they had been left open or??????

by Me 26.05.11 11:29

Garth wrote:Oh dear. me wrote

Becuase we have do not know why that they were lying and cant prove why they were lying, according to Garth we have to believe therefore they were "mistaken".

You've answered my point. If you cannot prove they were lying YOU DONT KNOW THEY WERE.

If this were a court of law you'd have to prove your claims or be subject to prosecution for libel. Simple as.

No, you wally. I said, and pay attention here, you just might learn something:

Becuase we do not know why they were lying
and cant prove why they were lying, according to Garth we have to
believe therefore they were "mistaken".

It's clear they were lying, because their statements were, and i quote from the third definition of the word "lie" in the dictionary:

3) An inaccurate or false statement.

It's very easy to prove they gave "inaccurate or false statements" because subsequent statements i have quoted previously, clearly are different, they are "inaacurate".

How can you deny this?

Please read and understand what i say before you shoot yourself in the foot again. You're almost all out of feet here!

Would it make you fele better if the thread title and first posted repalced the word "lie" with the words "inaccurate or false statements"?

I'm sure we can do that for you if you like.

by Mini Slueth 26.05.11 11:40

Garth wrote:Oh dear. me wrote

Becuase we have do not know why that they were lying and cant prove why they were lying, according to Garth we have to believe therefore they were "mistaken".

You've answered my point. If you cannot prove they were lying YOU DONT KNOW THEY WERE.

If this were a court of law you'd have to prove your claims or be subject to prosecution for libel. Simple as.

Garth, i dont want to insult you, but you sound (or rather ..read) a bit like Gerry McCann....when he goes on about there being no eveidence.

I could put the question right back at you......Prove they werent lying.........................

In is there in black and white all the statements THEY made, changing several times. IF one of my children had gone missing, i would be able to see in my head forever the events of that night. I wouldnt change my statement once because i would be telling the truth. I wouldnt be mistaken of what i saw because it would have been etched in my brain.

Now, can you prove they werent lying. It is so clear, that you cant, BUT your only argument seems to be (even when presented with proof) is that no one can prove they were lying.

If you take away the word "Lying" how do you account of their ever changing story of what DID happen that night.......and i wont accept they were mistaken, as i said earlier, things like that would be etched in your brain if your child had been taken.

by Garth 26.05.11 11:44

You see, me, (not literally - for clairity roll

) you have absolutely no comprehension, which is what I have said regarding understanding this case.

You've now looked up the dictionary and come up with the 3rd definition........for those who cannot comprehend 1 or 2!

3) An inaccurate or false statement.

Now, for it to be inaccurate or false, we need to prove that at the time of their idea or thoughts, it was known to them to be inaccurate or false, to be confirmed as a LIE. In other words they knew with absolutely certainty that their claim was accurate. I suggest they didnt, I suggest that under the circumstancies it led them to believe this to be the case, which, in a nutshell for you means

THEY COULD HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN!

which doesn't mean LIE.

Me, seriously mate, im rapidly loosing interest. If you cannot understand this most basic logic then we have no hope of agreeing anything.

by Guest 26.05.11 11:47

Garth wrote:
Let me tell you, our double garage has a roller shutter door (not any more I hasten to add) and one evening...a few years ago mind, my sons 50cc KTM had been stolen. The shutters had been raised from the outside with brute force. No damage whatsover. And how did we know this.............because they were open.

"because they were open"

I bet your Insurance company didn't pay out on the bike Garth? If they did, please let us know which company that was.

With no sign of "damage whatsoever", both the Police and the Insurance company would say on your bike mate!, where is the evidence that it was even locked. They do not pay out unless their is evidence.

by Garth 26.05.11 11:49

Garth, i dont want to insult you, but you sound (or rather ..read) a bit like Gerry McCann....when he goes on about there being no eveidence.

I could put the question right back at you......Prove they werent lying.........................

Me, I cannot prove they werent lying because I dont know. Likewise you cannot prove they were because you dont know. But I haven't claimed they were telling the truth and thus have no need to prove anything, however, it has been claimed that they are LYING bit it cannot be PROVED.......and thus my point!

Understand now ffs!

by Garth 26.05.11 11:52

"because they were open"

I bet your Insurance company didn't pay out on the bike Garth? If they did, please let us know which company that was.

With no sign of "damage whatsoever", both the Police and the Insurance company would say on your bike mate!, where is the evidence that it was even locked. They do not pay out unless their is evidence.
---------------------------

Stella, please dont tell me you think I left them open?

Nah cant be, you must be taking the p*ss you little minx you.........well at least I hope thats the case! A few lies - Page 2 687583

....

by Mini Slueth 26.05.11 11:54

Garth wrote:Garth, i dont want to insult you, but you sound (or rather ..read) a bit like Gerry McCann....when he goes on about there being no eveidence.

I could put the question right back at you......Prove they werent lying.........................

Me, I cannot prove they werent lying because I dont know. Likewise you cannot prove they were because you dont know. But I haven't claimed they were telling the truth and thus have no need to prove anything, however, it has been claimed that they are LYING bit it cannot be PROVED.......and thus my point!

Understand now ffs!

Garth it wasnt ME you quoted it was me, min sleuth.

Please dont use FFS with me, i dont deserve that :-(

It will be swings and roundabouts all this asking for proof they lied, didnt lie.

The EVIDENCE is there they did, in their statements.....I believe they lied, you can believe they were mistaken, it doesnt take away from the fact that their stories have changed and changed and changed etc and so on.....................................

by Guest 26.05.11 11:54

Garth, I'm rapidly losing patience, you seem to be not wanting to answer my question, which is the crux of the matter!! Why would GM say he used a key, and did Kate, in his first interview, the day after. Surely you would get something as that piece of information correct, after all it would give a picture to the PJ of the how things happened.

To then say 6 days later they used the patio door???? Are you seriously telling me they couldn't remember the day after the event, how they entered the apartment

GM witness statement 4th May

yesterday, after the daily routine, MADELEINE and the twins were put to bed in their respective beds, and he stresses put to bed, at 7.30 pm. The deponent and his wife remained in the apartment to relax and drink a glass of wine until 8.30 pm. After checking the children, the deponent and his wife and the adults went to the "Tapas" restaurant, around 50 metres away, where they had dinner together. As usual, every half hour and considering that the restaurant was close to the apartment, the deponent or his wife went to check if the children were ok. Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. He then went to the toilet, where he remained for a few instants, left the apartment, and then crossed ways with someone with whom he had played tennis, who had a baby buggy, also a British citizen, with whom he had a brief conversation. He then returned to the restaurant. At around 9.30 pm, his friend MATT (a member of the group) went to his apartment where his own children were, and on his way he went into the deponent's apartment, going in through a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked. He went into the room, saw the twins and didn’t even notice if Madeleine was there, as everything was quiet, the shutters closed and the bedroom door half-open as usual. Then MATT went back to the restaurant.

At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key and saw right away that the children’s bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open. The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed.

This is very, very important Garth, the PJ would have been looking at a totally different scenario, than to the one where they enetered through the patio doors, do you agree?

Log in for more topics