The great difference between the truth and a lie

The great difference between the truth and a lie is that the truth is usually simple and a lie is invariably complicated.

"We went out to dinner leaving the kids most nights and we came back and they were still there" is really simple.

As is, unfortunately, "We went out one night leaving the kids but one of them got out of the apartment and fell off the balcony". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had had a serious accident". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had got out and been run over by a car."

The alternative is somewhat more complicated: "We went out one night leaving the kids, not realising that we'd been watched by a predatory paedophile for several days, who we hadn't noticed, despite the resort being quiet and despite the fact that we felt it was safe to leave the kids, who targeted Madeleine rather than the other kids because she was special, who got into the apartment between our checks, despite the fact we'd doubled the frequency from the night before following the crying incident, which we can't recall happening, avoiding being noticed by Gerry, who was talking to Jez, on the other side of the road to that claimed by Jez and Jane, who wasn't seen by Jez or Gerry anyway, just before she saw the abductor, who must have gone out through the window, despite no-one noticing it open and without leaving any marks, because the door slammed and the curtains whooshed when Kate went in, and it's odd about those dogs, but Kate had handled dead bodies when she went to work in her holiday pants and took the cuddle cat, and anyway the twins' sandals were in the boot of the car with the nappies and the rotting meat, but we're totally confident in each other's innocence and our legal and PR team are too."

 ^^^  brilliant!

GERALD PATRICK MCCANN ' STATEMENT AS AN ARGUIDO - 7th September 2007

During this interview several films of a forensic nature showing sniffer dogs were shown where their signalling can be seen regarding indication of cadaver odour and traces of blood also human, and only of a human nature, as well as the comments made by the expert in charge of the procedure.

-- After viewing the films and after the signalling of cadaver odour in their room next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa against the window in the living room, he says that he has no comments, neither has he any explanation for this fact.

--- Also, the dog that detects human blood signalled human blood behind the sofa mentioned above, he says that he cannot explain this fact.

-- Regarding the cadaver odour in the car that was rented at the end of May, (xx)-DA-27, he says he cannot explain more than what he already has.

--- Regarding the presence of human blood in the boot of the same vehicle, he says that he has not explanation for this fact.

-- When confronted with the fact that Madeleine's DNA was collected from behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle and analyzed by a British laboratory, situations also described before, he says that he cannot explain.

--- When asked if on any occasion Madeleine was injured, he says that he has no comments.

-- When questioned, he says he is the usual driver of the car. In addition to G. the car could also be driven by his wife Kate, brother in law Sandy and a cousin of Kate's by the name Michael.

-- When asked if he has anything to add he says that he has not seen any proof that his daughter Madeleine is dead, and therefore he will continue to search for her in the hopes she is alive. He knows nothing more than what has been said.

-- The lawyer for the defence says he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn't know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

-- During this interview the arguido was informed of his duty to respect the secrecy of justice as well as the consequences of not complying with same, stipulated in current law.
.....................

I detect one or two little porkies here alone .... "ask the dogs Sandra"

Hi Verdi,now known as "Pinnocio" McCann,with a special penchant for cracking jokes sports trivia to both UK,Portugal PJ Officers,whilst awaiting for a "Ransom Note" from Amsterdam,Kojack McCann,who loves your baby?

At least the Portugal PJ were looking for your missing Daughter Madeleine,eh Gerald,a bit like when you was caught laughing your Bollocks off on the veranda,days after the disappearance,remember those moments Gerald?

Has it all been part of  a " Government Disappearance Appeal Hoax Scenario",that some how couldn't be aborted,even though an accident may have happened,too much time effort spent on the plan?

Is that a reason for the Government assisted Cover Up?

Jill Havern wrote:The great difference between the truth and a lie is that the truth is usually simple and a lie is invariably complicated.

"We went out to dinner leaving the kids most nights and we came back and they were still there" is really simple.

As is, unfortunately, "We went out one night leaving the kids but one of them got out of the apartment and fell off the balcony". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had had a serious accident". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had got out and been run over by a car."

The alternative is somewhat more complicated: "We went out one night leaving the kids, not realising that we'd been watched by a predatory paedophile for several days, who we hadn't noticed, despite the resort being quiet and despite the fact that we felt it was safe to leave the kids, who targeted Madeleine rather than the other kids because she was special, who got into the apartment between our checks, despite the fact we'd doubled the frequency from the night before following the crying incident, which we can't recall happening, avoiding being noticed by Gerry, who was talking to Jez, on the other side of the road to that claimed by Jez and Jane, who wasn't seen by Jez or Gerry anyway, just before she saw the abductor, who must have gone out through the window, despite no-one noticing it open and without leaving any marks, because the door slammed and the curtains whooshed when Kate went in, and it's odd about those dogs, but Kate had handled dead bodies when she went to work in her holiday pants and took the cuddle cat, and anyway the twins' sandals were in the boot of the car with the nappies and the rotting meat, but we're totally confident in each other's innocence and our legal and PR team are too."

The answer is always K.I.S.S !

The embellishments were there from the beginning ,then continued to grow , jemmied shutters , open no closed whooshing curtains , doors open to .... degrees , gusts of wind slamming doors , and on and on !!!

I think they seriously underestimated Amaral and the PJ , we're English doctors for goodness sake , of course you'll believe everything we say !
A child has been " abducted " , how do I know ? I know more than you do , I know because I was there ! 

We never lied to anyone ! Sorry Kate that LIE fell apart when the Files were released .

The truth doesn't have to be remembered , lies do .