Re: A few lies

by Garth 26.05.11 11:11

Last word is supposed to read 'thought'........just in case we go off in tangents again! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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?

by Garth 26.05.11 12:01

Stella my darlin' you really need to take all this with a pinch of salt.

If you read Kates book, she states how, after reading their initial statements later, there were inaccuracies. Now, bearing this in mind, you must look at the bigger picture and not take everything as sancrosanct. Which, and I dont want to sound patronizing, does appear to be the case and hence, which i can understand, people have their doubts about the McCanns.

by Garth 26.05.11 12:04

Then apologies to Me, (not me as in myself but the poster :) ) Mini.

by Guest 26.05.11 12:07

Garth wrote:Stella my darlin' you really need to take all this with a pinch of salt.

If you read Kates book, she states how, after reading their initial statements later, there were inaccuracies. Now, bearing this in mind, you must look at the bigger picture and not take everything as sancrosanct. Which, and I dont want to sound patronizing, does appear to be the case and hence, which i can understand, people have their doubts about the McCanns.

Firstly Garth, she would have had a chance to read them, at the time, and then sign them! Secondly, if later, (which can't be write as my previous sentence suggests) she did see innaccuracies, surely she should have IMMIDIATELY got into contact with the PJ to put things right. After all we are talking about a missing child here, and we wouldn't want the PJ going in the wrong direction would we?

by Garth 26.05.11 12:07

Anyway, I dont think it's worth pursing any more of these so-called lies, but I would however, like to thank you all for the entertainment.

Adios!

by Mini Slueth 26.05.11 12:08

Garth wrote:Then apologies to Me, (not me as in myself but the poster :) ) Mini.

Accepted :-)

Garth, have you read the book? If so, what did you think of it? I am finding it difficult, in that, its all about KATE, not much about Madeleine

by Guest 26.05.11 12:10

Garth wrote:Anyway, I dont think it's worth pursing any more of these so-called lies, but I would however, like to thank you all for the entertainment.

Adios!

Oh dear Garth, and still no answer to my question???????????

by Garth 26.05.11 12:11

Stella, I whole heartedly agree, they should have read them. Sadly, and to be fair, due to the stresses of the time, who knows where their heads were. Im sure they just wanted to get back to the apartment at that time in the hope of some news.

It has been a circus of errors all around imo.

And that unfortunately, hasnt helped Madeleines cause at all.

by Garth 26.05.11 12:14

Mini, Madeleine cannot answer. Its an account of Kates feelings of the events leading up to and after Madeleines disappearance. She can only write from her own perspective.

by Guest 26.05.11 12:14

Garth, my sweetness and light. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Have you not worked it out yet?

All of your demands for this and that, the answers you are given, the replies you fail to make, is educating approximately 100 people a day on here, if not more. The visitors just keep coming !!!

More and more people are learning all of the inconsistencies in real time, how brilliant is that?

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

by Guest 26.05.11 12:16

Garth wrote:Stella, I whole heartedly agree, they should have read them. Sadly, and to be fair, due to the stresses of the time, who knows where their heads were. Im sure they just wanted to get back to the apartment at that time in the hope of some news.

It has been a circus of errors all around imo.

And that unfortunately, hasnt helped Madeleines cause at all.

Err I'm candyfloss Garth not Stella. Secondly, still waiting as to an answer why the HUGE discrepancy about using a KEY and front door and then changing to patio door?

And thirdly, you said in her book she states there were discrepancies, so she knows this - why not contact the PJ immediately. It could have made a hell of a difference and may have led the PJ the wrong way. Why not put them right??