A few lies

Stella, luv, deluded as ever! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 

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.

I think you mean Candyfloss, not me. Perhaps your head was in the same place as Kate's. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Candyfloss/Stella/mini/me whoever you are
 
A statement is a statement once signed. You cannot alter a statement after the event. If that were the case they would be pointless.
 
However, they would have been stated later other statements. This is probably where you lot fink its all lies.  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 
 
A bitter pill I know.......but hey!

I only read the first page of this thread, and was repelled by Garth's comments. I needed to read no furthur. Does Garth not realise that it is known why the McCanns are thrust as innocent people on to our poorly educated public through a very controlled media? Does he not realise we know why he is very happy to align himself with the McCanns. Does he not realise that Carter Ruck will soon be very busy defending their disgusting immoral trade? I know morality is an anethma to people like him, Carter Ruck and most of our government, but you better heed this Garth everyone of you is about to be exposed and there will be no superinjunctions. no plea deals, no 'well it was only my job' there will be no hiding for you. We have lived through four years of this particular bought drama, but there are so many more that have lasted decades and there are people who have never forgotten and who despite seeming docile are about to change and destroy the corruption that exists and they are so much more powerful that I can safely say even the repugnant Mandelson will be quaking in his shoes and looking for a bolthole. Get the picture Garth?  Look left and right of you Garth because you have no clue who the people around you really are and what their true selves believe and feel. We would prefer to think you are just a mind slave but that will be easily proven not the case. Good luck in sorting out your ideals and morals Garth, but you better do it quickly. Please do not bother any reply on this sevice announcement as it will not be read and given any consideration. Our message is only 'This country will be a country again, not sold to Europe and Mandelson, anyone in government should prove they are servants only to the people and not business and self'

(apology to the ip addressee)

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 !!!

Absolutely Stella [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  We wouldn't have come if we didn't have people like Garth telling us that Madeleine must have been abducted because the McCann's say so. We can see that we are only being told a one-sided story and have started searching for the other side(s).

Garth wrote:
A statement is a statement once signed. You cannot alter a statement after the event.

Arh, but some of the group did change their statements, why do you think they were allowed to do that?

WasNew wrote:

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 !!!

Absolutely Stella [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] We wouldn't have come if we didn't have people like Garth telling us that Madeleine must have been abducted because the McCann's say so. We can see that we are only being told a one-sided story and have started searching for the other side(s).

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

GCHQ
 
Governent communication head quarters for anyone who is interested.
 
Chap, you're on the wrong forum, this about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
 
Another anonymous poster. lol Hey Stella, is the pretendy posters you're talking about? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 
 

gchq wrote:I only read the first page of this thread, and was repelled by Garth's comments. I needed to read no furthur. Does Garth not realise that it is known why the McCanns are thrust as innocent people on to our poorly educated public through a very controlled media? Does he not realise we know why he is very happy to align himself with the McCanns. Does he not realise that Carter Ruck will soon be very busy defending their disgusting immoral trade? I know morality is an anethma to people like him, Carter Ruck and most of our government, but you better heed this Garth everyone of you is about to be exposed and there will be no superinjunctions. no plea deals, no 'well it was only my job' there will be no hiding for you. We have lived through four years of this particular bought drama, but there are so many more that have lasted decades and there are people who have never forgotten and who despite seeming docile are about to change and destroy the corruption that exists and they are so much more powerful that I can safely say even the repugnant Mandelson will be quaking in his shoes and looking for a bolthole. Get the picture Garth? Look left and right of you Garth because you have no clue who the people around you really are and what their true selves believe and feel. We would prefer to think you are just a mind slave but that will be easily proven not the case. Good luck in sorting out your ideals and morals Garth, but you better do it quickly. Please do not bother any reply on this sevice announcement as it will not be read and given any consideration. Our message is only 'This country will be a country again, not sold to Europe and Mandelson, anyone in government should prove they are servants only to the people and not business and self'

(apology to the ip addressee)

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

There you go Garth, I did tell you. They are coming out of the woodwork, all down to you........

CQ DE 01, QSA IMI K
 
Work that one out gchq.
 
You dont know who you're talking to so I would suggest you keep it schtumped!

just google mccanns on google realtime and it will be more negitive than positive so how can u say most people belive them ? the mccanns have shot themselfs in the foot with this 1 as all the evidence is now availible for all to see online , that is what people are now doing ,instead of listening to the mccanns repetitive "mistakes", they are looking at the evidence and each day that passes more of the pro mccanns are starting to ask questions .... in the last 4 yrs ive not come across 1 person who does not think the mccanns are involved 1 way or another .

Garth wrote:CQ DE 01, QSA IMI K

Work that one out gchq.

You dont know who you're talking to so I would suggest you keep it schtumped!

Please do not insult other posters. Admin and Mods decide who can and cannot post here, thank you. Not you.

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

I suppose you will say Adios again, because you want to avoid the question again. Still waiting Garth - reason why the NEXT day GM says they He and Kate used the front door and KEY, then 6 days later changed it to the patio door?? As I said they would have read the statements, why such a HUGE discrepency

For Garth........................


[youtube][/youtube]

Garth wrote:Mike Hardy [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The Creche Sheet entries [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Garth wrote:You see, me, (not literally - for clairity ) 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.

Rapidly losing interest? Tell me about it, but I wasn’t the one who started examining the minutiae of the meaning of the word “lying” to try and prove a new point after I had given you the evidence regarding the shutters which disproved your first point.

For the sake of clarity let’s look at the meaning of the word:

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.

Now you are falsely assuming that in order for the author to use the word “lie” it must be on the basis that all 3 definitions are met.
This isn’t the case. It has 3 definitions because the word can be used to describe 3 different things in 3 different contexts. It doesn’t mean it has to mean all 3 definitions before it can be used, which is what you’ve said.

Agree?

Clearly as the author hasn’t provided reasons why there was intent to deceive or evidence to show intent of a false impression it’s safe to assume the author was using the word to describe an inaccurate or false statement, which is what they are, and what I’ve been saying all along.

In every day language if we are to use the word lying in the context of the first two definitions we usually preface “lying” with the word “deliberately” and there is no sign of that word in this document.

So whilst you can interpret it how you like technically the author is correct in the use of the word “lying”. Would a caveat at the bottom of the document saying:

"the author recoginses that the word lie in this document could be replaced with the word mistake"

The point is if you do change lie for mistake the inference remains exactly the same when viewed in the context of the amount of "mistakes" in their accounts.

Perhaps you should now throw the same amount of zeal and microscopic examination into understanding why there were so many false statements and inaccuracies and apply some of your fabled comprehension as to what that could possibly mean.

Kate McCann is lying.

Garth wrote:How would you like to place a wager that your claims of 'lies' can be proven to be either misinterpretations, misunderstandings or just a complete and utter lack of comprehension?
 
All I need to do is prove that only 'one' of your claims are wrong and you are guilty of libel.
 
Up to you Jill Havern.
 
Lets see YOU show the courage of your convictions..........and if you cannot, all I see, is these claims as being nothing more than propaganda to instill hate in the minds of those guillible enough to believe it! 

I can prove one lie?

Are the statements in the files just 'misinterpretations' garth?

Kate McCanns witness statement 4th May 2007

At around 9.30pm, at the time when the witness should have gone to see her children, her friend Matt (a member of the group), who was coming to check, as well, went to the apartment where his children were staying and on his way went to the witness’s apartment. He entered the apartment through a glass sliding door at the side that was always unlocked and once inside, he had not gone into the children's bedroom. He remained at the bedroom door, listening for noise and observing the beds. He went back to the restaurant and said that everything was fine.


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


If Matt observed the beds (not cots?) which are in the same line of vision as the window, why did he not see the curtains open, the window open and the shutter up? The abductor would have already been in cos JT saw him at 9.15 !



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

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

WasNew wrote:I am sure I remember Kate McCann talking about a coloboma in an interview - that's the only time I had heard of it. Anyone found that interview on you tube?

We were being pointed to a girl with a distinguishing mark in her eye - we all remember the posters. It doesn't really matter to the rest of us what the medical term was.

piers Morgan tonight.....he asked about the distinguishing mark in her eye and Kate McCann said...to be honest, we haven't put much emphasis on her eye, it was just a fleck....Gerry McCann said......it was where one colour ran into another colour, we don't reallly think their was a colobomo, she had perfect eyesight....And you couldn't really see it unless you were close up to her face .



Gerry McCann said....it was a good marketing ploy....so who was the very first person to mention colobomo?


The fact off the matter is.....they didn't tell people their wasn't an eye defect, the let people believe for 4 years that their was.

Hi Kitti,

Glad to see you here

How glad I was when Garth announced at 11.07 that he'd had enough of this topic and said goodbye. However, as he has continued to make contributions here, may I state without any fear of contradiction that he told a lie?

Don't forget, candy floss, matt also had xray eyes and could see through one off the twins cots which didn't have the mesh and could see the breathing.

Jean wrote:How glad I was when Garth announced at 11.07 that he'd had enough of this topic and said goodbye. However, as he has continued to make contributions here, may I state without any fear of contradiction that he is telling lies?

Garth does that a lot Kitti, when he can't argue the facts

Kate McCann said in her book that knowbody really knew them and didn't bother to get their medical records....LIE......they. were refused when mr amaral asked for them.


Kate McCann said that didn't even bother to speak to their doctor....LIE.....the doctors statement is in the files.


Sorry that's two lies ....


Garth......where are you

Hi candyfloss .....

Garth sounds like gerry!

Wow!

Kitti's on fire!

Keep up the good work!