Why Should We Believe the Parent’s When....?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Absolutely....but I do think it has been conclusively proved that Gerry lied. The real question is, why would the father of a missing child lie simply to save face ? Was his reputation really important enough to him that he would jeopardise his credibility ?

To be clear.....the table was booked for the whole week. There was never any question that the group wouldn’t get a table....and there is the lie right there.

Please supply proof of your statement that there was never any question that the group wouldn’t get a table on the Thursday.  Please supply proof that Gerry intentionally tried to deceive and wasn’t getting mixed up (eg events of the first night with the evening of Thursday).  Please supply your reasoning as to why he would lie in the face of numerous witnesses who would know he was lying.  Please supply the reason why telling this lie would have been so advantageous to him that he was prepared to risk being uncovered as a liar to tell it.  Of course you won’t answer this because you’re pretending to ignore me.  How convenient for you.

[G-Unit]

Gerry doing what?
Has it been proven he lied?

If the subject of lying and subsequent unworthiness is being discussed, then surely it's on topic to mention that Amaral who has a conviction for lying must also have his unworthiness mentioned.

Madeleine McCann allegedly disappeared into thin air while her parents were out. They were the last people to see her. They have spent 12 years insisting that she was taken by a stranger.  There's no hard evidence supporting their claim, however.  As a result the story relies heavily on their credibility. If some of the things they say don't  add up that damages their credibility and therefore their story.

I don't see how Amaral's 'unworthiness' affected the PJ investigation into Madeleine's disappearabce at all.

[Erngath]

Madeleine McCann allegedly disappeared into thin air while her parents were out. They were the last people to see her. They have spent 12 years insisting that she was taken by a stranger.  There's no hard evidence supporting their claim, however.  As a result the story relies heavily on their credibility. If some of the things they say don't  add up that damages their credibility and therefore their story.

I don't see how Amaral's 'unworthiness' affected the PJ investigation into Madeleine's disappearabce at all.

Well we now know he lied to Sandra Felguerias.
We shall have to disagree that his ability to lie so easily in his professional capacity may not have had any bearing on the investigation of a missing child.

[G-Unit]

Well we now know he lied to Sandra Felguerias.
We shall have to disagree that his ability to lie so easily in his professional capacity may not have had any bearing on the investigation of a missing child.

We know that Sandra said he lied to her, to be precise. If he did, what do you think his purpose was, and did he achieve it?

[Erngath]

Please supply proof of your statement that there was never any question that the group wouldn’t get a table on the Thursday.  Please supply proof that Gerry intentionally tried to deceive and wasn’t getting mixed up (eg events of the first night with the evening of Thursday).  Please supply your reasoning as to why he would lie in the face of numerous witnesses who would know he was lying.  Please supply the reason why telling this lie would have been so advantageous to him that he was prepared to risk being uncovered as a liar to tell it.  Of course you won’t answer this because you’re pretending to ignore me.  How convenient for you.

MrNotbornyesterdays YouTube video seems to be all the proof needed.lol.

[Holly Goodhead]

The shutters weren't completely closed, so outside daylight may have made a difference earlier on.
 
the external blinds closed but with some slats open
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

Despite everyone agreeing that the Payne's did no checking, Gerry said;

On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.

Jez Wilkins knew the night before (Wednesday) what the group were doing;

Jeremy and Bridget became aware that although the McCanns had taken up the use of the creche facility during the day, they had not done so for the evening hours and had left the children in the apartment but were checking on them regularly and that other members of the group appeared to be doing the same.
They expressed surprise over this.....
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY_BRIGET.htm

Thanks.  I've only skim read GM's ws which states:

He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark.

This aligns with KM's account where she states she could not even make out whether or not MM was in her bed without the light on.  And yet GM had a proud parent moment thinking how beautiful MM looked.  GM does not say he lit a candle or shone a torch or put the light on so how exactly did this proud parent moment come about if the room was totally dark?

Was he embellishing to convince everyone, including pj, his checks were as thorough as he claimed and to assuage any guilt he may have felt? 

It seems to me this whole checking thing was not about whether any of the children would wander off, come to some harm in the apartment etc but simply to listen out for any crying.  If this was the case why not just listen at the window/shutters?  Did they even leave the shutters/windows partially open so they could simply walk around the front and poke their heads in? 

Is this the reason JT saw GM and JW but they didn't see her?  Ie if GM was checking via the front he would for some of the time be in a different location to the one he would be in if he was checking at the back. 

The above is important imo.  If GM did not observe MM at approx 9pm it would mean GM/KM last saw her at 8.30pm.  Therefore she could have disappeared from any time between 8.30pm and 10.00pm meaning some alibis may not be so strong.   

[faithlilly]

Who do you think you are? People do not have to supply the reasoning for the lie, just proof of the lie itself. If you want the reasoning behind it, Gerry McCann is your man for that.

Further Kate admitted lying even though she knew there was witnesses that could contradict her.....so being found out doesn’t seem to be a deterrent.

[Erngath]

We know that Sandra said he lied to her, to be precise. If he did, what do you think his purpose was, and did he achieve it?

I imagine his purpose in lying to her was to further fuel the belief that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.
Yes, he did achieve that.
IMO.

[Erngath]

It's the block booking that is the proof, not the video. Without that knowledge there would be no way of knowing Gerry was lying in the video.

There is something about that video which in my opinion is just not quite right!!
I'm sorry to say I still don't see any proof that Gerry was lying.
I'll have another look at it.

[Eleanor]

The Block Booking at The Tapas was always a bit iffy because technically this wasn't allowed, so perhaps The Party were never particularly sure that they might  be refused and  might have to think of something else.

At worst, Gerry's thoughts on the subject weren't lies, just ifs, buts and could haves.  Just like The Video, designed and cherry picked out of context to create suspicion where there is none.

Such a silly set of maybes that amount to nothing.

[G-Unit]

Thanks.  I've only skim read GM's ws which states:

He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark.

This aligns with KM's account where she states she could not even make out whether or not MM was in her bed without the light on.  And yet GM had a proud parent moment thinking how beautiful MM looked.  GM does not say he lit a candle or shone a torch or put the light on so how exactly did this proud parent moment come about if the room was totally dark?

Was he embellishing to convince everyone, including pj, his checks were as thorough as he claimed and to assuage any guilt he may have felt? 

It seems to me this whole checking thing was not about whether any of the children would wander off, come to some harm in the apartment etc but simply to listen out for any crying.  If this was the case why not just listen at the window/shutters?  Did they even leave the shutters/windows partially open so they could simply walk around the front and poke their heads in? 

Is this the reason JT saw GM and JW but they didn't see her?  Ie if GM was checking via the front he would for some of the time be in a different location to the one he would be in if he was checking at the back. 

The above is important imo.  If GM did not observe MM at approx 9pm it would mean GM/KM last saw her at 8.30pm.  Therefore she could have disappeared from any time between 8.30pm and 10.00pm meaning some alibis may not be so strong.

You are discovering that 'truth' in this case ultimately comes down to opinion. As the PJ said;

 the facts occurred on the day 3 of May of 2007, in a temporal hiatus, understood to be between 21H05 and 22H00 (being certain that after 17H30, only GERALD and KATE had contact with MADELEINE)
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

[Erngath]

You are discovering that 'truth' in this case ultimately comes down to opinion. As the PJ said;

 the facts occurred on the day 3 of May of 2007, in a temporal hiatus, understood to be between 21H05 and 22H00 (being certain that after 17H30, only GERALD and KATE had contact with MADELEINE)
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm

However many years have passed since that was said.

Two current police investigations have as yet not given any indication that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.

[Eleanor]

So do you think Gerry was completely unaware some months later while giving his interview that the tapas had been block booked for THE WHOLE week on the Sunday prior to May 3?

What I said was that Block Bookings for a week were technically not allowed.  Gerry will have known this at the time, and The Party could have been refused because their Block Booking was preventing others from booking.

[Erngath]

The Block Booking at The Tapas was always a bit iffy because technically this wasn't allowed, so perhaps The Party were never particularly sure that they might  be refused and  might have to think of something else.

At worst, Gerry's thoughts on the subject weren't lies, just ifs, buts and could haves.  Just like The Video, designed and cherry picked out of context to create suspicion where there is none.

Such a silly set of maybes that amount to nothing.

Your last sentence is appropriate to much of the suspicions raised by some!.

[G-Unit]

I imagine his purpose in lying to her was to further fuel the belief that Madeleine's parents are complicit in her disappearance.
Yes, he did achieve that.
IMO.

So when did he do it and when did Sandra report it?