I had a very similar situation/conversation recently. We were discussing his plans for an out of town job(1), that might require and overnight stay. He made a few references to a person/company, and talked some about the job. I had seen some texts back and forth with a female coworker (that I was already getting worried about) that concerned me. He asks her if she's been able to confirm for Tuesday and to plan on staying overnight. The job he and I were discussing was for Tuesday. Obviously I'm thinking we're all talking about the same job.
It plays out like this -
Me: "Is (female coworker) going to be at this job"?
Him: "No"
Me: "So she is not supposed to stay over night at (out of town location), and you're not going to see her while you're there working on job(1)"?
Him: "No"
I was pissed. I knew he was lying to me. He thought I'd stopped checking his phone forever ago, and I didn't want him to start deleting messages, so I played it more like my gut was just telling me something. Told him I didn't believe him, we fight about my supposed over jealous tendencies to see every woman as a threat, and he can't help it that he works with woman. I push and push that I do not want him to go. Later he tells me it's a moot point, the people at job(1) were behind schedule, couldn't work out the details and he was only going for a few hours now for something unrelated.
I find texts back and forth where he tells her he's run into some issues on his end, can't do Tues, can they reschedule for Wed or Thurs? Those days don't work for her, he expresses disappointment.
1.5 years later, I bring this back up. I ask, so you weren't trying to schedule a job with her out of town where you would both have to stay overnight? He now says that yes he was, but he wasn't lying to me before. Um, what? You see, when I originally asked the question, it had included the words 'job(1)', and now it didn't. What I didn't know back then was that the main reason he was going out of town was for another job he never mentioned, job(2) which is the actual job he went to, the one he said was only going to take a few hours. He figured while he was there on job(2) and they were in the same town, he would handle job(1). Anyone confused yet?
You see, she was working with him on JOB(2), the one I never knew about. So in effect, he didn't actually lie to me. Using a technicality to lie with the truth, and lie by omission. For me, what it comes down to is, my H and yours and everyone else's that pulls this is: They knew exactly what we were asking, they knew what we wanted to know. They used the way we phrased it or worded, it against us, and they made sure to be careful in the way they answered back, using particular words they feel can be up for interpretation.
He used a technicality to lie to me while being fully aware had I known there was a second (unmentioned) job, I would have asked about it as well. Omission - Technicality
Yours used a difference in word interpretation.
What this all says? They knew what we wanted to know and worked it so they didn't have to tell us and still maintain 'honesty'. They know the information we seek, they have the answers and choose not to be transparent. They are TT'ing, usually only providing the real answers when we have proof or are asking questions in a different way; a way that has removed the possibility of them giving the original answer and still being able to claim it as 'the truth'. They are using whatever tactic necessary to not bold face lie to us, while keeping a secret.
All of this is the exact opposite of true remorse and R, which at its core is them being more concerned with helping us heal, than mitigating the damage to themselves. With being forthcoming and offering us information we need to know even when we don't ask the question in just the right way.
It's obvious he's being more technical than you are, so don't give 2 seconds of your life thinking about that one. It's the best he could come up with on the fly.
And if you're wanting to get factual instead of technical, your original question was: "Have you bought her any gifts or given her anything"?
His finally answer was: "He sent her 2 clothing items, a magazine and a candle. They weren't gifts because he didn't buy them, but he sent them to her". So he didn't give her gifts if applying his interpretation of gift. By his own admission, even though he didn't pay for these items, he did in fact GIVE them to her. He's focusing on part one of your question, and the argument over whether this fits within the definition of gift is allowing him to keep you distracted long enough to 1) Ignore part two of your question, and 2) Lose focus on what true R is supposed to look like.
Stop engaging, don't let him distract you with all of the little pieces that aren't adding up, and remember what the whole puzzle is supposed to look like. You can argue these details to death and you won't make him admit it's a lie, or even think it's important. If he was seeking true R, you wouldn't even be having this discussion with him.
I don't know where he is in other respects, and there's always the chance of course I'm interpreting this situation wrong, but it seems to me that it's still in all about him and how he can protect himself.
