There's lying, and there's lying.

Sure, but it's one thing to show a true event and let the reader infer the wrong things, and another thing to simply lie entirely:

1. An example of the former: in episode 2, IIRC, there's a nice bit where Beatrice tries to set up a locked room by granting as axiom both that the only key to the room was in someone's possession the day before and also after the murder in that room, which is so suspiciously worded an affirmation that I instantly thought 'oh, so someone could've taken and replaced the key at any time in between', and sure enough, that's what Battler then argued.
2. What I'm worried about is that we're going to be told that the goats, the lightsabers, the parties at the end, the tea parties in another dimension, Rosa being fed her siblings - all the supernatural events we are shown, not told about, in which there's no need for misleading inference or mistaken assumptions or interpretations - will be somehow waved away like 'it was all a dream!' and I'll be mocked by the author for being so gullible as to believe what I saw on the screen. As Beatrice might say, there have to be some ground rules that both players follow or otherwise there can be no game. And going back on what was shown like that would definitely not be cricket.

What you see may be true, without being what you think it is. Consider Battler's position. Give it some thought.

I certainly hope that there will be some satisfying resolution, given how much time I've already invested in reading Umineko, yes.