Thursday, November 15, 2012

Statement Analysis: McCann Interview

Question for Analysis: 

Do the McCanns have guilty knowledge of what happened to Madeleine?

We have not covered the McCann case in detail because I had hoped the original police interview transcripts would be released which would likely give us the information we seek, through the lens of Statement Analysis:  the truth. 

In other interviews, the McCanns have not been asked strong questions.  Most interviewers use the opportunity for self promotion, employing lengthy statements before the question, which draws the reader's attention to the Interviewer, and not to the information.  Below is an interview conducted when the McCanns published their book.  

Statement Analysis is in bold type. Underlining and color added for emphasis, with blue used to show the highest level of sensitivity in analysis.  Red is used to indicate deception.  I have cut out most of the video commentary in order to keep to the interview.  This analysis is "Statement Analysis" and is limited to the linguistics; not any other form of evidence.   

Thursday, 11 August 2011

Looking for Madeleine McCann – Sunday Night. Video and transcript

...but first, for four years Kate and Gerry McCann have lived a never ending ordeal and they still don’t know when or if it will ever end. It began on a family holiday in Portugal when Madeleine, their four year daughter, simply vanished. She hasn’t been seen since. Tonight, the mystery deepens. You’re about to see home video never shown before and learn the vital clue Madeleine left behind. Here’s Rahni Sadler.

[Cuts into Video of Madeleine McCann dressed a pink fairy outfit:
Gerry McCann: Okay, spin around darling. Right round. Oh yes, I can see your wings.
Kate McCann: Big smile. Kate laughs.
Gerry McCann: Oh yes. One more. Big smile. That’s pretty.]

Gerry McCann: She was incredibly beautiful baby actually.

Kate McCann: We sound like the most biased parents on the planet now but she was just really compact and was just really the really nice, round, perfect know...and then she, she opened her mouth ...the whole world knew she was with us...

If parents are speaking together, the pronoun "we" is expected, yet we also hold to the expectation that a mother, in particular, is going to jump to "my" for a missing child, as it is very personal.  The absence of the singular pronoun should call us to attention.  We saw this in the Baby Lisa case as Deborah Bradley, whom was indicated for guilty knowledge and deception in the case of her missing child, had such difficulty using the pronoun "my" in her language.  Research has shown what every parent of every kindergartner knows:  guilt is something we humans like to 'spread around' with plural pronouns.  "Everyone was doing it!"

Every parent calls their child "perfect" yet here we have a specific: "really nice, round, perfect head" is the language of a doctor, particularly when a child is first delivered. 
Note in recollecting her birth, KM says "the whole world knew she was with us" using "the whole world" as a reference.  

Gerry McCann
: She’d McCann level volume, there’s no doubt about that.

[Cuts into Video of Madeleine sitting on the stairs with her twin siblings singing:
Madeleine: Clap your hands together one two three. Clap your hands...
Gerry McCann: Yay well done. Okay, let’s sing another one.]

Kate McCann: I always wanted to be a mother, erm, I don’t know, maybe that stemmed from being an only child and sort of, you know, wanting that feeling of family.

Voice over: Madeleine was the daughter Kate and Gerry McCann always wanted. For years Kate struggled to fall pregnant so when Madeleine came along they felt blessed. They loved to photograph her and she loved being photographed.

Voice over: this is the last picture of Madeleine taken seven hours before she disappeared.

Gerry McCann: There’s a photo of her that afternoon that was taken at 2:29 (laughs) I think, we’ve got it recorded on the digital camera and er she was just sitting by the pool er with myself and we’ve both got our feet just paddling and she’s so happy.

Voice over: In late April 2007, the McCanns decided to travel to Portugal for a family holiday.

[Cuts into a video of Madeleine climbing the flight stairs to the aeroplane where she stumbles on the steps:
Voice over: In the pink pants climbing the stairs to the plane is Madeleine
Gerry McCann on the video: Oop alright?]

Voice over: It was the McCanns first holiday overseas as a family and they went with three other couples
[video on airports shuttle bus pans in Gerry’s direction...‘cheer up Gerry, we’re on holiday.’ Gerry:‘F**k off']

Gerry McCann: It’s a small resort out of season, end of April beginning of May and it was incredibly quiet er, we felt very relaxed there, very relaxed.

When a couple speaks together, the pronoun, "we" is expected and used often.  Where we expect the change is when we come to the highly personal loss of a child.  The expected is that a mother will use the pronoun, "I" when speaking about the child.  Fathers do also, but given maternal instinct, particularly one who just spoke of the birth, we expect to hear the pronoun, "I" to be employed. 

Voice over: In the evening the children were put to bed by half past seven before the adults had dinner together down at the pool. From where they ate, Kate and Gerry could see the back of their apartment and left the door unlocked.

Gerry McCann: If you measured it directly from the back of the apartment there’s a straight line to where we’re dining, it’s only 50 metres

Interviewer: 50 Meters?

Gerry McCann: Er..that, that’s a direct line...

Kate McCann interrupts: 49 point 4 on Google if you want to be really specific

KM shows the use of the internet, with the word "Google" early in the interview.  The reader should be considering if the internet is a sensitive topic to KM. 

Gerry McCann: But the proximity was very close

The word, "but" often refutes that which came before it.  Here, we do not know what would be refuted by GM since they appear to agree about the distance, but only in a "direct" line and not actual access.  

Voice over: Madeleine and the twins slept in a room at the front of villa 5A. Kate and Gerry believed their shuttered bedroom window, overlooking the car park and street, was closed and locked. Every half an hour the parents would take turns to check on each other’s children.

Gerry McCann: We thought that was the best thing erm, and it seemed to work absolutely fine and we didn’t have any problems right until the Thursday morning when Madeleine said “why didn’t you come when we cried last night?” We thought that’s odd

Pronouns are instinctive, and reliable.  It is to be noted here that GM says "we", first when it came to thought.  He reports what both of them were thinking. 
Next, we note anything in the negative as very important.  He reports, again, in the plural, that "we didn't have any problems"; 
People generally do not report "not" having problems; and mark time by problems that arise.  It is to be noted that here, in the negative, he again, uses the word "we" and not "I"; with "I" being the strongest link to truth in the English language. 
Yet, it could be that he is speaking for both, and knew what both thought, and what both did not think. 
He then quotes the child:
"why didn't you come when we cried last night?" as being the words of Madeleine. 

Please note that by quoting Madeleine, he continues to use the word "we."

Did a child of Madeleine's age actually use the word "we" and not the pronoun, "I"?  

I find this odd. 

Having raised 6 children, and having taught parenting classes for many years, small children are selfish.  They are concerned with "I" and use the pronoun, "I" and "me" and "my" most often in life, until they are later taught to be concerned with the well being of others.  

The use of the pronoun "we" when quoting Madeleine is very odd.  It is not the 'expected.'

The reader should question whether or not this is an artificial quote for the purpose of alibi building. 

Research has shown what parents of teenagers have always known:  guilty people will use the pronoun "we" often, in the psychological attempt to share guilt (Dillingham) and spread out responsibility among others.  Even if, via discussions, husbands and wives know what each other thought, it is very unlikely that a child of Madeleine's age would raise concern for her siblings' crying.  

Is this story telling for the purpose of alibi building?  This leads the interviewer to draw a conclusion:  

Interviewer: You now think somebody had either tried to get into the room or was in the room and woke them up the night before

By using the word "now", in 2011, the Interviewer intimates that he is familiar with past claims by the McCanns.  This should alert them to this fact and put them on the defensive.  Interviewers must be very careful and avoid 

Kate McCann: Er it seems too much of a coincidence that she made that comment and then that happened that night.

Statement Analysis teaches that the analyst (reader) should believe exactly what someone says unless they prove otherwise.  When someone says, "if I was you, I would not believe me" it is good advice to follow.  Here, KM says it is "too much" of which we may agree.  There is doubt in my mind that Madeleine used the word "we"  and here, KM refers to "that" (distancing language) comment and says that it only "seems" too much.  She does not affirm that Madeleine said it.  

Interviewer: Looking back now, you think that could have been your one save her

This is not a question but a statement.  Good interviewing (analytical interviewing) means:

1.  Asking open ended questions
2.  Asking follow up questions using the subjects' own language. 

Making statements can teach the subject how to lie. (Sapir)
Kate McCann: Well as soon as ermm I’d discovered that Madeleine had been taken just hit me straight away what she said that morning and I just thought, my God, someone tried the night before.

Note that she is referring back to the moment of discovery.  This is critical.  
Instead of saying that she discovered Madeleine "missing", she spoke of the conclusion, "had been taken" (passive) and then connects the thought of Madeline's statement "straight away" and "just" thought:  with "just" being minimization, used by comparison.  This means she compared this thought with a much larger thought. 

Let's say I wanted to sell you a car for $15,000 but I fear you will say it is more than you can afford, so I first show you a car for "$20,000" and have you immediately say, "it is too much!" of which I then roll out the next car and say, "this one is just $15,000", meaning that I compared it to the greater number. 

When KM said that she "just" thought, it indicates that she had "straight away" thought of something much worse.  

It is difficult to imagine the shock and adrenaline (hormonal) rush at the discovery of a missing child, that someone would have the presence of mind to compare a prior night's comment from a child, with something much worse, at the moment. It takes time for us to process, particularly while under such duress (hormonal rush).  

This appears to be an artificial placement of a thought.  

Madeleine's quote does not appear credible, and due to the 'fear' or 'fight/flight' shock of a missing child, that a mother (maternal instincts inflamed) would be able to think through these things, conclude abduction and tie it to the night before leads me to conclude:

It does not appear credible.  

When we are first in a shocking situation, it takes time to debrief and reason.  This is why, for example, the placement of emotions in the 'perfect' or logical part of an account is an indication of having placed them there artificially. 

"I was walking my dog when I came upon a drug deal in progress.  One man pointed a gun at my head, while the other was laying on the ground.  The gunman turned and ran off from me.  The man on the ground got up, and ran off in another direction.  I called police."

This is a true account of something that happened to me many years ago.  

After calling 911 I thought it was strange that I was not afraid even though the gun was pointed right at me.  

A few hours later, I woke up with my hands shaking, unable to go back to sleep.  It took time to process the event due to the hormonal flush that I felt during the event. 

If I wished to tell this account in story telling:

"It was a normal night, like any other..." signaling that this night would be anything but normal. 

"As I came upon the gunman, my heart began to pound, and fear flushed through my veins..."

That is not what happened.  

It takes humans time to process thoughts and emotions. 

Here, KM puts her thoughts, even using logical conclusions and comparisons, all while being a mother of a missing child. 

It is not credible.  The hormonal rush would block out the thought process, and the recall should be very clear, also due to the presence of the hormonal increase. 
Always note the inclusion of Divinity, especially where it is placed within a statement. 

voice over
: On Thursday night, Kate put her daughter to bed for the last time.

Kate McCann: My memory of that evening, it’s really vivid, I mean she was really tired but she was just cuddled up on my knee and we read a story and we also had some treats, some crisps and biscuits erm and then after they’d done the usual kind of, toilet, teeth erm we went through to the bedroom and read another story: If your happy and your know it...ermm...[looks at the interviewer then away and back again] ...yep. 

The memory of "that" (distancing language of the loss of a child is emotional distancing done to protect) evening.  Appropriate use. 

"it's really vivid" is due to the hormonal rush of whatever it is that happened that night. 

The pronoun "we" shows unity, cooperation between KM and her children. 

The word "just" is comparison (see above).  This indicates that when Madeleine was very tired, she often acted differently than she did on "that" night:  on "that" night, she cuddled up.  This indicates that on other nights when she was tired or overtired, she did not cuddle, but was likely difficult.  In this description, she not only cuddled, but did so on mother's lap.  

Since they are doctors, one should wonder what caused Madeleine to not act out but only to "just" cuddle and sit on her lap.  

Was Madeleine given something to help her sleep so that the parents could go out to dinner?

That "toilet" is mentioned (association with water), the topic of sexual abuse should always be explored, especially with a child who's linguistic skills could reveal the perpetrator's identity and actions.  See "water" for more information on sexual abuse within statements.  
Similar to a school teacher noticing a child repeatedly washing his hands, (water) and being concerned about possible sexual abuse, "water" entering statements, particularly unnecessarily, indicate a need for exploration into the topic of sexual abuse.  Remember:  our words are verbalized reality and are chosen from the brain, which knows what has happened. This is called "leakage" (see analysis of Mark Redwine by Kaaryn Gough for more on "leakage" of the brain.)

Voice over:
 At 9pm Gerry checked on Madeleine and the twins

The interviewer (or Voice over) introduced the time of 9PM.  We look to see if "9PM" is confirmed by GM: 

Gerry McCann: I’d actually stuck my head around the door and I, I just lingered for a few seconds and thought how beautiful she was erm and that’s the last time I saw her.

This is an important statement.  It shows two things, in particular:
1.  GM does speak for himself, with the pronoun, "I"
2.  He used the word "actually" in his checking on Madeleine.  

The word "actually" indicates that he is comparing two or more ways of checking on her. 

"Would you like to go home now?  No, actually, I would like to stay for the whole show..."
"Would you like seafood?  No, actually, I would like a steak."
It is used when comparing two or more things. 

What was GM comparing his checking with?  Whenever I hear the word "actually", I follow up with more questions to learn what the person was comparing.  

Note how he also brought his thoughts into the time frame.  One might wonder why he feels the need to describe what he thought at that time, since he was checking to see if the kids were okay and asleep while they were at dinner. 

GM did not affirm the time he checked on Madeleine. 
GM wants his audience to believe that he saw her as "beautiful."  One might wonder why this is important as most fathers see their little girls as beautiful.  This appears to show a need to present oneself in a positive light and manner. 

Interviewer: Last time you saw her

Gerry McCann closes eyes and swallows: Mmmm

Interviewer: You thought how lucky you were

Note that GM did not use the word "lucky" but it is introduced by the Interviewer.  This is always to be avoided by trained interviewers.  

Gerry McCann: Exactly. Your world’s shattered within an hour

Please note that GM, father of missing child, did not say his world was shattered with "an hour" but said "Your world's shattered..."

The expected is that the father of a missing child would say "My world's shattered"

Fatherhood is very personal and up close. We do not expect to hear the 2nd person pronoun used here.  This is distancing language that is very unexpected.  
In Statement Analysis, we believe people.  Here, he does not say his world was shattered.  I cannot think of anything, as a father, more personal than losing my child.  One should wonder why he feels the need to distance himself in this manner. 

voice over
: At 10pm it was Kate’s turn to look in on the kids

Reminder:  We are not viewing reality; we are viewing verbalized reality.  (Sapir)

We are not analyzing Kate McCann; we are analyzing the words KM chose to employ.  

Here, we lay out what is expected:  "I got there and Madeleine was gone" would be the first thing that a parent would say. (anything similar)  Everything pales beyond a child missing and is a lesser, or 'trivial' detail.  What does she say?

Kate McCann:
 The bedroom door where the three children were sleeping was open much further than we’d left it. I went to close it to about here, and then as I got to about here it suddenly ...slammed. And then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children. And literally as I went back in the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn, were closed was like a gust of wind kind of blew them open.

1.  The bedroom door
2.  Where the three children were sleeping
3.   open further than we'd left it
4.  I went to close it
5.  It suddenly slammed
6.  I opened it
7.  I just thought I'll just look at the children
8.  The curtains of the bedroom were closed
9.  like a gust of wind blew them open 

"doors" and "windows" are often found within the language of sexual abuse.  Adults who were sexually abused as children often employ them in their own statements.  

The interviewer should explore whether or not Kate was a victim of childhood sexual abuse.  This is a risk factor for the possibility of not protecting her own child, statistically.  

Kate McCann: And the curtains which had been closed just swung open into the room and reveal that the shutter was all the way up and the window had been pushed right across and then I just knew...I just knew she’d been taken.

10.  curtains just swung open
11.  shutter was revealed
12.  window pushed right across
13.   Thoughts:  "I just knew, I just knew"

Deception indicated

In any event told, there are three sections to an account:

1.  What happened before the event
2.  The event itself
3.  What happened directly after the event. 

Truthful accounts will focus primarily on the event, itself. 
The "form" of an answer or statement that is truthful will look like this:

25% of the words or lines written will be dedicated to what happened leading up to the event.  This is the "Introduction" to the event. 

50% of the words used, or lines written, will be about the most important part of the account:  the event itself. 

25% will be of what happened afterwards.

A statement is tested on its "Form" and if there is a major deviation from this formula, it can be said that the Account is unreliable. 

The overwhelming number of deceptive accounts has the Introduction heavily weighted.  85% of deceptive statements have more information in the "pre" or "Introduction" phase. 

Here is an example:

1.  "My job is to take care of the clients. That day, I brought
2.  my client to the park. 
3.  He escalated by screaming.
4.  He took off his shirt and cut himself.
5.  He picked up rocks and threw them at people
6.  and screamed at them that he would kill them. 
7.  I held him by both arms until he calmed down.
8.  Once he was calm, I told him that
9.  I had to call 911.  
10.  I waited for police to arrive." 

This account is 10 lines in length.  
The incident where the client
acted out begins on line 3.  It ends at line 7. 
What he did after the client calmed down is 2 lines. 

Introduction:  2 lines:   20% intro
Escalation of client:    5 lines, or 50%
After event:  3 lines         30% 

This would be seen as a Truthful or Reliable statement on its form as it is close to the 25%, 50%, 25% form for truthful accounts. 

Accounts that are false or deceptive are often 70% or more in the "Introduction" phase. 

In Kate McCann's account, she is 100% in the pre-event of Madeline being missing. 

Her answer, by its Form, is deceptive.

She never said Madeline was missing.  

voice over: Kate says that after a quick frantic search of the apartment she ran back towards Gerry who was still with their friends at the table by the pool.

Gerry McCann: I know exactly where the table was. It was kinda this bit, so it would be about around here. And er, I was kinda sitting in this bit.
 Kate was clearly distraught and I jumped up but, kind of disbelief. She can’t be gone. She can’t...she can’t possibly can she be gone? And I was saying that to Kate as we were both running

Here we have GM using the pronoun, "I" for himself.  
Note body posture of "sitting" is a signal of tension for him, yet he was only "kinda" sitting.  "Kinda" is a form of qualifier which avoids precise language.  
Note that he does not say that "Kate was distraught" (the expected) but that she was "clearly" distraught, showing that being "distraught" is sensitive.  Why the need to emphasize the obvious and expected?  We would not think that a mother of a missing child is anything but distraught.  We must be now on alert for persuasion rather than truth reported. 
Voice over: Police were called within fifteen minutes. But they didn’t arrive for nearly an hour. It took them another two hours before they bothered to seal off Madeleine’s bedroom. British investigators later called it the worst preserved crime screen they’d ever encountered. Road blocks and checks weren’t put on Portugal’s borders for a full twelve hours and in days hundreds of guests, potential witnesses and suspects had checked out and left without ever having been interviewed.

Kate McCann:  The night seemed so long, every second was excruciating and it was dark and er, you just want  there to be light and everybody searching and Madeleine found.

KM did not describe Madeline missing.  She did not say that she wanted everyone searching. 
She did not say she, the mother, wanted Madeline found. 

Statement Analysis teaches that the subject will guide us:

She said "you just want" and not that "I just want"

If KM cannot bring herself to say that she wanted Madeleine found, we cannot say it for her.  Using "you" is 2nd person, distancing language. A missing child is very personal to a mother and we expect to hear the oft-used pronoun, "I", something an adult has used millions of times and is quite good at using it properly.  It's absence means that she does not commit herself to the statement. 

KM does not commit to finding Madeleine. 

Interviewer: Did you kill your daughter?

Yes or No questions are the easiest to lie to, however, we are still able to analyze responses.  

If the subject says, "no" and when asked, "Why should we believe you?" and says, "Because I told the truth when I said "no", it is a very strong denial.  
Therefore, even though yes or no questions are low stress questions for liars, it is still a good question when followed up with "Why should we believe you?"

Gerry McCann: No. That’s an emphatic no. I mean the ludicrous thing is erm what, I suppose what’s been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. Well when did she have the accident and died, because, the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner so ...if she died then, how could we of disposed – hidden her body. You know, when there’s an immediate [inaudible but sounds like he was about to say ‘search’] it’s just nonsense. And if she died when we were in the apartment or fell and di...why would we ...why would we cover that up?

This is an important question and a vital answer.  Here, I have repeated his answer, and added emphasis for the analysis:


"No" is a good answer, and is expected.  Each word after the word "no" becomes important.  It would be best to say "no" and nothing else because in innocency, there is no need to explain.  

That’s an emphatic no. 

This now weakens his denial, as he repeats it (any repetition is sensitive) and calls for emphasis (another weakness)

I mean the ludicrous thing is erm what,

He is answering the question for himself, and begins with the pronoun, "I", which is good.  This connects him to the sentence.  We want to see him stay in the first person singular, as truthful. 

"the" is an article.  Articles are instinctive and exempt from the personal, subjective, internal dictionary we all possess. He addresses "the" ludicrous thing", which is now important.  What is "the" ludicrous thing?

 I suppose what’s been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body

"The" ludicrous thing is now weakened by "I suppose".  If it is "a" ludicrous thing, than he might only "suppose" rather than know for certainty.  Something is "ludicrous" when it is not only false, but obviously false.  It is ludicrous to think a man comes down a hot chimney with gifts.  "Ludicrous" means to accept as false, without question.  Yet, he, himself, questions it by the weak, "suppose."

When we "suppose" , we allow for someone else to "suppose" something else. 

"I locked my keys in the car" is strong.
"I think I locked my keys in the car" is weaker; allowing for me, or others, to think that maybe I did not lock them in the car, but left them elsewhere. "Suppose" is the same thing; he is only speculating, yet, the article, "the" addresses a very specific "ludicrous" issue. 

The issue:  Madeliene died in the apartment and "we" hid her body.  

He does not say that this is "the" ludicrous thing.  He only supposes it, allowing for himself, and others, to suppose it to be ludicrous, or not to. 

People do not like to lie directly, as it causes internal stress. 

This is not an embedded admission as he is reporting that this is what's been purported, however, he allows for us to suppose that it may, or may not be, ludicrous.  

Well when did she have the accident and died, because, the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner so ...if she died then, how could we of disposed – hidden her body?

He now asks a question, "When?"  
Please note that when a person asks a question in an open statement, and does not wait for the Interviewer to answer, it may be an indication that the subject is re-living the event, working from memory, and speaking to himself.  
Note that whenever someone is reporting what happened and has the need to say 'why' something was done, it is very sensitive. 

Note the change to "we" from the stronger "I" and note when it appears in context:  Madeleine dying while "we" were at dinner.  

This is to establish an alibi.  

If an accident happened, it happened while we were at dinner, so it could not have been us. 

This is his reasoning, yet he does not state it but raises it as a question. 

Questions can be answered. 

Roger Clemens said, 'If I have all these performance enhancing drugs it would mean that someone supplied them.  Who is this? Who supplied me?  I wish he would come forward.'

The man who supplied him with his performance enhancing drugs did this very thing.  He came forward and we heard the telephone recording between Clemens and the man who delivered his drugs. 

The challenge shows a need to challenge.  

In the McCann case, he raises "accident" as evidence that he and his wife could not be involved. 

Yet, had he or Kate accidentally gave Madeleine too much medication to sleep through dinner, she could have expired while they were at dinner. 

He raised the question for us to answer.  Answering it is not difficult. 

Those who lie do not like to be challenged as to veracity and often turn the challenge on others, like Clemens, and like Lance Armstrong, who sued anyone who dared question his veracity, because he could afford to tie up lawyers in court.  He added ridicule to his comments. 

Billie Jean Dunn uses insults, combing sexual and violent language in her insults.  She can bear many things, but cannot bear not being believed.  

It is not surprising that McCann would blame police or others.  

 You know, when there’s an immediate [inaudible ] it’s just nonsense. And if she died when we were in the apartment or fell and di...why would we ...why would we cover that up?

Note that he allows for her to die when they were in the apartment, not when "I was in the apartment" moving away from the singular, "I" and does not ask, "Why would I cover that up?" but "why would we...?"
He did not wait for an answer from the interviewer. 

Why would they cover it up?

Because of medicating her to sleep is illegal.  They would lose custody of their other children, lose their license to practice medicine and go to prison. 

When he asks "why?", we are able to, without much effort, answer him.  Yet, he does not ask for himself.  He began with "I" but moved, with the topic of possible guilt, to the sharing of guilt/responsibility, to "we."

Kate McCann: It gets even more ludicrous that we’ve obviously hidden her somewhere incredibly well where nobody’s found her ..

Note that GM only "supposes" ludicrous activity, yet KM goes even further with "even more";
Note her words, that she herself frames:  
"we've obviously hidden her somewhere." 

This is not something we expect to hear from innocent parents.  It is too painful. 

Both GM and KM allow for them to be involved.  Innocent people generally do not allow for any possibility of involvement.  Even while attempting to ridicule the notion, we see signals of sensitivity.  

These are red flags. 
Interviewer: Incredibly well

Kate McCann: and we’d hidden her so well that we’d decided we’d move her in the car which we hired weeks later and you know, it’s just ridiculous

Note the change of language from "ludicrous" to "ridiculous" as a "car" enters her language. 
Interviewer: When you come back to Portugal do you feel closer to Madeleine?

Kate McCann: Although I don’t know where Madeleine is that is the last place that, you know, I saw her, held her, and I guess there’s a part of me that still feels connected to her there so.

please note that this is present tense and should be looked at closely.  She does not know where Madeleine is, presently, uses the pronoun, "I" and is strong, in spite of saying it in the negative.  It could be for several reasons:

1.  She is not involved
2.  GM hid the body without her  (not likely supported by the use of "we" above)
3.  She was placed somewhere where her body would move, such as water;
4.  She does not know due to being placed where wildlife would 'move' her from the location.  

Commonly, small bodies disposed in water are difficult to locate due to current.  Haleigh Cummngs, Baby Lisa, and Baby Ayla come to mind.  
Regarding kidnapped kids found years later:

Kate McCann:
 I think kids can be written off, you know, missing kids can be written off too easily. You cannot do that, you cannot give up on a child.

Regarding her child being kidnapped (the context of the voice over), Kate McCann tells us that this is not the case with Madeleine:

1.  kids" is used
2.  "You" cannot do that; "you" cannot give up.  She does not say "I cannot do that" and "I cannot give up". 
3.  Note the change from "kids" to "child" has a change of language. 
4.  Note the article, "a" child; not "my" child.

This is a strong indication that Kate McCann knows that Madeleine was not kidnapped and will not be found, years later.  

Voice over: With no police force currently investigating Madeleine’s case, the McCanns are using their own money, including royalties from Kate’s book to hire investigators and former police to continue the search for Madeleine.

Gerry McCann: Kids are survivors

Note that he identifies Madeleine's looks, behavior, and voice with "McCann" yet here, only "kids" are survivors, not Madeleine.  He does not say that Madeleine is a survivor.  This is an indication that he knows Madeleine did not survive. 

Kate McCann: You know, Madeleine means tower of strength. Wherever she was, whoever she’s been with, whatever’s happened, we will get her through it
Listen to what KM says, and do not interpret:
She does not say that Madeleine is a tower of strength who has survived and will be found.  She only says what the name means. 

Note carefully:  She does not say that Madeleine is strong and a survivor and that, therefore, Madeline will get through this.  She says, "we" will get her through it.  
This is a denial of Madeleine's strength and survivor status. 

People do not like to lie.  Here, KM is not lying because she does not say that Madeleine is a survivor.  

Interviewer: You will not rest until you find your daughter, until you wrap your arms around her

This is a direct question (language given, unfortunately) but is a direct question:  

Kate McCann: I don’t believe any parent could, you know, and I don’t believe we could ever reach the point where we just think oh well, we’ve done everything now, you know. Whilst the situation remains as it is, you know, Madeleine’s out there and she needs us to find her

1.  Please note that KM does not answer the question. 
2.  Please note that she only affirms that "Madeleine's out there", something that police and doubters also believe, just as many believe that Baby Ayla is "out there" and "floating" and that other dead children that are not laid to rest in a proper burial are "out there."  She does not affirm that Madeleine is alive.  This is a natural denial we expect from parents.
3.  Runs away from commitment:  She begins with "I don't believe..." yet switches to "we" repeatedly.  This appears to be a very strong signal that they both need to share guilt and responsibility. 

Note that the question was directed directly to her, but she avoided a direct answer with "parents":  this means the question is very sensitive to her. 

Why would the question of not finding rest until she wraps her arms around her child be sensitive to the mother of a missing child?
Gerry McCann: Mmmm

Interviewer: You’ll keep looking forever

Kate McCann: We will

This is a strong indicator that Kate McCann knows that there will not be an end to the search: confident that she will "forever" (Interviewer's words) be looking.  

It is similar to OJ Simpson saying he would "never stop" looking for the "real" killer of his ex wife.  

Instead of searching until she is found, she affirms that "we" will keep looking forever, without end. 

This interview was much better than the others I have seen and has convinced me that the McCanns have guilty knowledge on what happened to Madeleine on the night they reported her missing. 

Perhaps the "accident" that they refer to is their use of medication to put Madeleine to sleep while they were on vacation, of which they then discovered that they had unintentionally overdosed her. 


Pak31 said...

What I found odd is when KM was discussing the moment she found her daughter missing she said that the bedroom door was open much wider than how we had left it. BUT, her husband checked on the children before she did so he could have left it that way. Just because they left the door at a certain point, GM was there before KM. So I don't understand how the door position was so shocking. Does anyone else agree with my thinking?

Pak31 said...

Disregard my previous post. I guess I read it wrong. I thought she was surprised about the door being open wider but she was setting up the scenerio about the door slamming.

Pak31 said...

One last comment then I'll be done. I find it odd that KM went to the hotel room to check on the children but she chooses, or explains, that she saw the bedroom door was open wider than they left it so she went to close it. After it slammed it was THEN that she decided to check the children. Does that make sense? If you are going to check on them then you enter the suite, you go straight to the bedroom, check on them and THEN close the door. So was she going to go the the room and not look in on them first thing? Why did they even have to have the bedroom door semi closed if no one was even there? I still for the life of me can't understand how you can leave your children in a country you are not familiar with, alone in an unlocked hotel room. I never understood that from day one.

Ivy said...

Things that stand out to me: went "through to the bedroom", "that she fell and die...", the suggestion that Madeline could not have died in their presence bc why would they report that -- well if it was not completely accidental or if there was something to hide (lights and doors figure in this statement), the need to say this was the only time Madeline had been left unattended and the acceptance by Gerry that maybe they would have something to hide if she did die while unattended -- we have to take his word for that -- she disappeared while supposedly unattended and she's nowhere to be found and they have acted like there's something to hide not answering all questions etc. There some playing dumb here and things he assumes we must all take for granted in his explanations for why Madeline cannot have died in the apartment and her body hidden. In addition to the "actually" there is Kate saying she decided to look in on them whic indicates that their checks wre more listening checks and I think that was generally true as I recall. Their stating that they actually looked is to show Madeline was really there. I havent been able to study the timeline very closely so I'm not clear on when she was last seen by someone other than Kate or Jerry. A little before six maybe? Also this emphasis on what she said that morning and the details of the curtain, door, etc. It reads very much like -- it's someone else! It's someone else! -- as opposed to here's what happened when our daughter went missing. Also maybe this is edited but a glaring omission from the "it's someone else" narrative is that one of their friends supposedly saw a man carrying a toddler that looked like Madeline between when Kerry and Kate checked. Iran I think if I knew that was true I would not omit it -- someone saw home taking her! I think some people don't believe the fried really saw anything. All opinion of course. From phone please excuse typos and incoherence

Jazzie said...

I think the original Police statements with McCanns were done through a translator. I don't know if this site will help you:

scroll down to
Gerald McCann (3 statements)
Kate Marie Healy McCann (3 statements)

Skeptical said...

I am confused about the car. Did the McCanns rent a car when they made the vacation trip to Portugal or did they rent the car on the second trip when they met with the Portuguese police. From what Gerry McCann said, it seems the "ludicrous supposition" was that they hid Madeline's body after she died while they were on vacation and then moved it some place else when they returned the second time.

Tania Cadogan said...

Do the McCanns have guilty knowledge of what happened to Madeleine?
We have not covered the McCann case in detail because I had hoped the original police interview transcripts would be released which would likely give us the information we seek, through the lens of Statement Analysis: the truth.

Peter all the police interviews not only with the mccanns but also the taps 7 and various witnesses have been released ( when the mccanns requested their release i don't think they expected them to made available to the public as well). Also these aren't the whole list of police files, i think 17,000 files were released out of 80,00 and change, so there is probably information we could use that have been kept sealed ( the mccanns got pissed because how can they explain away evidence if they don't know what the PJ have on them)
It is also interesting to note Madeleine was made a ward of court not long after she vanished which then begs the question, since she is now a ward of court ie the parents have signed over control and responsibility to the courts
how can they then make demands concerning Madeleine when they are no longer responsible for her?

Tania Cadogan said...

Gerry McCann: We thought that was the best thing erm, and it seemed to work absolutely fine and we didn’t have any problems right until the Thursday morning when Madeleine said “why didn’t you come when we cried last night?” We thought that’s odd

I got banned from many forums for pointing out the obvious to this statement.
Kate said in another interview was it when they were being bathed or put to bed?

I asked the following:

If the children Maddie and Sean cried when they were being bathed... Who was bathing them?
If it had been kate or gerry then the question would never have arisen since the parents would have been thee when they cried.

If kate and/or gerry had been in the apartment they would have heard the children crying and, i assume like normal parents (stop snickering at the back) would have gone to check why they were crying and to comfort and reassure them.

If kate and gerry had not been in the same apartment 5A as the children, where were they?, what were they doing? and why were they letting someone else bathe their children? they would not have heard the crying and the question would apply.

If kate and gerry were as they claimed in their apartment 5a and they didn't hear the children crying, where then were the children? In whose apartment were they and who was bathing them? Kate and gerry would not have heard them crying.
If they had been next door then it is likely they would have the crying and again gone to check like you and i would.

This implies the children were in a more distant apartment, whose else was in the apartment asult wise and also child wise?
it has been suggested all the children were in one apartment with an adult babysitting ( this has come about snce every night it is alleged at least one adult was away from the table with illness. Also one of the other non mccann children was sick with a tummy bug, yet the parents who were drs still felt it was ok to leave her alone. No dr i know would leave a sick child home alone)

This then leaves them in a quandry, if the children were being babysat, then the alleged abduction could never have happened and thye would be facing charges of filing a false police report, concealment of a corpse and possible manslaughter or homicide charges as well as losing their licences.
The other option is claim abduction, the children were home alone whilst the parents were nearby and checks were being doing every half hour or so and hope charges of child neglect resulting in harm can be avoided and thus they also keep their licences.

As we know the PJ didn't get them for neglect on the basis of if they had they couldn't then later charges the parents with homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.

The mccanns were willing to risk neglect charges if they could avoid homicide charges, this i why they went into overdrive publicity wise regarding the distance It was like dining at the bottom of your garden), the frequency of checks and the ever popular everyone does it, thousands have told us, we have been advised we were responsible parents.
If they shouted down the neglect accusations long enough it would run out of time for charges and deflect attention from the discrepencies.

Tania Cadogan said...

Kate McCann: Well as soon as ermm I’d discovered that Madeleine had been taken just hit me straight away what she said that morning and I just thought, my God, someone tried the night before.

This doesn't make any kind of logical sense.

If we accept what she says then why would someone have tried the night before and not succeeded?
It has been suggested the 'abductor' had a trial run. Why would an abductor break into the apartment find the children and not take the selected child there and then? what could or would have stopped a succesful abduction?
It can't have been he was interrupted bu someone checking since according to gerry, he looked in on them on his check, thought how lucky he was ( perfect emotion in the perfect spot) went to the bathroom and then left, stopping to chat with Jez Wilkins in the street.
He makes no mention of open shutters, curtains or windows, tanner says she saw a man carrying a child cross the top of the street and gerry and Wilkins were talking. the implication being that the abductor was in fact hiding in the apartment when gerry did his check (something he has also suggested)
Goncalo Amaral (ex lead detective) has pointed out there was nowhere in the bedroom for the abductor to have hidden, as implied by gerry.

Also, if Madeleine had been the victim of an attempted abduction the night before, then surely she would have made mention about the strange man coming into her bedroom or even any man. As kate has told us she dropped the subject and carried on playing.

Eliza said...

I agree wih Pak31 about the door, I also noticed that.

Also, how did Kate just know that Madeleine and not one of her other 2 children was taken? It seems artificial, too.

Tania Cadogan said...

Skeptical said...
I am confused about the car. Did the McCanns rent a car when they made the vacation trip to Portugal or did they rent the car on the second trip when they met with the Portuguese police. From what Gerry McCann said, it seems the "ludicrous supposition" was that they hid Madeline's body after she died while they were on vacation and then moved it some place else when they returned the second time.

They hired the car after Madeleine went missing since they had to go to the airport a lot to collect sundry friends and relatives who came over to help and also so they could hand out posters etc in surrounding towns (Huelva when it was closed for a public holiday, they also had several hours unaccounted for on that trip)

The resort of PDL is small and everything was within walking distance so there was no need for a car on their trip

Indeoendant witnesses noted that the car trunk was left open every night to air, jon connor said the car did smell but the mccanns blamed the smell on rotten meat, dirty diapers and such (no pizza then?) they claimed they had to take their garbage to the dump ( no bins for the apartments then?
The dump is also sensitive since gerry posted on his blog about the freezer/ fridge breaking down in the apartment and him having to take it to the dump and get a new one. he mentioned talking to people at the dump. It was removed from his blog within minutes when he realised it would lead to awkward wuestions, which we asked anyway.
Why would he replace the item rather than call the apartment owner and have them repair it?

S + K Mum said...

Not only do the McCanns share the guilt with 'we' rather than 'I', they are also sharing it even futher by using 'your' (if your child was taken etc). To me it seems as though they are trying to make the public feel how they should be feeling - getting them to imagine how distraught a parent would be - they are tugging at emotions because they know the majority of parents could never do anything to harm their kids - thus the public will think they could not possibly have either - especially Doctors, oh no! It is only when they are angry that they say how THEY feel - the rest of the time they're trying to convince us how we feel - never a straight answer, EVER.

Lots of pauses from Gerry during interviews, lots of 'ermms' and changing what he started to say......

Skeptical said...


Thank you for the info on the car. The refrigerator is a troubling detail. Why would Gerry McCann get rid of it?

S + K Mum said...

You would think if their freezer broke down they would hardly care considering their daughter was missing - why would they care? You wouldn't dump it and replace it yourself in a rented apartment at home never mind a holiday let.
Share it on a blog about your missing daughter ?? Odd.

Lucy said...

Questions for posters not from the States:

1)We in the US are quite protective of our children by global standards. Is it normal elsewhere to leave toddlers alone without adult supervision? Checks every half hour? What is that check going to prevent if the child falls, chokes, becomes ill, or wanders off five minutes after you last checked? What if there is a hotel fire, and you are blocked from entering the building to retrieve the children? Is this a common vacation practice, when the parents are educated and financially able to bring a nanny along or hire one locally?

2)What is the reason for declaring the missing child a ward of the state? Why would the parents give up custody of their child if they believed her alive?

Tania Cadogan said...

Skeptical said...

Thank you for the info on the car. The refrigerator is a troubling detail. Why would Gerry McCann get rid of it?

A good question. It was noted in his blog before it was whoosh cluced away.
Many people after this decided to do screen shots of each new entry and a couple did a blog which consisted solely of gerrys posts each day.
It makes for interesting reading since it shows their concerns were more about them travelling the world, meetings celebs, picking up the rellies from the airport and general controlling of the media and publicit, very little shows any real concern about Madeleine
Since known has definitve prrof the post was made about the freezer, it has dropped off the radar.
It has been suggested by Goncalo Amaral that Madeleine may have been stored somewhere cold such as a freezer due to the nature of the fluids found in the hire car.
If this is the case the freezer had to vanish since it would contain incriminating evidence and i doubt even they would store food in it along with Madeleine.
Blood in the apartment could be explained away as nose bleeds or scrapes from when she felt up the airplane steps, human blood in the freezer would be a lot harder as well as any hairs or tissue from Madeleine.
They may not have been aware how good cadaver dogs were not that she would leak in the car when they moved her, and how do you explain away a cadaver dog reacting to the freezer?

As is well known, killers often return to the scene of crime, eithe to gloat, to relive the crime, to abuse the corpse or most likely to check the body hasn't been disturbed by the elements or animals predation.
I often asked why, instead of physically searching along with the PJ and locals etc they went jogging. The did the same route which ivolved going up a hill, i wondered aloud if they were jogging past where she was to check. How better to conceal their intent than by doing it openly and daily.
The same with the church.
They had the keys and could come and go when they wanted. it would be cool and they had privacy (is this why the priest had a breakdown and felt used? They confessed to him and he has to keep the sanctity of the confessional?)
It was also reported that a bad smell hung around the church.
Perhaps Madeleine had to be moved because she was close to being found or the smell was getting so bad it could not be explained away.
This though makes me ask why move her?
If she had been found her death could have been blamed on the abductor.
Perhaps it was because they couldn't afford to have her autopsied,that something would be found that couldn't be blamed on an abductor such as traces of sedatives in her hair, old injuries or scars. there would be something found that pointed the finger right back at kate and gerry or maybe one of the tapas 7 (david payne perhaps and his innapropriate talk about and actions about Madeleine and his prediliction for bathing everyones children)
Madeleine was moved for a reason, what it was we may never know, her pink blanket that was photographed on her bed mysteriously vanished.

Tania Cadogan said...

Lucy said...
Questions for posters not from the States:

1)We in the US are quite protective of our children by global standards. Is it normal elsewhere to leave toddlers alone without adult supervision? Checks every half hour? What is that check going to prevent if the child falls, chokes, becomes ill, or wanders off five minutes after you last checked? What if there is a hotel fire, and you are blocked from entering the building to retrieve the children? Is this a common vacation practice, when the parents are educated and financially able to bring a nanny along or hire one locally?

2)What is the reason for declaring the missing child a ward of the state? Why would the parents give up custody of their child if they believed her alive?

Hi Lucy.
Despite what the mccanns claim about everyone leaving their kids whilst on holiday so they can have dinner it is not common at all simply because of all the dangers children can run into.
It is also illegal in the UK and parents have been prosecuted for leaving kids at home whilst they went to the shops, dropped kids off at school or even gone on holiday abroad. parents in the UK will make use of creches and kid's clubs when available especially in the eevening or hire a babysitter ( the mccanns were offered a free babysitter after complaints of them leaving the children home alone, they turned it down. A babysitter was 10 euros a night and were the sae people as worked in the creche which puts paid to the mccanns claim about not leaving their children with strangers and instead doing listening checks. Holiday camps such as butlins and also certain resorts ran a listening service where staff would walk t round the site listening for crying kids, if they heard anything, the parents would be contacted. There wasn't this option at the ocean club since many of the apartments were outside the actual club and the apartments were privately owned rather than owned by Mark Warner. The all claimed they didn't know this until after they arrived although it did say in their booklets this wasn't available ( it was in certain other clubs)
Also those who work in the medical services such as drs and nurses tend to be hyper vigilant when it comes to child safety. They know all too well what accidents can happen to a child from falling over, sticking fingers into sockets, eating or drinking something toxic, getting into knife drawers and so on, eapecially since at least one child there had a tummy bug. Drs would not even consider leaving their children especially toddlers home alone whilst they ate 120 yds away or on one night the mccanns had to be called back from over 500 metres away because of the crying.
They even said they left the patio doors open so if Madeleine woke or thee was a fire she could find them or they could escape!!. gerry compared their eating in a bar 129 yds away with no clear view of the back and none of the front as the same as eating at the bottom of your garden.
Normal parents got very vocal about them leaving the chiuldren at night, the mccanns response was to say they had been told they were within the bounds of responsible parenting and everyone does it. We never found out who told them this.

Tania Cadogan said...

It is believed Madeleine was made a ward of court so they could get access to the files the PJ had on them.
As it ended up the mccanns only got 17,000 of the files released ( supposedly so they and their PI's could examine them for new leads) out of more than 80,000. They went to court and lost, the files they got released were pretty much all thy and their attornies etc had previously provided. They desperately want to know what the PJ have on them so they can come up with plausible explanations or contact witness, and the PJ and courts said go away.

In the PJ interviews it was said that the mccanns had considered putting her up for adoption though no reason was given as to why. Kate refused to answer this when she was asked in her interview, it was one of 48 questions she refused to answer.

I don't know if they made her a ward of court willingly or they were made to because of the fact they left their children alone every night.
Social services became involved because of the neglect and the fact Madeleine went missing.
In reports it was painted that the mccanns invited social services in rather than social services being involved because of neglect.
We don't know if social services were involved prior to the vacation.
We do know a protection order was made which is why the faces of the siblings were thereafter pixellated whereas previously they hadn't been.
Children under a protection order cannot be publicly identified in photos.

I do not know if social services are still involved with the mccanns and if so what their involvement is.
Since the marriage was in trouble before Madeleine vanished ( according to family it was a make or break trip) and those interesting bruises on kates arms it was also suggested domestic violence was involved as well.
They may also have been called in because of the statements from the Drs gaspar regarding gerry and david payne making suggestive and inappropriate comments about Madeleine and what she would do ( they indicated rubbing their nipples with their fingers and sticking a finger in their mouth)
David payne was also recognised by a social worker who was ther though she couldn't recall what it was in relation to.
Neither gerry or david has made any comment or denial in relation to the claims of paedophilia either from the gaspars, Goncalo Anaral and his wife (she said straight out the mccanns had paedophile friends)
Being accused of being a paedophile is probably one of the worst things you can call a man and an innocent man would be denying i loudly and bluntly and probably suing those who made the claim ( Lord McAlpine is doing as much currently)
All we have heard from them about these allegations is deafening silence.

Since Madeleine is a ward of court, many people have wondered how the mccanns can make demands supposedly on her behalf (to benefit themselves) since it is the court which is responsible for all decisions relating to and concerning Madeleine.

It is also worth noting, when the PJ said they were shelving the case (since kate wouldn't answer those 48 questions and they wouldn't do a reconstruction) the mccanns had the option of demanding the case be kept reopened. They refused to make the request.
The case can and will be opened if there is any new or compelling evidence (not sightings or tips from psychics) It has been pointed out frequently that if kate answered the qiestions or they all did the reconstruction the PJ would open the case like a shot, i wouldn't even cost the mccanns anything except the cost of a stamp.
They won't however.
Instead, they ask the public for help, saying someone knows something, just 1 key bit of info could solve the case ( not like the 48 bits of info kate has)
They have even got rid of their PI's all of whom were useless since the met and scotland yard and doing a review.

Tania Cadogan said...

The problem the mccanns face is if they ask for the case to be reopened they would have to answer the 48 questions or do the reconstruction. As witnesses they are obliged to co-operate and tell the truth or face serious jail time. As arguidos (POI) they can lie, refuse to answer questions or co-operate. As soon as they refused to answer a question or the PJ thought they had lied, for their own protection the PJ would reinstate their arguido status , the mccanns or their attornies could alo make the request.
If this happened we would be back to square one. It would also not help them protest their innocence if they refuse to assist the investigation (the 1 question kate did answer when asked if she knew by not answering the questions she was hindering the investigation, her reply was yes, if that's what you think)
Their behavior from the get go has been that of guilt, they have done everything a guilty parent would do and nothing an innocent parent would do.

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic BBM

In a further crushing blow to the once Tour De France champion Lance Armstrong's name has been removed from the very cancer fighting charity he founded, dropping its name to the Livestrong Foundation.
The move is the latest of several by the charity to separate itself from its founder, who has been stripped of his seven Tour De France titles.

The U.S. Anti-doping agency revealed evidence of performance-enhancing drug use by Armstrong and his teammates.

Foundation spokeswoman Katherine McLane said on Wednesday that the name change was approved by the Texas Secretary of State on Oct. 30
Armstrong had previously stepped-down as chairman of the foundation and last week resigned from its board of directors.

Ms McLane said the charity's supporters recognize its already popular Livestrong brand, which the foundation has used for several years to raise money for cancer survivors programmes.
Leaving one mark of Armstrong unscrubbed from their website is his cancer success story, however, rallying his defeat of testicular cancer to his consequential creation of the foundation.

Adding a six-worded update to that story, they write:

'During his treatment, before his recovery, before he even knew his own fate, he created the Lance Armstrong Foundation (now known as the LIVESTRONG Foundation). This marked the beginning of Lance's life as an advocate for people living with cancer and a world representative for the cancer community.'

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Anonymous said...

OT: John McAfee, software cofounder, a susoect in a murder. Supposedly he is hiding from police. Here is an interview where he doesn't have strong denial:

John Mc Gowan said...

Kate McCann: The night seemed so long, every second was excruciating and it was dark and er, you just want there to be light and everybody searching and Madeleine found.

She says"Every second was excruciating and it was dark"

Kate has told us it was night time so why the envesis on telling us it was dark,thats a given isnt it?

I cant explane why this jumped out at me but it did.

Anonymous said...

Hey Hobs....thanks so much for all that info. You really are a wealth of info on this case and gave me some eye opening details that I never knew. You're an asset to the site. Good Job, Hobs! :)

Lis said...

I remember so well when this happened. The thought of losing a child while on vacation, not knowing what had happened to them... it was heartbreaking and horrifying, disturbing. I remember watching the McCanns on TV, meeting with a religious leader (was it the pope or some other person of high position in the Catholic church there?) and something about Kate McCann's posture and expression as she stood before this robed man struck me and has stuck in my mind ever since but I did not know why. I can picture her clearly at that moment, even now. I often thought of Maddie and wondered what had happened to her and prayed for her and her parents. And now to find out that the story is not what it seemed. How very disgusting.

Lis said...

I always become suspicious when someone is asked if they did something and they begin ticking off the reasons they could not have done it.

brosnanfan said...

This interview was in 2011, while Madeleine disappeared in 2007. They’ve had four years to think of more details to embellish their stories of that night.

“Kate McCann: Er it seems too much of a coincidence that she made that comment and then that happened that night.”

It does seem to be a coincidence; while coincidences do happen, in this case (factoring in all the other little details), it does “seem” to be “too much of a coincidence”.

“Kate McCann: Well as soon as ermm I’d discovered that Madeleine had been taken just hit me straight away what she said that morning and I just thought, my God, someone tried the night before.”

I would expect to hear her say, “As soon as I discovered Madeleine was not in her bed,” since at this point in the timeline she doesn’t know for sure Madeleine has been “taken”. When my children were toddlers and I checked on them only to find an empty bed, I automatically assumed they were still in the house, since they couldn’t get out and I knew nobody had gotten in. This sounds like an embellished detail, added to the story later.

Do we count the “my God” as a religious utterance or invoking the Deity, or is it just considered an expression?

“[…]after they’d done the usual kind of, toilet, teeth […]”

I could not be remembering properly, but doesn’t SA teach that if emphasizing actions like going to the bathroom and/or brushing teeth, when those actions would be assumed to happen even if left unsaid, they should be flagged as sensitive? Would this hold true if speaking of preparing someone else for bed, not oneself?

Also, the inclusion of “usual”. I would think this would point out the fact that this night was already not a “usual” night, even before the McCanns left for dinner.

Peter pointed out how Madeleine was “cuddly” that night, when it would seem that other nights she might be harder to get to go to bed and go to sleep:

[Peter] ‘The word "just" is comparison (see above). This indicates that when Madeleine was very tired, she often acted differently than she did on "that" night: on "that" night, she cuddled up. This indicates that on other nights when she was tired or overtired, she did not cuddle, but was likely difficult. In this description, she not only cuddled, but did so on mother's lap.

Since they are doctors, one should wonder what caused Madeleine to not act out but only to "just" cuddle and sit on her lap.’

I remember what it is like to have toddlers who don’t want to cooperate over bedtime. The McCanns had friends waiting for them; friends who might also be having bedtime struggles with their own children, but maybe the McCanns assumed they were already waiting at the table. Perhaps, to facilitate Madeleine going to sleep, Kate gave her something to help her relax and/or sleep.

But…here is something that had not occurred to me before. Maybe Kate gave Madeleine something, and got her relaxed and in bed, but she wasn’t sleeping yet. Kate leaves the room to go do whatever in another room. Gerry then comes in Madeleine’s bedroom, sees she is not asleep yet, and gives her more something to help her relax and/or sleep. Now…you have two doses that could combine to become an overdose, or two drugs that possibly adversely interacted with one another.

You could also reverse that; perhaps Gerry gave Madeleine something first, and put her to bed. She wasn’t asleep yet, so Kate comes in and gives her more, holds her on her lap and reads stories, and then puts Madeleine to bed. After all, Kate says that Madeleine was already “really tired” when Kate came in to do the nighttime routine of stories and snack and whatever.

Either way, perhaps Madeleine had too much of a relaxant or somnambulant, or she had two drugs that adversely interacted with one another.

(to be continued)

brosnanfan said...

One scenario: She could have immediately died or died within a few minutes, BEFORE the McCanns went to dinner. They panicked and put the body in her bed as if she were sleeping, then came up with a story. At seven-thirty, they went to dinner with their friends. At eight and eight-thirty, someone checked on the children (I think they just poked their heads around the corner, but I’m working from memory). At nine (we think), Gerry goes back to the apartment and does…something with the body. I’m not sure how long he was gone. At nine-thirty, someone else checks, but maybe they don’t check thoroughly. At ten, Kate goes to the apartment and “discovers” the body was “taken”.

Another scenario: Rewind back to the putting Madeleine to bed part. Maybe the medicine didn’t kill Madeleine right away; maybe it took a while. Maybe this is why the other parents didn’t raise any warning flags (again, I don’t remember what they did or how thoroughly they checked the kids). Maybe nothing seemed amiss until Gerry checked at nine. He got rid of the body; maybe he didn’t tell Kate and let her discover her daughter gone, then told her later.

“Gerry McCann: No. That’s an emphatic no. I mean the ludicrous thing is erm what, I suppose what’s been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. Well when did she have the accident and died, because, the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner so ...if she died then, how could we of disposed – hidden her body. You know, when there’s an immediate [inaudible but sounds like he was about to say ‘search’] it’s just nonsense. And if she died when we were in the apartment or fell and di...why would we ...why would we cover that up?”

There is a fragment of “[…]how could we of disposed—hidden her body.” Maybe he/they did dispose of her, but some bit of humanity in him can’t say “dispose”, like she was trash, so he changed it on the fly to “hidden”.

Yet another scenario: A fragment again: “And if she died when we were in the apartment or fell and di…why would we…why would we cover that up?” Maybe the overdose of medication caused a seizure, where she then convulsed and fell out of bed, hurting herself, perhaps a head injury; the combination of the two could have caused her accidental death. If a child is convulsing, they could be thrashing their neck and/or upper body forcefully, even possibly violently. Maybe that would involve banging their head on the floor. Maybe a combination of an overdose and convulsions caused her to fall out of bed and accidentally die; Gerry, being a medical professional, could probably quickly ascertain what happened upon the first few seconds of looking in the room.

[Can I just interject here: I hate when people either transpose or write “we of” or “could of” or “should of”. “We’ve”, “could’ve”, “should’ve”. Sheesh.]

“Kate McCann: The bedroom door where the three children were sleeping was open much further than we’d left it. Iwent to close it to about here, and then as I got to about here it suddenly ...slammed. And then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children. And literally as I went back in the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn, were closed was like a gust of wind kind of blew them open.”

If I were to view a really bad suspense movie, or read a super cheesy thriller novel, this would be the kind of situation I’d expect to see or read. The scene of the curtains suddenly being blown open by a gust of wind, revealing the empty bed and the missing child…straight out of Hollywood or a pulp fiction writer’s typewriter.

Have the movies the McCanns watched previous to this or the sort of books they liked to read ever been analyzed?

(to be continued again)

brosnanfan said...

“Gerry McCann: No. That’s an emphatic no. I mean the ludicrous thing is erm what, I suppose what’s been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. Well when did she have the accident and died, because, the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner so ...if she died then, how could we of disposed – hidden her body.”

He is assuming people will take for granted that Madeleine died while they were at supper. Maybe she died before they even left. (I gave my idea of that last part above.)

“Kate McCann: Although I don’t know where Madeleine is that is the last place that, you know, I saw her, held her, and I guess there’s a part of me that still feels connected to her there so.”

The last place Kate saw her, held her…but was Madeleine alive when she was being seen and held? Kate didn’t say so, so we can’t say it for her, right?

I am not all that skilled at SA, but I am trying to learn. These are my first impressions based on what I read.

(okay, done now)

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
“Gerry McCann: No. That’s an emphatic no. I mean the ludicrous thing is …that the Priest keeps silent.

Anonymous said...


You make many, many fabulous points here however, I find your argument for using 'just', while valid in the car example you give, to be a poor example over all. It by far is not a term even nearly always used comparatively. It has eased its way into casual speech without regard for its proper usage. Statement analysis, in this rube form, is not accounting for its often colloquial usage.

I do not mean to say you are wrong or that I am right in this given situation, there is not enough determinate information to make a clear judgement.

Blaze said...

I followed this case for so long..I'm so glad you're looking at their statements Peter! This is very interesting. Gerry use to have a diary online..not sure if it's still around but I would love to see what that might reveal under analysis.The only problem with the diary is that I think Gerry use to go back and edit his postings days later..

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Lis said...
I always become suspicious when someone is asked if they did something and they begin ticking off the reasons they could not have done it.
November 16, 2012 1:50 AM >>

Great point.

Always note that which is in the negative as it is very important.


Tania Cadogan said...

Hi Blaze

Here you go

Gerry's Blogs.

It makes for interesting reading since most of the time it is all about him and kate, the twins and occasionally even Madeleine.
It reveals what a narcissist he is.

It is also of note that the blood and cadaver dogs reacted behind the doaf ( the curtains were still damp from being laundered) and also in the parents wardrobe. There is also much questioning by the public as to what happened to the pink blanket that was photographed and went missing and also the blue holdall which clarence mitchell said never existed but had also been photographed.

Ivy said...


I appreciate your passion for this case. I am glad to see you being up the freezer. I had read about it somewhere, but couldn't find anything on it when I searched. So it is good to know it was supposed to be a post from Gerry. If it is true, it is very suspicious to me, both the disposing and replacing of it and the need to announce it to the world -- nothing suspicious here, since idint have much going on at the momemt, I just want everyone to know I'm taking the freezer in my rental apartment to the dump and replacing it because it's not working, wouldn't announce it if it was suspicious would I. I just wonder if it's true , I know rumors take a life of their own around these cases. The cadaver and blood dog alerts -- in the apartment including the closet, the car, cusdlecat and Kate's clothes and their reactions to it (looking for US expert to discredit cadaver dogs, kate explaining she had been exposed to SO many dead bodies as part of her work as a doctor in the previous weeks (!)-- I mean she's not a pathologist -- not oh my god Maddy was killed in our ROOM?????) along with their unwillingness to answer questions (or polygraph) are the strongest evidence to me. As another poster pointed out the illogical explanations for why she could have died in the apartment also stand out. Peter had posted part of a diary at one point. Reading it, it was unclear to me when it had been written -- didn't read like a contemporaneous account, but there was interesting stuff in there. It was long, but maybe Peter would revisit?

Tania Cadogan said...

Dr Kate McCann, in her book ‘madeleine’, in regard to the cadaver dog alerting.

On pages 249-250 of ‘madeleine’, for example, she writes:

“At one point [during the screening of a video of the cadaver dog Eddie alerting to the scent of a corpse in the living room of the McCanns’ apartment] the handler [Martin Grime] directed the dogs to a spot behind the conch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site.

“The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science”. Dr Kate McCann is clearly querying Mr Grimes’ expertise.

Is this the behavior of an innocent mother?

Expected behavior in such a case would be OMG was Madeleine there dead when we did our checks?
What we thought was Madeleine asleep in bed wasn't her?
Did the abductor drug and abuse her and place her behind the sofa before taking her out and she was dead?
Is my daughter dead? Check again, take samples, removes tiles do everything again, prove to me she isn't alive, i won't accept she id dead till i see her body.

Unexpected behavior, ie from guilty people on the other hand go damn the dogs reacted, how the hell did they know she was there? what about everything else her body touched? clothes etc?
Still there is no body so they can't prove anything.
This is all junk science, cadaver dogs don't work, ignore all the evidence proving how effective dogs are at search and rescue, sniffing out drugs, explosives etc.
Call the lawyers.
There is no body, no evidence she has come to serious harm, they can't prove anything.
The dogs are useless, they got it wrong.

Innocent people are terrified when a cadaver dog reacts.
Their loved was murdered by another, they hope it is a mistake and their loved one could still be alive.
They demand it be redone because they hope it is a false positive, for it to be positive means their last flicker of hope their loved one is still alive is extinguished. They don't relax, far from it.

Guilty people are terrified when a cadaver dog reacts.
They know the game is up, the truth is out.
They concentrate on thinking up a plausuble reason such as a false positive, illegal search and cease co-operating. their concern is not for their missing loved one , rather, it is how they can explain away the results

Innocent people see it as real science, guilty people as junk science.

Tania Cadogan said...

It is interesting and unexpected behavior from the mccann's in relation to the dogs alerting.

Why you may ask?

Let us, for the moment, assume they are innocent and have in fact told the truth about Madeleine being abducted.

Right, the parents are told dogs are being brought in to help the search, the parents are excited since the dogs could provide an indication as to how she left/where she went.

The parents are told that these are not live scent dogs due to the length of time rather they are blood and cadaver dogs, brought in purely to discount any physical harm befalling Madeleine before her removal and to validate they are looking for a live child who was abducted from the apartment.

Also this will help exclude the parents from the circle of suspects since in most cases of child abduction from a house it is a family member or someone known to the family who committed the crime.

The blood and cadaver dogs, if they don't react, will support the abduction claim and effectively clear the parents of suspicion since the child didn't die in the apartment and no blood was spilled which is the usual cause for a missing child.

The parents being innocent will welcome the dogs with open arms since everyone knows dogs have amazing scent skills and are used the world over in search and rescue as well as detecting drugs, explosives, pirated dvd's, cash and fruit and veg.

No reaction means there is a chance Madeleine could still be alive. bring them on.

OH NO! the dogs have reacted!!.

Innocent parents in such a scenario will be hysterical with fear.

Blood has been indicated does this meanmadeleine was hurt by the abductor, she was injured in some way before she was removed and even now could be in pain. There concern is the wellbeing of Madeleine.

The cadaver dog now reacts as well.

This is even worse. Has someone ever died in this apartment since the day it was built that could cause a dog to react?

If the answer is no, they are faced with the thought that Madeleine is dead (which would also fit in with the statistics)

At this point innocent parents would come clean if their checks weren't as frequent as claimed, as it takes a min 90 mins for sufficient cadaverine to be produced for a dog to check.

They would then be asking who would remove a dead child rather than leave them in situ and more importantly who had access to the children and what checks were actually done.

Oldfield would in fact be the prime suspect and they would be demanding he be questioned further as he checked the children.

This is the expected behavior of innocent parents.


Let us, assume for the moment, the parents are in fact guilty, if not directly of her death but of her disposal and subsequent cover up.

They have in fact, been deceptive.

Right, the parents have been told dogs are being brought in to help with the search.

They are told these aren't live search dogs due to the length of time rather blood and cadaver dogs so if they don't react the PJ know there is a possibility Madeleine is still alive as she was when she was removed from the apartment

The parents are worried.

They know dogs are highly trained and have amazing scent skills.

They are fully aware of dogs being used in search and rescue as well as detecting explosives, drugs, pirated dvd's cash and even fruit and veg (you gottas love australian border control)

Also being doctors they are aware of the process of decomposition and how many mins are needed before enough cadaverine is produced to be detected by a dog.

They can't refuse to let the dogs in as that would immediately raise suspicion what to do?

They have to hope they cleaned up enough so the dogs wouldn't react.

Oh No!! the dogs have reacted in the apartment!!

Guilty parents are struck with fear.

They ask if there is a chance anyone has ever died in the apartment since it was built, if so they can blame the other corpse and breathe a sigh of relief since the dog cannot identify a specific corpse.

Damn, no one has ever died in the apartment, now what?

Tania Cadogan said...

Guilty parents now have to think of a reason as to why the dogs reacted.

Well she grazed her knee on the airplane steps and everyone knows kids are always picking their noses so that could explain the blood.

The cadaverine is a whole different ball game.

Gerry would rarely come across a dead body in his line of work which leaves kate as a part time locum gp to come up with a plausible excuse.

I know, let's say she had to sign off several dead bodies before our vacation and everyone knows cadaverine tends to hang around long after the body is gone ( this is why furniture. clothing etc that has come into contact with a dead body over 90 mins since death have that aroma)

It would also explain why the dog reacted to the pants, the t shirt and also cuddlecat, cross contamination.
However if this was the case how come only some of the clothing was affected and not everything that had been packed?

The car is harder to explain away so maybe someone came into contact with a body and then hired the car, sea bass has a small similar to cadaverine , sweaty sandals and dirty diapers might cause a response from the dog.

Instead of the expected behavior of the dogs must be right oh woe, oh waily woe, instead we see them demeanng and denigrating the skill of the dogs.

Rather than the expected affirmation of the skill of the dogs they actively searched for a case where the dogs had been shown to be wrong, hence the eugene zapata case was introduced.

The dogs reacted, no body was found therefore the dogs were wrong therefore by default these dogs are also wrong.

However, eugene zapata 30 years later confessed to killing his wife and the dogs had in fact been correct.

Cue deafening silence from the mccanns.

Innocent parents would be concerned for the wellbeing of their daughter as indicated from the reaction of the dogs.

Guilty parents are concerned for their own wellbeing, their reputation since it seems their daughter died in the apartment and was subsequently removed.

Since her parents were doctors as were several others in the group and the normal response if she were hurt would be to treat her and call 911 for help, the question arises as to why they didn't in fact call 911.

The obvious conclusion is they didn't call 911 because she was long dead by accident and questions would be asked resulting in neglect charges, jail time and loss oftheir licences to practice.

The other option is her death was non accidental and again charges would be filed after questions were asked, jail time would ensue and loss of their licence to practice.

The only way to protect themselves, keep their children and their medical licences is to file a false police report and swear everyone to silence. Call in favors and if all else fails threaten to sue anyone who disagees. say nothing, don't co-operate and hope for the best,.

If they needed ideas on what to say and do they could google child abductions such as Jonbenet Ramsey and use that as a template.
Heck the police and missing children groups even provided them with books which aren't available to anyone outside those organaisations on procedures etc in missing child cases.
How helpful of them to give the suspects bokks on how the investigation would proceed.

Tania Cadogan said...

Innocent prents will always act a certain way, an expected way.

Guilty parents will always act a certain way, an unexpected way.

It is claimed there in no book on how to act when a child goes missing.

Maybe not, there is however, decades of experience in missing persons cases, enough that LE know what to look for in innocent parents/family members and anything that differs from the expected is a red flag and thus needs to be further investigated.

Kate said she would take a polygraph.

Media took her up on the offer whereupon we saw rapid backtracking.

She claimed it would not be admissible in a court of law ( it isn't in the states either but it gives LE a direction to look in if the subject passes or fails)
It is not 100% infallible, granted it isn't however, if she gets a score of 80% or higher it pretty much clears her of involvement, even an inconclusive could be redone and the correct questions asked did you cause her death, do you know where she is, do you know who killed her and so on, any claim about nerves, not fit emotionally is taken into account as the questions are asked before hand so there are no surprises and her baseline is set.

Innocent people have no reason to fear a polygraph, they know they won't fail because they didn't do it.

Guilty people fear a polygraph they know they did the crime and know the polygraph will reveal it.

She backed away from the polygraph citing excuses because she knew she would fail and that leads to accusations, charges and jail.

Statement analysis has a far higher success rate than any polygraph, the principals stay the same regardless, we let the subject tell us what happened and thus we can discern the truth or the lie.

They may refuse to co-operate with police and anser those 48 questions, they have however given analysts plenty to work with and the truth will out.

By the way kate, writing a book was a seriously bad idea as it ties you into a specific story and order of events all of which can be compared to the rogs and all those interviews, for that i thank you.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Those of you who feel that I have failed to cover the McCann case have Hobnobs to thank.

She has been a passionate voice for justice for Madeline McCann and has been very patient with me (for a long time) until I finally got around to doing detailed work on this case.

Over the years, I have been frustrated with the softball interviewing of the McCanns of which not a lot of substance has emerged. It was this interview that caught my interest and even has brought me to the place where I think I know what may have happened to Madeleine, which I will share as I do more analysis.

Next up will be transcripts to police interviews.

Thanks to Hobnob, not simply for her perseverance, but for her patience as well. The early interview that I did do was not enough for me to draw anything close to a conclusion. Lots of red flags, but too much talking by the Interviewer, and not enough from the McCanns. Red flags? yes. Conclusion? I like to be certain.

I am now certain.

As I covered other cases, Hobs has posted her thoughts regularly, in a polite, almost "agree to disagree" flavor, which speaks to her character and depth.

We all owe her a debt of gratitude in this case, far more than even Charlie Rogers, of whom she first pointed out to me that she was deceptive.

If memory serves correctly, Hobnobs also first sent me the interview from Baby Lisa...

so, her contributions go beyond the pithy and timely comments here.

My thanks, as well as from Heather, for Hobnob's endless contributions to this blog.

Peter Hyatt

Tania Cadogan said...

Aww shucks, now you got me blushing.

Thanks Peter and Heather for your compliments, your patience and your support in teaching me SA.

hugs you all tight xx

S + K Mum said...

I live in Britain and can say that I do not know of anyone who would leave their children alone. It will happen, as I'm sure it happens in the US and other countries but it is not an accepted behaviour and it is illegal. I can't understand why the McCanns and their friends would do so.
Personally I think they were pretty confident that the children would not get up during the night and wander off....... Which has just made another question pop into my head - if the children were sedated, what would happen if the older ones needed the bathroom? I wonder if the older children wore night-time nappies (diapers) to sleep in?
Someone mentioned about Kate meeting the Pope, I thought she was smirking or trying very hard to hide a smirk or a smile...'you can't touch us now!'?? Who arranged that meeting for them, does anyone know?

Anonymous said...

thanks for posting this...

a lot of people who followed this from the start know that the parents are guilty.
they have been caught out so many times with their sheer bravado during interviews.
Their choice of language (see also GM's blogs at the time) & their body language was always jarring.

In fact, 3 months after the disappearance, GM gave an interview to the Australian Telegraph where he said they would be planning an Anniversary concert to raise awareness!

The parents admitted that they didn't search on the evening their daughter went missing but stayed in their apartment waiting for news.

KM washed CuddleCat because it had suncream on it. A mum would never wash her daughter's smell away. It was used as a sympathy prop.

They were out dining on various evening before the 3rd as reported by a neighbour.

None of the timelines added up & they hastily scribbled out a joint timeline for the 7 friends on a page torn from the daughter's sketch book.

Then there is the cadaver dogs alerting to places in the flat, the hire car & KM's clothes.

too many indicators point towards the parents

Anonymous said...

I have not read all the comments, but would like to say that in the statements in the PJ files, they say Madeleine was extremly tiered that day ( or maybe it was the day before), had to pick her up early from the club that day.. Sounds like she was sick in some way.. Maybe it is something in her beewk about it aswell.. They never talked much about that really. When first reading it I tought she could have banged her head and then started to get worse during the day,
There are also some interesting information in the creche sheets, eks Kate who never called her self Kate Mccann before the day Madeleine dissapered, has signed the creche sheets with Kate Mccann.. Why not Healy if thats the name she always used? Alos one day Madeleine is picked up again from the club only 15 minutes after she was delivered there..

There are so many things not adding up in this case.

GReat analyses by the way :)

Anonymous said...

And to add: it was Kate herself that made a big deal in the media and other interviews about the fact that she never ever had called herself Kate Mccann before this happened..Only Kate Healy..

Blaze said...

Hobnob said...

Hi Blaze

Here you go

Gerry's Blogs.


Thank you Hobnob!

Anonymous said...

Firstly this WAS NOT a hotel room. Neither was within the holiday complex, but a sub-let ground floor holiday apartment.
Whatever you know or think, the forensic photos show the curtains of the apartment OPEN and NEATLY placed behind the bed (left) and a chair (right). So there was never any whooshing of curtains. Unless in the parents anxiety they chose to tidy the room up, prior to the photos being taken! The story of woe is about doors,windows & locks. But meanwhile, according to the eye-witness JT member of the group, the alleged abductor carried off Madeleine in front of her father whilst he stood chatting in the room. Interestingly the next checker FAILED to observe the child was missing. REALLY.

Anonymous said...

opppps sorry I meant ROAD
As in road outside the apartment, although no one JT, JW or Mr McCann can actually account for where they were standing

Anonymous said...

As a point of interest to the writer of this blog. It is MHO that children, particularly as young as the McCann children, in particular Madeleine have NO concept of time, i.e. yesterday, last night, tomorrow etc. Therefore, Madeleine's comment of crying refers to the statement which is documented of Mrs Finn, that the child\children cried for about an l.15 hrs on the TUESDAY evening, therefore what Madeleine refers to would be the Tuesday. Why do the McCanns with FULL INFORMATION from the PJ files persist in claiming that Madeleine's comment refers to the previous (Wednesday) evening. Even they must have doubts about the crying episodes, yet still persist in claiming \ quoting Madeliene's words. Either way, whatever they believe, they had the information of Madeliene's troubled mind, but still chose to leave her\them. Then weave her words into a scenario. Or did the children simply cry every night they were left (i.e. four)

Anonymous said...

No, rest assured it's not normal practice to leave children home alone and it is illegal to do so. They were suggesting it's normal practice to abandon your child/ren so people would believe that the McCann's believe this is an acceptable practice. It doesn't work because doctors of all people would never advocate such irresponsibility.

Regarding ward of court, this means the only people who can declare the Ward to be deceased is the courts, ie, not the police. That being the case, murder/homicide/ manslaughter can't be tried. That's my (rather sketchy) understanding of what it might entail so please don't take it as gospel, rather a theory. Hopefully someone who knows better will reply with more conviction and better understanding. Sorry for any confusion, English isn't my first language.

Anonymous said...

One theory is that Madeleine was so drugged up and woozy that she fell in the living area which is tiled. Forensics found blood that had seeped under the tiles and noted the tiles had been cleaned, as had everything else, even down to curtains being washed. The sofa was moved to cover the area of tiles affected which was beneath the window. This might be relevant as she could have tried climbing to look through the window to see if she could see where her parents were as obviously not in the apartment. The reason why this wouldn't have been reported is because of the alleged sedation.

Gerry: If Madeleine fell and died in an accident how would that be our fault? He only gives half the story because if he'd said: "If Madeleine fell and died due to being sedated" then it would be clear whose fault it was as something had happened to Madeleine that was beyond an accident and could feasibly have caused the accident. That would also render the word "accident" incorrect.

S + K Mum said...

The creepiest thing about Gerry's blog is the lack of urgency and panic about his daughter. Keep her profile high, keep her picture out about find her, save her, rescue her?

about the blue bag and the pink blanket .... photographic evidence, ta da! Do you know if any interviewer asked the McCanns about those photos and if so how did they respond? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

There is another detail that doesnt make sense to me... KM got to her apartment to find out her daughter was missing, she states that she knew staright away that Madeleine had been taken, still she leaves her two other kids alone in the room again while she goes back to the pool to tell her husband what had happened...

Anonymous said...

Excellent items from you, man. I have take
into account your stuff prior to and you are just extremely fantastic.
I really like what you have bought right here, certainly like
what you're saying and the way in which you say it. You're making it entertaining and you still take
care of to stay it wise. I can't wait to read far more from you. This is actually a great website.

Here is my web site - pdf documents

Anonymous said...

I think this is one of the most significant info for me.

And i'm glad reading your article. But should remark on few general things, The website style is wonderful, the articles is really great : D. Good job, cheers

My website ... sex toys in india

Anonymous said...

I know we keep hearing about how people grieve differently, but I never once saw those parents shed a single tear. They are way too calm, cool, and collected. I predict that one day, one of their friends who was at the dinner that night will start to feel haunted and will have some information vital to this case. I do not think they deliberately killed their daughter, but I feel strongly that they gave her something to get her to sleep while they went to their dinner, but accidentally gave her too much. Now they need to cover it up. I hope and pray that the truth will come out someday.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

This is a very impressive analysis and has served to change my opinion on what happened.

Anonymous said...

What is more strange is the motive. I speculate that the child was drugged either to keep her quiet so they could go to dinner or for other, (worse) reasons. The child reacted badly to the drug and/or had an accident. The parents panicked because they thought they would be accused of child abuse which could mean their careers down the drain plus their children would be taken away from them.

What is extraordinary is the level of media attention they have got. The amount of public money they have raised and how much support they have had in high places.

You have to hand it to them - they have put on an Oscar-winning performance. But you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Why have they received so much protection from high places? Is it because they are doctors? Are there links with Leicestershire police? Is it to do with being Freemasons? The whole sad saga has turned into a media circus. The family have got their hands on a huge fund. It is all a charade to put people off the scent and away from the scene of the crime.

Anonymous said...

It is possible that another member of the party drugged the child for motives which I would rather not speculate about. One member of the group had behaved inappropriately towards Madeleine on a previous holiday, to the extent that it was reported (after Madeleine's disappearence) to the police. And the couple who reported it were concerned enough to make sure that their child was never alone with the man. Yet Gerry Mc Cann had overheard the lewd comments and behaviour and had chosen to ignore it and in fact go on further holidays. Surely a good father would be upset and angry at such behaviour and would want to protect his daughter from a man who had made inappropiate comments and had acted in a fashion that was lewd?

Anonymous said...

The other point I would like to make is this. It is in my opinion highly significant that they are doctors. There is an enormous code of silence among doctors over medical errors, mistakes and malpractice. You only have to look at how long it took before Harold Shipman was convicted to see that people do not want to believe that a doctor can behave maliciously.

If the parents (or another member of the party) overdosed the child there would be many reasons why they would not want this to come to light. It is possible she died from a drug reaction or overdose. This would be another reason why anyone involved in the death would want to get rid of the body. A post-mortum would reveal the cause of death.

Anonymous said...

'If Madeleine fell and died in the apartment how would that be our fault?' What a very strange comment, especially given that they had left the children alone. Which is, allegedly, the reason that Madeleine was abducted. They have got themselves in a bit of a cleft stick here. If she was abducted (which I do not believe) you could argue that this wouldn't have happened if they had not left the children without supervision. So they would be partly responsible. If she had an accident, you could also argue that they would bear some responsibility as they were not there to give first aid. So either way, they do bear some responsibility.

However, I think his question is a direct challenge - 'we are not at fault for anything'. When he knows that they are. And he has hidden the evidence and provided his own fake explanation of an abduction.

The supposed 'sightings' around the world are a smokescreen to keep the 'search' as far away from the real crime scene and the real suspects as possible.

The fund money is being used fraudulently. They know Madeleine is dead. I suppose their guilty consciences propel them to continue with the farce of 'searching for Madeleine'.

Anonymous said...

The adverse drug reaction theory would also explain why the twins did not wake up on the evening that Maddie disappeared despite dozens of people traipsing through the apartment. It would also explain why the McCann parents did not try to wake them up - they knew they had been drugged.

I think it also explains why the McCanns alleged that they believed Madeleine's abductor had drugged her. The knew that Madeleine had been drugged - but pretended that it had been an abductor. I think they also claimed that the abductor may have tried to steal Maddie the evening before - and may have drugged the children then.

Anonymous said...

yes and that would explain why Madeleine was pale and tired during the day of the 3rd- she had been drugged the night before

Anonymous said...

It should be taken into consideration when analyzing this interview that it took place in an artificial environment and cannot therefore be considered as raw material as would their first interrogation by the police. By this I mean that the TV programme producers could have briefed them before filming to try to solicit new information and not repeat what everybody already new. Also, this interview was made a few years after the disappearance and they could have felt they were going through the motions after so much media attention already. The fact they talk as "we" could be attributed to a conscious decision/strategy related to their campaign to raise funds in their search. For this reason I feel the analysis and subsequent reactions in the comments section are a little precipitaded.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the McCanns are misusing 'we' and 'I' as a politically correct manner of relaying information, however if they were checking of the children every half hour, what was the point of going for a meal in the first instance, how long does in it take to walk from A to B and back again?

David hops said...

It's definitely someone have to begin statement writing in routine if someone actually want to become a perfect personal statement portugal. It might be truly works and improve the mistakes daily.

Anonymous said...

During some of the first statements GM and the rest gave of what KM;s actual first words were when she came to the table to announce that M was missing, she apparently said " We have let her down" referring to M but if she trullly believed that M was abducted she would have said :M is not in the room. She wasn't in bed when I went into the flat" rather than 'We have let her down" and why any mother who discovered that one of her children was missing would lnot grab the remaining two and run to the restaurant but instead leave the other two in the room and walk to the restaurant , ignoring the potential risk of the other two children being abducted as well during her absence? Also why wouldn't she start searching for her child frantically calling out her child's name in the hope that if the child has gone out on her own she might be somewhere close by- as a mother myself I can't imagine sitting and waiting for news when I could be searching the vicinity in the hope to find her.

Anonymous said...

With regard to Gerry's confusing monologue about whether they could have killed her, this stands out to me:

'Well when did she have the accident and died,'

It stands out because it's gramatically incorrect, and there could be a few reasons for this...first, he's nervous, and basically repeating the previous part: that someone had purported Madeleine had an accident and died.

Second, well, it ought to be 'have the accident and die' but saying 'died' instead makes it into a phrase (had the accident and died) which carries more weight than a questioning of the possibility (when did she have the accident and die?)

The phrase - because it is gramatically correct, within the sentence - is stronger than the question, which isn't correct.

It's like leakage. Rather than saying what he's trying to put across - when did she, or when could she have, had an accident and died? - he ends up just reaffimirming that she 'had the accident and died' within his own monologue.

It's embedded right there.

Also the use of 'the' as the definite article regarding the accident, denoting an event which actually took place, rather than (usually expected within a question) 'an', (indefinite article) used to denote a hypothetical scenario, is really significant here.

Basically from this monologue I am taking away that Madeleine had an accident and died.

Unknown said...

Kate describes Madeleine as,'really compact'.

I found this odd. Then I googled the meaning of the words.

Really: an actual fact, as opposed to what is said or imagined to be true or possible.

Compact: Closely and neatly packed together, dense.

It was 'packed' that I thought of with the word 'compact'.

Any thoughts on this statement?

nozzzza said...

yes, I thought this every time I read it, how does she know g didn't move the door more open

Anonymous said...

"We thought that was the best thing erm, and it seemed to work absolutely fine and we didn’t have any problems right until the Thursday morning when Madeleine said “why didn’t you come when we cried last night?” We thought that’s odd."

This statement may mean that the parents would often give their children medicine when they were left unattended. And, that it had always worked fine until that day. That's why it was odd. Maybe Madeleine was even given a higher dose the next time because of that, which made her very tired. And, maybe the window was open, and the curtains did blow out like Kate said they did, which immediately caused her to flash back to what Madeleine had said. Madeleine wasn't in her bed, and if the window had been left closed, so she must have woken and fallen from the window. Maybe the dad said that Madeleine said "when WE cry," to hide the fact that they were sedating all of their children. He wanted to make it look like all of the kids had been crying, because they probably would have woken up too if Madeleine was crying, unless they were sedated? Did the cadaver dogs hit on any locations outside of the building (beneath the windows or the stairs)?

Anonymous said...

Agree completely