Sunday, November 11, 2012

The McCann's Interview: Part One



Statement Analysis follows in bold type. Italics is done
 by analysis to show specific words.  If we had the transcripts of the initial police
interview, it is my belief, should that interview be substantial in length, that we would know
what happened, at least to the point of knowing whether or not the parents have guilty
knowledge.

In this interview, the parents are together, therefore, the expected is that they may
speak for each other, using the plural pronouns, "we" and "us"; however, given the
extreme nature of a missing child, the expectation of the pronoun "I" remains.  A missing
child is acutely personal to a parent, any parent, but more so a biological parent.  We
expect to hear the pronoun "I", especially when the child is being described by the parent.

The overuse of the plural is an indicator of guilt, as parents of teens know well.  When
there is guilt, there is a desire to share guilt, which, psychologically, may feel a lessening
of its impact.

"Follow pronouns" is great advice in discerning deception.

This interview is poor, as it does not seek to gain information as it does seek to avoid
offense.  

McCanns first interview, 25 May 2007

Part One

Jane Hill: Kate and Gerry McCann, thank you so 
much for agreeing to, talk to me. 
Perhaps you could just tell us a little bit about your holiday here,
 how it started, why you decided to... to come here and to 
bring your children here.

Kate McCann: We came with a group of friends actually and their 
children, I mean, I've had lots of good reports about Portugal, 
a lot of our other friends and family have been and said it's 
very... very good for children. But, yeah, we came with a... a
 group of friends and, I mean, it was a great week, 
we were having a great holiday. It was... we had lots 
of fun, the children had a really great time, didn't they?

In an interview, the best question is one with the least 
amount of words and is open ended. "What happened?"
 and note where the subject begins and what words the 
subject employs. In media, an interview generally has a 
lot of attention drawn away from the subject and towards 
the Interviewer, which then gives the subject words to use. 
It is not effective for gathering information, though it 
may be effective for the Interviewer's career.

We note that the Interviewer uses Kate's name before 
Gerry's (order is important) and that although both 
were addressed, Kate responds first, but then turns 
to Gerry for an answer.

Pronouns:  When a couple is speaking together, they 
often use the pronoun "we" and when they do, and 
switch to "I", it should be considered very important,
 and personal.
Here, it is "we" but then she switches to "I"
 regarding having "good reports", making it very 
personal to her about getting "good reports."

Gerry McCann: Yeah, very much the... the combination
 of, the child friendly environment and the sporting 
facilities and errr... a lot of our friends are quite 
water-sports based but Kate and I were mainly, 
taking advantage of the tennis facilities but the kids loved it 
and the kid's club, facilities were good.

Please note:

"child" friendly, and not "kid friendly" yet, 
"kids loved it" and "kids' club" are used. 

The word "child" is more associated with child abuse than "kid" (we don't say "kid abuse" in our language very often). 

What caused him to change from "child friendly" to "kid's club"?  It could be the names used
at the facility, but we would like to know.  

JH: And what sort of activities does Madeleine like doing? 
Does she get in and muck around with all the other children,
 that sort of thing?

This is a very poor interview.  If the Interviewer wished to know more about Madeleine, she should have asked, "tell me about Madeleine" instead. 

GM: She's a complete, she might look like Kate but in 
terms of personality she's much more of a McCann. S
he's very extroverted and lively, you know, vivacious, she's...

KM: She likes running, she played tennis, as well, didn't she?

Please note the past-tense reference.  Since she "likes" 
running, does she still play tennis?
Is this a question only with regard to a past tense event? 
 If so, it is appropriate, but
if it is about playing tennis, like running, as an ongoing 
event, it is not.   

How much time has passed since her disappearance?
Have police told her that the child is likely dead, or does she contend 
that the child is alive?

Parents, and in a heightened sense, mothers, have a natural denial of accepting
the death of a child; therefore, when the mother of a missing child, for example, 
references her child in the past tense, it is an indication that the mother knows, or believes
that the child is dead.  

Have police given her this belief?
Has time worn down her natural denial?

Or, does she have guilty knowledge of Madeleine's death?

GM: She's very funny and, she's often a little, kind of, 
ringleader in nursery and with her other friends and 
cousins and things, as well, you know.

KM: She's very sociable.

JH: A... a very big sense of a very big group all having fun
 together and...

KM: Yeah, yeah, it was, yeah.

Note present tense language used by both subjects 
(with one exception) and Interviewer regarding 
Madeleine. Interviewer asked compound question 
which allows the subject to pick and choose which 
to answer; generally a mistake, though here it is 
about activities in general. Note carefully use of 
proper name, pronouns, or any terms of endearment,
 as how parents describe a child tells us much, as 
does the wording used to identify the child.

GM: You know, often in the evening, just in the play area 
down by the pool, every night after the kid's tea we would
 spend an hour and... invariably with the adults chasing
 the kids with Madeleine shouting... running up shouting 
'Be a monster! Be a monster!' then running away and 
then you would chase her for five minutes and then 
she would be back over again because there was lots 
of adults. She was tiring us all out, really.

Note "kids' tea"; not "children's" which would be 
more formal. "kids" is casual. This is noted because 
when people have a connection with child abuse, 
including a fear of it, they will use "children" or "child" 
more frequently. Here, Madeliene is portrayed as one
 of the "kids". We will look for any changes in language.
 Change in language is always significant. A change 
in language is a change in the perception of reality;
 meaning there should be justification for the change. 
Where no justification is noted, deception is suspected..

Note that he does not say he chased Madeleine, but 
"you would..." Had he been the one 
chasing her, he likely would have told us.  
The verb tenses do not link Madeleine to this activity, only that 
they were "chasing", not "chased", and "running" not "ran."
Past tense verbs link us to what happened.  The absence of past
tense verbs reduces reliability. 

If it took place, he should say so.  If it did not take place (we cannot say it did
because he has not), one should wonder if this is an attempt to build an
atmosphere of jocularity and fun.  Is he speaking from memory of watching
someone else play with her?  We do not know.  We can only know if 
someone tells us.  

JH: And then on that Thursday night, Kate, when you 
realised that she wasn't in her bed where you'd left her. 
Did you think even momentarily perhaps that she'd 
just woken up, wandered off of her own accord, perhaps?

The question is directed specifically at Kate.    

KM: Not at all, no.

"No" is sufficient, and the additional words indicates sensitivity.

GM: No, I mean, that, I think, was absolutely certain
 but, you know, before you raised the alarm, we double
 and triple checked but we certainly had no doubt in our mind that she'd been taken.

This is a very weak answer.  One cannot "think" and be "certain" at the same time.  By saying 
"I think" he allows for someone else to "think" otherwise.  To him, it is not only "certain" but
"absolutely" certain. 
Follow the pronouns:  He begins with, "no" but goes beyond this answer with, "I mean"
and "I think", which, both broken, at least begin with the pronoun, "I"
in the answer, but then he uses "you know" indicating sensitivity, and then
the distancing language of "you" raised the alarm, only to then switch to the pronoun, 
"we."

He began with "I", moved to "you" and then on to "we"
Please note that if he is speaking for himself and his wife, he should, in the least, start 
with the pronoun "we" and remain in it, yet even if he turned to "I" (showing a
very strong, personal connection) he could return to "we."   In this case, the pronouns
are very concerning.  Please note that "we" is often used when sharing guilt. To begin with "I"
but to move to "you" and finally "we" gives the appearance of shared guilt. 

Note that words like "absolutely" makes "certain" sensitive.  Between the pronoun change and the addition of "think" and "absolutely", the answer is very weak.  

In Statement Analysis, additional words give us information. Additional words are those that can be removed from a sentence with the sentence still working. Here, we have "absolutely" added to certain, showing sensitivity. We do not have, at this point, the reason why it is sensitive; as it could be they are attempting to persuade the interviewer that they were certain she was kidnapped and had not wandered off.

Most parents, upon finding an empty bed, might assume their child wandered off. It is important to GM  that this not be a possibility.

JH: And... and... and was there then frantic activity that night? I mean, I've spoken to even local people who've told me they became aware of what had happened pretty quickly and they were looking around, as well.

This is a very poorly worded question and introduced "frantic activity" to the 
language.  Good questions use the subject's own words and avoid introducing
new language to them. 

GM: From the minute we discovered she was gone, if you actually look at the actions, our own actions and those of the group are actually, response and the speed of the response from all of us in the group and the Mark Warner representatives was excellent, the alarm and the call to the police went out within 10 minutes and the Mark Warner resort manager, John Hill, had, ... missing child, protocol in place within, you know, half an hour and all of the staff, were contacted... returned to the resort here and the, you know, the local search started, errr... so, you know, in terms of that it was done very, very quickly.

We come upon a highly sensitive statement.  
Note when the habit "you know" arises, as it shows an increased awareness
of the presence of the Interviewer, or of the question. 

Because I do not know what took place, regarding media criticism or challenges, I cannot say if this sensitivity is in response to what has already been said. "Actually" is used when comparing two or more thoughts. We don't know what is being compared but repetition is noted as sensitive and we have some words being repeated.

"very very" quickly is weak.  It suggests guilt or guilty feelings at the response time.

This weakness may be in response to prior criticism, or, that it is because the response was not quick.

There is a strong  need to justify response.  It may be due to guilt, or it may be due
to criticism they have heard, but it is present. 

JH: And as time went on and I totally appreciate you can't talk about specifics in any way but even one of the things that was hard even for all the journalists who've been here for so long was to... to get their head around this idea that the police aren't... aren't allowed to tell anybody anything, they're not allowed legally to talk about the progress of an investigation.

How... how hard has... has that been for you? What sort of guidance were they able to even give you privately just to tell you what was going on?

note the compound question.  The Interviewer does a good job drawing attention to the 
Interviewer, while doing a poor job getting information. 

GM: I think it's fairly obvious that, you know, the system here and, what we're used to in the UK is very different. I don't think it's any secret that in the early days, ... the information void was the hardest thing for Kate and I to deal with. The not knowing... not knowing anything and taking you back to the darkest places that, really, you don't want to go and... and ultimately doesn't help you. But, ... I think, you know, as the liaison officers and other British police arrived and the consulate, helped us, that, you know, the communication channels have improved, in terms of at least what information we get and how we get it and certainly, you know, at the minute we're... we're happy with the way information is conveyed to us, ... but tho... those first 48 hours are, I think, in particular, when, ... were the most difficult.

In Statement Analysis, we note any stuttering by non-stuttering subjects. A stutter shows nervousness, which is to be expected. If it is the word, "I" however, it is noted for a higher level of sensitivity, with the repetition of "I" 3 times showing stress, 4 or 5 times showing anxiety, and 7 or more generally only in a homicide in which the killer is speaking and personally knew the victim. More than 7 is likely going to mean hospitalization and a nervous breakdown.

JH: And I've spoken to a lot of people, over the weeks, who... local people who'd given up a lot of time. You've talked about the support that they've given you. I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well'?

This is far more a statement than a question.  It is posed to Kate, and it is about what Kate was "thinking" regarding physically searching.  By limiting it to just "thinking" it makes is a very weak question.  The length of it draws more attention to the Interviewer rather than to the ingathering of information. 

By using Kate's own name in the statement, the Interviewer has called Kate's attention to it.   Kate should now speak for herself, with the easy, and most often used pronoun, "I" in her answer: 

KM: I mean, I did... we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back.

In Statement Analysis, pronouns are critical. Here, Kate speaks for both; first with "I" but then with "we". We note all pronoun use; but in particular, possessive pronouns.  This is a very concerning switch from "I" to "we"; especially given that the question was not only directed to Kate, but her name was also used in the question, heightening the 'personal' element of it.

Possessive pronouns solve cases.

From prior to speech, children learn possessive pronouns and will take ownership ONLY of what they wish to take ownership of; and nothing else.


Please note that innocent parents do not feel the information or effort is complete or absolute as long as the child is missing. 

Working "really hard" is a very sensitive topic to Kate McCann.  
"Getting Madeleine back" is a topic that is of extreme sensitivity to Kate McCann.  This is the unexpected in innocent parents.

Here, we find the first 48 hours to be highly sensitive to both parents. 


Parents who think that "everything" has been done or said indicate, by their words, that there is "nothing" else to do; nothing to say, and nowhere to search. 

Who has indicated that they have done "everything" they "can" do?

Deborah Bradley
Justin DiPietro
Misty Croslin
Billie Jean Dunn
Sergio Celis 

When all has been said and done, there is nothing more to do or say.  This is a strong  desire to stop the flow information. 

Why would any parent want the flow of information to stop?  This is a red flag. 

 We expect to hear Gerry McCann speak for himself, his own feelings and his own thoughts:  

GM: I think that's key, that, in that period, the worst feeling was helplessness and being completely out of control of anything, in terms of getting Madeleine back and, I think, as we started to take control of some issues, particularly influencing the publicity side of it, then you start to feel that there are certain things under your control and, I know, initially that helped me tremendously and more importantly, I think, it helped, ... and being positive about what you can do, has helped people immediately around us, as well, and that... that has spread like wildfire to everyone in the popu... people we don't know are doing so much to help and it's the smallest thing and it makes them feel that they're helping; distributing posters locally; sending them abroad, all of these things, we think, helped and, ultimately, you know, someone will provide the key bit of information.

Control is a sensitive area to anyone who feels a situation is not in control.  He is "completely" out of control of getting Madeleine back.  This is an admission that the father can do nothing to help. 

Why can't he?  What has caused the constraint?  
Note the emphasis on helping himself, and not on getting Madeleine back?  Note his order:

1.  Helping me
2.  Helping people 

Note that helping Madeleine return home is not in his language; only "the key bit" of information.  

Here we have the instinctive use of an Article.  Pronouns and Articles are instinctive. 

He should be looking for "a key" to open a door for information.  

What is "the key" not "a" key?  Articles being with "a" and then move to "the" after being introduced.  

This is alarming.

Note the inclusion of "publicity" as sensitive.

JH: And... and some of that support has translated into a lot of money that's gone into the fighting fund, I think nearly £300,000 has been pledged, so far. What of the reports that say, perhaps... those people who suggest that some of that money could be sensibly spent on things like private investigators, for example.

GM: Well, you know, the fund, ... was really... really evolved to provide an oulet for people who wanted to contribute financially and these offers, will help us and are helping us and that has helped us to bring in quite a comprehensive legal team and independent sector, consultants as to what we could and should be doing.

The fund was to provide an outlet for people.  Why do people need an outlet?  If 
an outlet is needed, why is it financial?
If the reason to have a fund is to give them an outlet, what else is the money used for?
Note also the order:
legal team, independent sector, consultants.

Note a "comprehensive" legal team.  It would be interesting to learn if the 
"comprehensive" team, being paid for by those who need an "outlet", includes
a criminal defense attorney. 

It is disingenuous to claim to set up a fund to help people first have an "outlet" but 
then it is to "help us", and not help find or help Madeleine.  

Note that it "really, really" evolved, making the fund's "evolution" very sensitive. 

I did, address this and the situation hasn't changed that, at this time, with the huge amount of resource from the police, both in the UK and Portugal that the advice is that private investigators will not help. I personally, and we, believe that it's the public who hold the key to this; someone knows something and we would urge that if anyone has any information to come forward and anyone who's been in this area, within the two weeks leading up to Madeleine's disappearance, to come forward if they haven't already done so and upload those pictures.

There is the... I'd like to say about the website again, which is ww.madeleine.ceopupload.com and there are two numbers, if I could say them, as well, that, if you have any information, to ring in, if you have not already spoken to the police.

JH: And we'll certainly broadcast those numbers again later and there've been so much support and you're reflecting on some of it there; some emotional, some practical. I mean, I have to ask, you will know, along with that support, in some quarters, comes criticism; for example a lot of people, in the last fews weeks, have contacted the BBC and said: 'I can't imagine doing such a thing. I wouldn't be able to leave three children, in that situation'. How do you deal with those sort of comments?

GM: I think, you know, any criticism of us at this time, which we know there has been, particularly early on, is quite hard to take when you're being so positive. I think what we did, errm... many, many other thousands of people, and I think you yourself said on television that you've either done it or would have done exactly the same in such a safe resort.

This may indicate the defensive sensitivity above.  It appears to be about their 
choice and reaction time.  However, this is still a good time to say "I didn't do it" 
regarding suspicion of being involved in lying and in Madeleine's disappearance. 

No one will ever feel more guilty than us for the fact that we were not with Madeleine at that time when she was abducted and whether we'd been in the bedroom next door we would still have felt as guilty, I'm sure, but, you know, you've seen the proximity of the restaurant; there was a line of sight to the apartment and it was not dissimilar to having dinner in your garden and, you know, baby listening facilities, exist in a lot of Mark Warner resorts and I would argue that what we were doing was actually even more regulous than that with multiple people from the group checking the apartments at, staggered times and obviously we were going into our apartment at regular intervals. If you thought for a minute that someone could abduct your child, of course, you would never have left them but, you know, that was the furthest thought from our mind during... what really was, up until that point, the most idyllic holiday.

We are not told if they actually used a baby listening device, or if it is just being mentioned. Passive language is noted.
"your child" shows distance; which is common in any painful description. "child" is noted as it is connected with kidnapping rather than a "kid" playing or enjoying time. This is consistent so far in the interview.

Note the use of Madeleine's name indicates closeness, but there is an incongruity here:
Madeleine's disappearance should be something very personal for the parent, yet GM uses, "if 
you thought" and "your child" and "you" would never have left...
This is distancing language regarding the disappearance.  Is it due to guilt over
the choices made, or is it guilty knowledge of her disappearance?  This is what most
people want to know. 
Note that it was the furtherest thing from "our" mind; entering into the thinking of each other. 


JH: You've got a little boy and a little girl to... to think about and we've seen them around the resort a lot in the last few weeks. How... they're tiny, I know, but they must have a sense that big sister isn't around at the moment. How... how do you deal with things for them? How do you look to the future for their sake?

KM: I mean, I think you're right. I mean, they... they are still 
quite young at the minute, they're just over two, ... so it 
maybe hasn't affected them as much as if they were a 
little bit older. They do talk about Madeleine and Amelie
 has asked 'Where is she?' ... You know, they'll say 
'That's Madeleine's', 'This is Madeleine's' and they 
include her if we're saying 'Who wants a biscuit?', they'll
 say 'Sean, Amelie, Madeleine',

note the order which is what "they'll" say is:
Sean, Amelie, Madeline". 
 It is "they" who will say it, not the parents. Under "they" it would likely be the name mentioned first as the speaker. He is likely older than Amelie

but they're handling it really well, they... they don't appear upset, put it that way, you know, and they're... they're just... they're lots of fun and we... we will take some advice actually, as to...

GM: Yeah. I mean, without doubt, they... they help us to continue, you know. 
This is every parent's worse nightmare and everyone can feel
 and imagine what we've gone through but, you know, 
if we'd had discovered all three of our children had gone 
or if something else had happened, then, you know, we... 
we'd not have had the same strength and resolution and 
determination to find Madeleine that Sean and Amelie give us, 
as well, because we know that they're there, errr... 
life continues but we need to bring them back... bring 
Madeleine back as much for them, as for Madeleine, as for us.

This is a very strange answer.  The loss of a child is very personal, and the innocent parent who 
has lost a child often feels (and articulates) that "no one" can understand the level 
of pain the parent is in. 
Here, he says it is "every" parent's worst nightmare, rather than his own worst nightmare
and that "everyone can feel and imagine"; whereas most parents, in such horrific
pain, say the very opposite thing. 

JH: And... and how... how do you aim to... to keep that strength and that positive outlook that we've seen you expresss to the media a lot in the last three weeks and that sense that... that life will continue, that what you said publicly to us a few weeks ago that you believe, and have to believe, that Madeleine is somewhere being looked after by someone. How do you hold onto that thought?

GM: Yeah, absolutely, we must, continue with that and we do believe it, you know, I think if anything really bad had happened, we would have found her by now, so I think, you know, I'm confident and believe this strongly that, we will find her, it's not hard to... to continue believing that; she's our daughter, we love her more than anyone can possibly imagine and, you know, the alternative would be giving up and we will not give up our search.

The weakness in the assertion shows a lack of commitment to believing she will be found.
Loving her "more than anyone can possibly imagine" is the expected.
Here, he cannot accept that anyone could know how much they 
love her, yet previously he accepted that people could know what
they were going through. 

KM: Absolutely, you know, we need to believe that she's coming back to us.

This sentence is noteworthy:  It is not that "we" believe, but that we "need" to believe.  I would have expected a mother to say "I know she is coming back to me"; but the plural weakens a mother's assertion, as does the meaning change:  the need to believe rather than the belief.  

Why is this? What has transpired at the time of this interview to show a lack of commitment to the child's return?

JH: Kate McCann, Gerry McCann, we do appreciate your time. Thank you very much and, all the very best to your family, of course.

This was a very "McCann-Friendly" interview which the Interviewer
drew attention away from the pressing issue, introduced new
language, and asked compound questions. 

GM: Thank you.

KM: Thank you, Jane. Thank you.

We like to hear parents speak for themselves, particularly using
the pronoun, "I", connecting what they say to the past
with the appropriate verb tense.   Gerry McCann, as father, in particular,
did not commit to his statements.  

A missing child is a very personal topic, yet here we have the 
distancing language employed, (second person, "you") instead.
Why the need for distancing?

We also like to see straight, open ended questions asked.  

We like parents to tell us, personally, that "I was not involved" or "I did not
cause Madeleine's disappearance" in a 3 component reliable
denial:

1.  First Person Singular, "I"
2.  Past Tense Verb
3.  Specific allegation

If someone cannot bring himself to say "I didn't do it" we 
cannot say it for him.  

Was this on the mind of the public at this time?  Or, was it
only that the parents were irresponsible in leaving their children 
alone?

There are too many sensitivity indicators to ignore.  

We continue with Part Two coming up next.  

35 comments:

john said...

I was hoping you would bring this back up Peter..

john said...

OT,

Peter,this caught my eye.

Earlier in the week the BBC Director general George Entwistle said,when Pressed about his own position, he insisted he had NO INTENTIONS of resigning - although he accepted his future lay in the hands of the BBC Trust, which described the report as a "deeply troubling episode"

What jumped out at me were the words "NO INTENTIONS"

I have heard so many times people saying "I have no intentions"of doing this that and the other,only to find thats exactlty what theyve done.

So low and behold i wake up this morning and the headlines on Sky News are.

BBC Boss Resigns After Newsnight Abuse Report.

George Entwistle quits after he admits a Newsnight report has caused a crisis of public trust following the Jimmy Savile scandal.

I probably would never have picked up on this, if it wasnt for me learning SA.

Hobnob said...

Sean and Amelie are twins, all 3 were IVF with some questions regarding parentage (was gerry Maddies bio dad?)

Note a "comprehensive" legal team. It would be interesting to learn if the "comprehensive" team, being paid for by those who need an "outlet", includes a criminal defense attorney.
they hired defence lawyers within days and as soon as they hit the UK they hired extradition lawyers ( the same ones who stopped general pinochet being extradited)
This interview took place 21 days after maddie vanished and is typical of all the soft interviews the mccanns did, if you din;'t ask nice questions they wouldn't do the interview and gerry stomped off in a hissy fit because someone asked an 'bad' question.
The mccanns version cannot be doubted otherwise they will sue (Goncalo Amaral, Pat Brown, sundry papers)
It is interesting to note there is very little use of the pronoun I in relaton to Maddie, it is all we, us and you.
I crops up mainly when it comes to controlling information and money.
There is also a lot of you knows from kate, considering both are doctors kate in particular suffers from severe verbal incontinence when answering questions, as well as little use of the pronoun I she uses lots of you knows and nonsense sounds such as um's err's etc.
Ot os also interesting to note that despite their claims that the longer she is missing the more chance she is alive ( statistics say the opposite) in interviews gerry has referred to maddie as her daughter, kate has said Maddie haunts her, introduces murder into the topic when the PJ were treating it as an abduction and says she wishes she could press a button and they would ALL be togeather. I pointed out this sentence only made sens if she knew Mddie was dead a otherwise they wouldn't ALL be togeather, Maddie would now be an orphan.

Thanks for looking a this Peter, I can't wait for pt.2

john said...

Hi hobs , I was speaking to Siobhan About your passion for this case,she is also looking forward to reading the next part..

Hobnob said...

LOL John, Isn't SA amazing?

I don't know about everyone else, when i am in bed with the tv on and my eyes closed (usually waiing for my pain meds to kick in) i find i pay attention to what is being said a lot closer. news reports i find i am listening to not only to what is said, also to what isn't said especially in news reports and interviews.
Adverts are also fun, sentences such as made with REAL ingredients (as opposed to what?)

I find myself grumbling about compound questions and why didn't the reporter pick up on this or that and probe further.

The mccanns give me a field day when it comes to sensitivity, more red flags than a bunting factory in China. there is also plenty to observe if body language is your thing, what is with her grabbing his hand near his crotch in every interview and the growing distance between them as time passed? She grabs him not vice versa and i neve saw him comfort her as i would expect to see in such a case. neither are there any tears or come to think of it , emotion (apart from anger at bad interviewers and bad (sensitive) questions, the excuse being they were told not to show any emotion as the abducter would get his jollies. I have seen more animation and emotion from an episode of the woodentops.

John did you see the photo not long after maddie went missing with all the bruises on kate's wrists and upper arms which looked like fingerprints (apapparantly caused by her beating the walls in temper according to a tapas 7 chum)I noticed that according to her she slept in the childrens room weds night because they rowed, and on the thurs she introduces 2 showers, brushing teeth and the obsessing over door positions which leads me to think domestic violence is involved.

Everything to do with the mccanns.i Interviews, transcripts, videos.

Hobnob said...

~ Waves to Siobhan~

john said...

It also drives me nuts when an interviewer uses compound questions,
Hobs I haven't seen the photo of Kate with the bruises is it on the link you put up,or will I find it on a google search,?

Siobhan waves back.

john said...

Bunting factory lol

Hobnob said...

spot the bruises high on her left arm just below gerry's hand

spot the huge bruise on her wrist under her watch

Mouse74 said...

OT: Charlie Rogers

Hi Peter,
I just discovered that a friend of mine is a close friend of Charlie Rogers. We were discussing dogs and I was asked if I knew anyone that would love and take in a 2yr old pit bull, as her owner Charlie needed to find a good home. When I inquired why, I discovered it was Charlie Rogers preparing to go to jail. A very emotional conversation followed. I allowed her to speak and never once spoke of what I learned on SA. I knew she wanted to believe in Charlie. She made the statement that "Charlie is not that person and despite the evidence she just cant believe it". Charlie is continuing her charade as the victim of gay hate, and now LPD has just joined the attack against her turning the evidence against her. I was speechless because I was heart broken for her loving loyal friend. Such a small world.

Anonymous said...

"I don't think it's any secret that in the early days, ... the information void was the hardest thing for Kate and I to deal with."

Amazing that the hardest thing for them wasn't that their daughter was missing in those early days.

"GM: You know, often in the evening, just in the play area down by the pool, every night after the kid's tea we would spend an hour and... invariably with the adults chasing the kids with Madeleine shouting... running up shouting 'Be a monster! Be a monster!' then running away and then you would chase her for five minutes and then she would be back over again because there was lots of adults. She was tiring us all out, really."

Sounds like someone got impatient with Madeleine. He mentions "just in the pool area" but did her running and shouting continue back in the room.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
There was a news article about a priest who's disposition changed dramatically after spraking with the McCanns. I recall quotes.

Hobnob said...


'I was deceived' says the Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann Daily Mail

Last updated at 10:03 18 October 2007

The Portuguese priest who comforted Gerry and Kate McCann in the days after Madeleine vanished last night said he had been deceived, it has emerged.

According to reports, Father Jose Manuel Pacheco claimed he had done nothing wrong and was simply "supporting two lost souls."

But, bizarrely, he also appeared to say he had been the victim of some form of deception.

It has also emerged Father Pacheco was apparently called in to see his superior, Algarve Bishop Manuel Quintas and warned about his behaviour.

In the days after Madeleine vanished on May 3, the McCanns, both 39 and devout Catholics, frequently sought refuge at the priest's church.

They became so close to Father Pacheco, he gave them the keys to the tiny building so they could go in to pray whenever they liked.

However, his friendship with the couple appeared to spectacularly backfire after police became convinced Kate had told him she had killed her daughter during confession.

But he has vowed to take whatever she had said to the grave, despite being quizzed by detectives.

Father Pacheco appeared to virtually vanish from the public eye in the weeks after Gerry and Kate were made arguidos - or official suspects.

The pair left Portugal without saying goodbye and handed the church keys to another clergyman.

Last week, police moved in to search the churchyard and there has been some suggestion that they may consider digging for Madeleine's body at the location.

Father Pacheco, runs two churches and teaches at three local schools, yesterday broke his silence.

According to the Daily Express, he admitted he had become too close to the couple, still official suspects in the disappearance of their daughter.

"I was deceived," he said.

"I was just doing my job supporting lost souls. I would do that with any family who were in their situation. I didn't do anything wrong.

Father Pacheco, 46, said he had felt compelled to help Kate and Gerry because of their "inconsolable grief".

Hobnob said...

Portuguese priest 'ruined' by McCanns
The Portugese priest who gave solace to the McCann family after the ‘disappearance’ of their daughter Madeleine has stripped his church of all traces of the girl, with friends saying the experience has left him “ruined”.

The Express reports seven months after the tragedy, Fr Jose Manuel Pacheco ordered the removal of scores of green and yellow ribbons which were put up as a symbol of hope in the days after Madeleine vanished.

Posters and photographs of Madeleine which plastered the village of Praia da Luz have also been removed.

Friends of Fr Pacheco – who came under police scrutiny after he gave the keys to his church to Gerry and Kate McCann to allow them to pray round the clock – say they fear for his health and that his life is now ruined.

Fr Pacheco was questioned twice by detectives, and the church and its grounds were searched by police.

Investigators became convinced Kate had confessed to him – but Fr Pacheco insisted he would stand by his priestly vow.

A close friend of Fr Pacheco said the priest becomes irate at the mention of the Madeleine case and that even close friends must tread carefully when broaching the subject.

“He says that it is an extremely unpleasant situation and that the McCann family only ever brought him problems. He told one friend they ruined his life,” the friend said.

“He just wants to get on with his peaceful life before the McCann whirlwind raped his world. This has all been a very bad experience for him."

Another friend described Fr Pacheco as a “nervous wreck” and that he was “hiding secrets that are destroying him.”

There has been no comment from Fr Pacheco

john said...

Re pics of Kate McCann,

To me they look like restraining and or pulling bruises.

Was she attacking Gerry?
Was she trying to get away from Gerry?
Was she arguing with someone within the family and was restrained.

I would guess it is the former given how manipulative and controlling Gerry is.
It may be highly unlikely but will either of them break and confess?

john said...

BBC Crisis: News Executives To Stand Aside


BBC news director Helen Boaden and deputy Stephen Mitchell are to stand aside over the BBC crisis, Sky sources understand.

It follows the resignation of director general George Entwistle at the weekend in the wake of the Newsnight row.

Media commentator Steve Hewlett told Sky News: "Helen Boaden and Stephen Mitchell have up till now been standing aside from all matters Savile - now they'll be standing aside from everything.

"They're going to be replaced by Fran Unsworth, head of Home Newsgathering. She will become director of news, and Kerry Thomas, the editor of Radio 4's Today programme I understand is going to be deputy director."


Acting director general Tim Davie arrives for work
The acting director general is Tim Davie. He arrived for work but did not speak to waiting reporters. Later today he will set out his plans for rebuilding trust in the corporation in the wake of the botched Newsnight child abuse investigation.

Mr Davie held his first meeting last night with the BBC Trust since being drafted in to replace Mr Entwistle, who announced his resignation on Saturday.

It came as a row erupted over the disclosure that Mr Entwistle - who served just 54 days in the post - was to receive a full year's salary of £450,000 in lieu of notice.

Under the terms of the his contract he was entitled to only six months' pay but the trust said that the additional payment had been agreed as a reflection of his continuing involvement with the various BBC inquiries now under way.

BBC staff are now braced for further bloodletting.

On Sunday, Mr Davie received a report which Mr Entwistle had commissioned from BBC Scotland director Ken MacQuarrie into how Newsnight came to wrongly implicate former Tory Party treasurer Lord McAlpine in the north Wales children's home scandal of the 1970s and 1980s.

Before he quit, Mr Entwistle warned that it could result in disciplinary action against staff and over the weekend MPs demanded that those directly involved in the broadcast were held to account.

The future of Newsnight also appears to be in the balance, with the chairman of the BBC Trust Lord Patten warning that there would have to be some "tough managerial decisions".

More follows...

Anonymous said...

"it might not be physically searching..."

Don't tell me more.
Immediate physical search is the only hope! The first few hours.

No physical search explanations by parents are not acceptable!

Most innocent parents would be running around screaming their daughters' name, searching everywhere, knocking on doors, and would stop physical search only when they pass out several days later! IMO

Anonymous said...

Very interesting post about the priest, the fella who calls himself 'father', as others do, who also bow the knee and pray to this man. Sorry, can't and won't bring myself to call him father, since Jesus said "call no man father, your father is in heaven", so that pretty much settles it for me.

Sorry that he got his life ruined; nonetheless, about the man of the cloth, how could it be that the McCanns could get away with ruining his life? What did he ever do to them other than keep their secrets; which personally, I don't feel that any man has the right to do, I don't care what their blasphemous oath implies.

Who is he that he should be given holy sacraments as if he were a god above all others, such that he should be held to higher standards, when he is nothing more than a mere mortal man who erroneously believes he has the right to forgive sins and hide secret crimes?

I think he should be arrested and forced to divulge his so-called secrets that are of no more divinity than any other human being, claiming and getting away with this code of silence.

What law gives these priests that right? I call BS. IMO, anyone who has knowledge of little Maddie's disappearance should be forced to talk, or kept locked up, otherwise they are guilty of aiding and abetting, or whatever the charge would be in that country. Just my own opinion.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 4:22, there never was any hope of finding little Maddie, even if the McCanns had made a fake search, and they knew this from the beginning. That could be the only reason they never searched, knowing she was dead.

She was killed earlier and left lying dead in the room for quite a while, otherwise the cadaver dogs would not have been able to sniff out human decomp. I haven't looked it up lately, but I believe it can take up to 90 minutes for decomp to set in so that the dogs are able to deschiper the odor of human decop; which is like no other, which they DID do.

There was also the evidence of an attempted clean up in the room, as well as washing the curtains, I think. The rest of their evening of leaving the door unlocked and going out to meet with friends was entirely a set up to make it appear that a kidnapper had snatched little Maddy. The Canns had apparently already hidden her body prior to going out and leaving the twins alone.

Then a month later Maddy's decomp resurfaces again in the wheel base of the trunk of their rental car, which obviously was used to transport her body from their hiding place to her final destination. They should have been arrested right then and there. Which one do you think did it? I think it was Kate.

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
the dogs are able to deschiper the odor of human decop; which is like no other, which they DID do.

This should be enough evidence.

Anonymous said...

Thank you very much for taking up analysis of the McCanns again, Peter.
Like others I'm looking forward to Part Two.

You may also find it interesting to compare their early interviews with their latest, only to find out how they've been changing their "text" over the years to fit their "theory". E.g. how they pushed Madeleine's coloboma [eye defect] in word and picture to only recently say that they never made much of it and that it was actually just a little fleck ... [See Pierce Morgan's interview May 2011]

And last but not least, if you find the time, put "madeleine" by KATE MCCANN [no typing error, this IS the cover of her "bewk"] on your bedside table...

Châtelaine

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the analysis.
I've always found their interviews hair-raising.

Anonymous said...

"you know,
if we'd had discovered all three of our children had gone
or if something else had happened, then, you know, "

had gone or something else had happened - seems weak, why not say were missing?

"we...
we'd not have had the same strength and resolution and
determination to find Madeleine that Sean and Amelie give us,
as well, because we know that they're there, errr... life continues but we need to bring them back... bring
Madeleine back as much for them, as for Madeleine, as for us."

What is the motive? "Bring them back": slip of the tongue? Is bring Madeleine back a catch-phrase?

"Yeah, absolutely, we must, continue with that and we do believe it, you know, I think if anything really bad had happened, we would have found her by now, so I think, you know, I'm confident and believe this strongly that, we will find her, it's not hard to... to continue believing that; she's our daughter, we love her more than anyone can possibly imagine and, you know, the alternative would be giving up and we will not give up our search."

Would it have been bad if Madeleine was found but the fact that she isn't found is positive? Why does he bring up the alternative of giving up? Lot's of focus of having to continue believing.

Devil's advocate: If Gerry has guilty knowledge of the death of Madeleine, he would present the dissappearance in vague terms as above. He says he is strongly confident that they will find her, he needs to believe that, which indicates he is not very confident. The need to believe would indicate that he cannot give up and tell the truth (the alternative).

Hobnob said...

GM: No, I mean, that, I think, was absolutely certain but, you know, before you raised the alarm, we double and triple checked but we certainly had no doubt in our mind that she'd been taken

Taken and not abducted or kidnapped?
The word taken can also refer to dying,she was taken from us before her time etc.
In our mind she had been taken leaving open the possibility in someone else's mind she hadn't.

GM: I think it's fairly obvious that, you know, the system here and, what we're used to in the UK is very different. I don't think it's any secret that in the early days, ... the information void was the hardest thing for Kate and I to deal with.
Not Maddie being missing being the hardest thing for them to deal with?
The lack of information as to what the PJ were doing made it difficult for the mccanns and the tapas 7 to know what to say in regard to their stories hence all the discrepencies, the PJ weren't talking so the mccanns didn't knwo what they knew and what the investigation was doing, had they covered their tracks enough?

Hobnob said...

JH: And I've spoken to a lot of people, over the weeks, who... local people who'd given up a lot of time. You've talked about the support that they've given you. I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well'?


KM: I mean, I did... we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back.

She is asked if she physically searched, she cannot say she did instead she reverts to WE and they were working really hard. Working hard at what?
They aren't working hard at physically searching for their missing daughter which is unexpected so what were they doing? They were doing pressers, lounging by the pool, playing tennis and hiring lawyers, PR spokesmen. She doesn't answer the questions as to whether she felt she should be out their physically searching along with all the police, the locals, tourists and ex pats.
Doing absolutely everything we can, really shows there are limits to what they can do, either because of guilty knowledge or consequences, everything we can clearly doesn't include actual searching, what else doesn't it include?

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Is this the man that provided the maccanns with a jet?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2230010/Philip-Green-meets-Kourtney-Kim-Kardashian-London.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2232036/Kim-Kardashian-looks-shattered-flight-Miami-London.html



Hobnob said...

This interview was done 20 days after Maddie went missing.

GM: I think that's key, that, in that period, the worst feeling was helplessness and being completely out of control of anything, in terms of getting Madeleine back
This is an odd thing to say given that they never physically searched, they along with their friends didn't co-operate fully with the investigation.
What could they have done, been in control of that would have gotten Maddie back?
He mentions control of some issues but only tells us about influencing the publicity side of things.
The publicity was not really about finding Maddie, cooperating fully with the PJ, doing actual searching, instead it was all about their parenting skills, telling the world they were responsible parents, they had done checks regularly, the publicity was all about their reputations, especially as the public were questioning their leaving 3 toddlers home alone every night, going on world tours and playing tennis and going jogging, not the behavior of innocent parents.

GM: Well, you know, the fund, ... was really... really evolved to provide an oulet for people who wanted to contribute financially and these offers, will help us and are helping us and that has helped us to bring in quite a comprehensive legal team and independent sector, consultants as to what we could and should be doing.
Well is used to buy thinking time.
The fund will help US are helpingUS and helped US, Note there is no mention of it helping Maddie, it is all us us us.
Alo note it isn't being used to help fund the search as people who donated wanted it to be hence the PI's rather it is used to bring in a COMPREHENSIVE LEGAL TEAM & INDEPENDANT SECTOR CONSULTANTS
order is important, legal team first then consultants.
If they were innocent why would they need a legal team?
Why would they need independant consultants when the UK police had provided family liason officers who would have advised them on dealing with the media etc.
Note they said independant consultants rather than consultants, why did they not want to have police consultants who would know the routine in missing child cases?
Innocent people don't fear the police and accept their help, guilty parents fear the police and refuse their help for fear of incriminating evidence or statements being made. Also remember kate fired the police family liason officers when one asked her where Maddie was as she knew their story didn't ring true.

Hobnob said...

If you thought for a minute that someone could abduct your child, of course, you would never have left them but, you know, that was the furthest thought from our mind during... what really was, up until that point, the most idyllic holiday.

All the medical staff i know and have worked with all tend to be hypervigilant.
They all know what can happen if a child is left alone event for a few seconds.
They have seen the scalds and burns, the fractures, the cuts and bruises, the poisonings when a child has pulled something on top of them, opens a cupboard and drunk or eaten something they shouldn't have.
Apparantly they were fine leaving a 3 yr old babysitting her twin 2 yr old siblings whilsy they were 120yds away as the crow flies with no clear view of the apartment, They were happy leaving them alone even though they could have eaten something, pulled something on top of them, scalded themselves, electrocuted themselves or there could have been a fire (they left the door unlocked so if anything happened Maddie could have found them)All that was fine but if they thought they could have been abducted they would never have left them. There is more risk of an accident in the home than a child being abducted by a stranger.
If abduction was the furthest from their mind there had to be something that was closest.

He tells us what we would do not what he and kate would do, he doesn't take ownership.

Wreyeter72 said...

Hmm I'm really glad to read this analysis and everyone's comments. I've just had a hinky feeling about Madeline Mccann's parents' story since day one. Also - does anyone else think if this had happened in the US there would have at least been a child welfare investigation and/or charges of child neglect? Who leaves three kids that young, but mobile, alone while they get tipsy on wine too far away to hear or see their kids? Self-involved parents.

Hobnob said...

Hi Wreyeter, welcome aboard.

Had this been in the states they would have been arrested and charged with child neglect for leaving 3 toddlers home alone and since one came to harm they would be doing some serious time.

There would have been no messing around with American LE, they would have been questioned closely that night as to who was where and when and why they had left their children alone. Polygraphs would have been adminsitered as a matter of course and any refusal would have pointed the finger straight at them.
There would have been no pact of silence since all the adults would be facing charges of child neglect as well as accessory after the fact, obstruction of justice and so on, it would be everyone man for themselves.
If they had been seen having the discussion the Drs Gaspar saw there would have been no refusing to hand over any info on allegations of paedophilia on any of the tapas 7.
There would have been no calling in of political favors, apart from consular assistance given to all brits abroad in trouble they would be on their own.
They couldn't claim 3rd world LE or any of the excuses they used in Portugal, there wouldn't have been a fund because their guilt would have been revealed, the child neglect charges would have been the start.
In Portugal if they had nailed them for neglect resulting in harm (a max 10 yrs) they then couldn't have been charged with homicide, concealing a corpse and filing a false police report.

I sometimes wonder if Portugal was picked for a specific reason, the mccanns were in major financial difficulty, it was a make or break vacation as their marriage was in trouble, gerry shows all the signs of a narcissistic sociopath and abuser, Maddie was demanding and imperfect (gerry's own words described her as almost perfect) all 3 were IVF which if you believe their catholic faith was a sin, gerry may not have been the father of Maddie, get rid of Maddie and they had the perfect family.

Unlike in Portugal which has strict laws on what can be revealed, America reveals a lot of the investigation, they couldn't hide behind the we aren't allowed to talk about the investigation.
It is also likely that SA would have been used on their statements and that of their chums.

I wonder how paranoid they are when they go out, kate became alsmost a recluse, always wondering if they are being surveilled, maybe phones and pc tapped, everytime they go out without the kids i wonder how many passersby are wondering where are the kids, who is watching them?

S + K Mum said...

Yay! McCann analysis! Thanks guys.

The McCanns found the Portugal silence about the investigation very hard because they had no way of knowing if they were suspected .....also the first 48 hours is important because that would prob have been the most likely time for eye-witnesses to come forward....also, instead of searching for their beautiful daughter they were working very hard behind the scenes, getting important people in place to help THEM if they were to be arrested and also working very hard to set up their 'fighting fund'. Now, if your little girl is missing - who would you need to fight?! Surely you need to investigate and find.

S + K Mum said...

Gerry McCann spent a lot of time during interviews convincing people that it is perfectly acceptable to leave your kids alone....that 'thousands' of parents do...and I don't think I ever heard any interviewer challenge him. Very sad.

Hobnob said...

Dr Kate McCann, in her book ‘madeleine’,
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”.


An interesting comment to make and telling indeed.

If, as claimed, the parents were innocent of involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, why would kate tell us she relaxed when the cadaver and blood dogs reacted in the apartment( and subsequently the hire car)Surely the reaction of an innocent parent would be to demand to know if it meant their child had been injured buy the alleged abducter or worse killed and then removed for whatever reason.
Rather than relaxing at what was indicated, the innocent parent would be terrified for their child, hysterical with the worry their child was injured and in pain or worse was dead removing any hope of a safe return.
Guilty parents on the other hand would be looking for any excuse to denigrate the actions of the dogs since to admit the dogs were correct would be to implicate themselves. It is well known gerry researched cadaver dogs (why?) and pointed out in the case of eugene zapata as a false reaction and thus the dogs was unreliable. Although the evidence was excluded from Zapata's first trial, police said corpse-sniffing dogs indicated the scent of human remains at the Indian Trace home and two other homes occupied by Zapata as well as a storage locker and a rental car. Based on Zapata's statement, the locker and car indications were correct.
For more than 30 years, he maintained that Jeanette Zapata just disappeared. He kept the secret until earlier this month, when he confessed to Madison police.
Zapata's confession came Feb. 5. 2008 He gave a detailed account, as required under a plea agreement he reached with prosecutors to avoid another trial
Strange to say after that the mccanns went real quiet on cadaver dogs.
It is interesting to note that dogs are used not only to track scents they are used to detect drugs,explosives, fruit and veg, pirated dvd's, cash, human remains, trapped people in earthquake zones as well as in avalanches and much more. Skills which are taken for granted the world over, yet, when cadaver dogs reacted in the apartment, to clothing and cuddlecat and the hire car, rather than the expected is my child hurt? we instead see, ignore the dogs they are wrong.
Their families even went so far as to claim she had dealt with several dead bodies in the weeks or so before their vacation and had included taking cuddlecat with her (the, if they don't move when she touched them with it then they are dead school of diagnosing death) seabass (sean's fave meal) wich allegedly produces a smell like cadaverine, rotting meat, dirty diapers and sweaty sandals and according to gerry's sister philmacakehole i mean philomena the PJ had gone so far as to plant DNA evidence from Maddie!!

Hobnob said...

Innocent parents act a certain way, the expected way in what they say and do, this is known from decades of experience.
Guilty parents act a different way, an unexpected way in what they say and do, again known from decades of experience.
There isn't a book on how to act when your child goes missing per se (not that i know of yet, maybe kate can write one) there are however decades of crimes scenes and attendant notes, court cases and subsequent verdicts, interviews and videos and so on that show the expected behavior and many examples of unexpected behavior (which follow similar patterns)
There are rare aberrations such as with casey anthony where the evidence was all there, the jury admitted after their not guilty verdict that they knew she was guilty, it was the prosecution hadn't proven beyond reasonable doubt!
If they knew she was guilty then logically the prosecution had proved it's case beyond reasonable doubt.

rob said...

Wreyeter72, not necessarily in the US. Debra Bradley sat on the front porch with a friend, getting drunk, with a sick baby and 2 small boys in the house for hours. The baby dissapears, the big dog on the premises never barks, cadaver dogs hit inside the house, the parents don't cooperate with LE, and the 2 young boys are still in the home. And to beat it all, both children have other parents who should have pushed to gain custudy of them. Our system is no longer the best in the world, too many people have learned to play the game.