Sunday, May 4, 2014

The McCann Interview Analyzed



Question for Analysis: 

Do the McCanns show 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. 

We look for unexpected distancing language, for example, knowing where it should be, and where it should not be.  We saw, for example, linguistic indicators of guilty knowledge in the words of Patsy and John Ramsey, along with indications of sexual abuse.  Yet it is not until there is a larger view that a conclusion comes into focus.

We do not take a single indicator of deception for a conclusion:  we view the entire interview for analysis. 

We look for ownership with the pronoun, "my", along with terms of endearment and affection.  Guilt does strange things to us, and it comes out in the language. 

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.   

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 head...and......you 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 day...you 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, minimizes it, or compares 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 chance...to 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 it..it 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 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. 

If it was my child, "my world" would be shattered.  

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. 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 ...whoooosh...it 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: 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 jumped up but, kind of disbelief. She can’t be gone. She can’t...she can’t possibly be...how 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, 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. 

"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. 

Need for emphasis noted. 

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

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. 

He does not bring himself to say "Maddie is a survivor" which would have been expected. 


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. 

77 comments:

Anonymous said...

'"Why didn't you come when we cried last night?"

Please note that by quoting Madeleine, he (G.McCann) 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.'

I do NOT find this odd or lacking credibility if more than one child was crying. As you have stated many, many times before, even very young children know the difference between 'we' and 'I' and will choose their pronouns instinctively. Very young children do cry when other children are crying. Some child development experts say this is empathy, others speculate this is a mirror neuron reflex.

Either way I have seen this phenomenon countless times both when my own kids were little and with the kids at my job. One kid cries, others join in. If something startled one of the McCann children and she or he started crying the siblings could have joined in. Whether there was an intruder, a bad dream or a loud noise that caused the crying is impossible to tell but it's a very plausible scenario that more than one kid was crying and Madeline related the tale to her mother.

Anon J

Hobnob 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 there 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 adult 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 they 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.

For there to be an abduction, they had to claim neglect.

No Neglect = No Abduction

Hobnob said...

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

They didn't know what crimes had been committed and they couldn't charge them on the basis of they did something but we don't know what.
The mccanns were willing to risk neglect charges which could have been plea dealed down to probation or a couple of years if they could avoid homicide charges.

If they had been charged with neglect resulting in harm (8-10 yrs) they could then say we didn't neglect them, they were all being babysat by one of our group.
The case is closed, they walk free.
The PJ then can't charge them with homicide etc as it would amount to double jeopardy.
The mccanns could then say Maddie died by accident we panicked etc etc or even yes we sedated them and she died etc etc and nothing could be done.

AS we don't have double jeopardy in the UK it could be possible for them to be charged in the UK with homicide etc since it was committed by britsh citizens on a british citizen.

Their reputation no longer matters as it hasn't for years, kate loses her licence but since she never returned to work as a GP, it's no big deal.
The fund will close and should there be anything left, given to a charity as per their rules except it exists to provide support for the mccanns and family and since they will always need support the money won't go to any charity.
Donations will stop (apart from a few all too gullible fans who will believe any confession was coerced or threatened)

jenny StMaire said...

The bottom line in the first instance is that they should have been charged to send a message to any parent that thinks it is ok to leave their children in such circumstances.

It was said many times in the beginning that if this were parents from a lower income class, it would probably have been far worse for them and the gutter press would have tried to dig out anything they could to prove what bad parents they were.

I think the most logical explanation is that they sedated Maddie and she died. The most compelling evidence is that the twins failed to wake throughout the whole furore after Maddie was discovered missing. Through all the shouting, wailing and being transported to another location - through it all, they did not wake.

jenny StMaire said...

To amplify - That is not normal - taking the sleep cycles into consideration

Anonymous said...

I love the discussions on this case,especially hobnobs input!!!! Thanks Peter and Hobnob :)

Anonymous said...

"During the early morning hours of 14 February 2013, I woke up, went onto the balcony to bring the fan in

Reeva started out as a fan

and closed the sliding doors, the blinds and the curtains. I heard a noise in the bathroom and realised that someone was in the bathroom.

Anonymous said...

Maddie died before her parents went out that evening

Anonymous said...



This is a confession:

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

GeekRad said...

Fox News reports police will be digging around the resort they were staying at. At least they have not given up!

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/05/british-police-plan-dig-around-resort-area-where-madeleine-mccann-was-last-seen/?intcmp=latestnews

Katie said...

Kate McCann: ...but she was just cuddled up on my knee

Knee instead of lap, does that make a difference? Also, knee made me think of "bent" and sitting, which indicates tension. Would tension still apply even if the word "sit" is not used?

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

This reminds me of lights being turned on and off which can indicate sexual abuse, and here it seems like the giant lights in the sky being turned off and on. Can the sexual abuse indicator, or even death apply to this type of darkness and light?

Kosmo said...

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

Pisces Dreamer said...

I don't know a lot about this case, but one thing that stood out to me was Gerry's words, "...if she fell and di..." He doesn't finish his thought, but asks, "why would we cover that up?"

Was there a theory or suggestion that Madeleine fell? Or did Gerry introduce that?

Kosmo said...

One thing I always thought was very strange right from the beginning was .... If I was in Kate's place I would have never left my twins in the place where my oldest just went missing from...

Katie 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...

"You just want there to be light" also reminds me of "let there be light" which is reminiscent of invoking God.

That whole statement reminds me of "Goodnight" in other statements, as in the time of death, and wanting there to be light, wishing a miracle of Madeleine being brought back to life.

These are my impressions, and I am wondering if the principles of SA could apply .

Hobnob said...

Hi Kosmo.

Many people thought the same thing, why dump your remaining children in the creche the next day and so on after your daughter has gone missing, allegedly by abduction?

You on't know who took your child, it couldbe anyone , even someone working in the creche you just dumped your children in!

Parental instinct is to protect your remaining children, to keep them close to you , even to not letting them be looked after by other family members.
The loss is so intense and personal, you literally trust no one with your children except yourself.

By dumping them in the creche, for all you know, you could be giving the abductor another chance to get your remaining children.

Parents become hypervigilant, this is expected and normal.

For them to dump them in the creche and to go travelling the world dumping their children on family members is unexpected and a red flag.

It indicates they know the remaining children are safe and at no risk of harm from an abductor or anyone else.
This can only happen if they know exactly what jhappened to their missing child, that no outsider was involved.
If they know no outsider was involved then it points straight to the parents or those close to them such as the tapas 7.

Since they did not accuse oldfield who allegedly saw the children on a check after gerry, and, by default, be the last person to see Maddie and thus the prime suspect, it can only mean that either gerry,kate or both were complicit in what happened and the subsequent disposal of her remains and cover up.

Innocent parents will suspect everyone around them, in this case, the tapas 7 who had access to their children either by the alleged checks, or by checking their own children and being in the vicinity of the children.

Guilty parents suspect none of the tapas 7 who either checked or had access and instead come up with a variety of 'suspects', have vague and contradictory timelines, refuse to co-operate and so on, to cover their own guilt.

They themselves have claimed the resort was so quiet and felt safe, they were happy to do the checks, yet according to them and their chums there were numerous strange men and even women, loitering around the apartments and resort, watching their every move.

Which is it to be since it can't be both.

Either it was quiet and no one was lurking or it was busy giving lurkers ample time and cover to watch them.

http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

Hobnob said...

off topic

PRETORIA, South Africa – A neighbor and friend of Oscar Pistorius testified Monday that the double-amputee athlete was "torn apart" and desperately trying to save Reeva Steenkamp minutes after fatally shooting her at his home last year.

Johan Stander and his daughter were at Pistorius' house soon after the shooting in the early hours of Feb. 14, 2013, and Stander testified that he believed that the Olympian had made a mistake when he shot and killed Steenkamp because of the runner's emotional state when they found him.

"I saw the truth there that morning. I saw it and I felt it," Stander testified, saying Pistorius was "really crying. He was in pain."

Stander was the fourth witness called by the defense and took the stand as the globally televised trial resumed after a two-week recess and moved into its seventh week.

Pistorius' defense was attempting to present a scenario of Pistorius' desperate panic at shooting his girlfriend in error through a toilet door after thinking she was a dangerous intruder, as he claims. Prosecutors maintain Pistorius is lying and his story is designed to cover up that he shot the model and reality TV star intentionally in the midst of a heated nighttime argument.

The 27-year-old Pistorius, a multiple Paralympic champion and the first amputee to run at the Olympics, faces 25 years to life in prison if convicted on the premeditated murder charge.

He slumped forward at one point Monday with his head in his hands as details of what may have been Steenkamp's last moments alive were discussed.

Stander's testimony on the 26th day of the trial followed a shaky start by Pistorius' defense, where his story of an accidental killing came under scrutiny as he was cross-examined by chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel who tried to expose holes in his account of the events of that night. Two defense experts also had their evidence undermined by Nel.

Stander became emotional at one point as he described what he said was Pistorius' "committed" attempt to save Steenkamp's life as she lay on the floor of his Pretoria villa. Stander's daughter Carice Viljoen, who also testified Monday, cried as she testified that she tried to stop the bleeding from a gunshot wound in Steenkamp's arm. Steenkamp had been shot in the hip, arm and head by Pistorius through the stall door in his upstairs bathroom minutes earlier.

Stander said Pistorius "was asking God to help him. He was torn apart, broken, desperate, pleading. It's difficult really to describe."

Stander lived in the same gated community as Pistorius and was once on the estate's management committee. He said that he received a telephone call from Pistorius at 3:18 or 3:19 a.m., minutes after the shooting, and the world-famous runner pleaded with him to come to his home and help.

"He (Pistorius) said on the call, `Johan, please, please, please come to my house. Please. I shot Reeva. I thought she was an intruder. Please come quick,"' Stander recounted.


Hobnob said...

Cross-examining Stander, prosecutor Nel asked if he was a good friend of Pistorius and trying to "assist" the defense. Stander said he had known Pistorius since 2009 and often looked after his home and dogs when the athlete was away competing.

"I'm here to give the truth," Stander replied. "And I think I've given the truth. What I saw that morning."

Nel also pushed Stander on why he said he presumed that Pistorius had made a mistake when Pistorius had not used the word on the phone call. Stander said it was his "understanding" that Pistorius had shot Steenkamp in error.

Stander said he and his daughter found Pistorius carrying Steenkamp down the stairs of his upscale villa when they went in.

"It's not something I would like to experience again, my lady," Stander said, addressing the judge who will deliver a verdict in the trial. "Because that young man walking down the stairs with the lady, with a young woman. His face. The expression of pain, the expression of sorrow. And he's crying."

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/05/pistorius-trial-defense-aims-to-build-athletes-case/?intcmp=latestnews


Oops, pistorius just can't seem to catch a break with his defence.
they are supposed to helping him and yet seem to do more to support the prosecution than him.

"I'm here to give the truth," Stander replied. "And I think I've given the truth. What I saw that morning."

I think leave is open for others to think otherwise.
This is a weak statement with the addition of the qualifier I think

A strong statement would be to say I am here to give the truth and I spoke the truth.
He doesn't say that though, he only thinks he's given the truth.

This would lead me to ask, why do you only think you have given the truth?
Why not give us the truth?

What did you actually hear?
What did you actually see?
What was actually said?
What did you see him actually do?

He presumed pistorius had made a mistake, which the prosecutor picked up on, since pistorius had never said such a thing on the phone.

it is interesting that pistorius didn't call 911 immediately he called other people first which is always a red flag.
Why call others first before calling 911 unless it is a) to create an alibi, b) to have someone else call 911 and thus not allowing yourself to be trapped by excited utterances.

Anonymous said...

Kosmo makes a good point. She ran to get her husband just after finding that Maddie was missing, presumably leaving her twins alone in the apartment. I agree that this is strange for a mother to do.

Hobnob said...

The mccanns never left their children home alone.
Each night there was an adult missing from the group due to alleged sickness(how convenient it only struck one adult each night and a different adult at that)

The mccanns and chums had to claim neglect on tha basis that if there was no neglect, there could not have been an abduction.

No abductor is going to rsik taking on an adult of either sex to abduct a child.
Normal instinct both parental and being a responsible adult would reasult in said adult fighting the abductor to protect the children and making as much racket as possible to draw attention.

No abductor is going to risk serious harm or being trapped and arrested to get to a child, they will go for an easier target such as a child playing on the street.

This then begs the question, if the children were all being babysat what happened to Maddie?

If the parents were innocent they would be demanding answers of the babysitter of the night, they would be blaming them for Maddie's disappearance.

Instead they do no such thing.
This is unexpected.
If they aren't or won't blame the babysitter and there was no stranger abduction, then, logically speaking, the parents are the guilty ones.

Why then are their chums not saying anything such as we babysat on such and such a night and all the children were present, or, we babysat on such and such a night and all the children were present except Maddie and that points straight to the mccanns.

Why then are the whole group complicit?

if there was no neglect then what happened to Maddie that resulted in her vanishing off the face of the earth and 9 adults all admitting to neglect and supporting a stranger abduction.

What ever it was, it was so bad that 9 adults conspired to conceal a death, conspired in the subsequent coverup and filed false police reports.

Whatever it was meant an autopsy could not be allowed to be performed on her fresh remains as something or somethings would be revealed that could not be explained away as an accident.

Sedation overdose could be blamed on Maddie finding the pills and eating them thinking they were candy.
It happens as we have read all to often.
Would this be enough to make the parents conceal her death?
I don't think so, it could be explained as an accident and it could have happened anytime, even with the parents there,

There were physical injuries such as cuts or bruises.
At that age kids are always falling over or getting bruises.
It would depend on where the bruises and other injuries were and how fresh they were.
Did someone lash out and cause her to bang her head and die?
Possibly, would this though warrant such a cover up?

It could be classed as accidental homicide, it happens.
A push a slap and next thing the child has fallen , banged their head and died.

Would this warrant the coverup?
perhaps but why would the tapas 7 conspire in the coverup when they weren't involved?
They wouldn't, they were babysitting their children , being all responsible and stuff, why would they lie?
Would would they gain from the coverup?

This then leads to darker waters.
Sexual abuse.

Hobnob said...

It could not be explained away as accident, either from recent injuries or old ones.
It would explain why the parents could not allow an autopsy if they knew and were complicit in it happeneing.
it would also explain the behavior of the tapas 77, they knew and/or were complicit in it.
They had to help the mccanns lie about it due to the consequences they themselves would face.

It is the only thing that ticks all the boxes to explain their language and behavior.

It also explains why gerry was so adamant it was a paedophile that abducted her.
If her remains were found quickly and evidence of abuse was found, they could blame the paedophile abductor.

There is still no explanation as to kate and gerry's CATS file 13909 which is currently empty ( the files having been deleted since they wouldn't create a file and leave it empty for every abducted child - jim gamble i am looking at you since you had access)
there is also a deafening silence from david payne regarding the allegations he is a paedophile and loves bathing other people's children.
There is also no denial of the Drs. gaspar concerning their statement they saw payne and gerry talking inappropriately about Maddie, nor anything in relation to the social worker who recognised payne in relation to her work in child protection.

Being called a paedophile is pretty much the worst thing you can call a man and guaranteed to warrant an instant and vocal response and denial.
We have nothing except deafening silence and as we all know, by not answering the question, they have answered the question.

There is also deafening silence about the claims that gerry is a registered sex offender.

jenny StMaire said...

"British detectives are to fly to Portugal to dig up land near the holiday apartments from where Madeleine McCann went missing in May 2007.
Scotland Yard officers plan to excavate two sites near the Ocean Club apartments at Praia da Luz, and a third site on the nearby beach, it was reported today.
Madeleine's parents will not fly out for the search but her father, Gerry McCann, 45, said he and his wife, Kate, 46, were still 'hoping for a happy outcome'."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2620513/Maddie-digs.html#ixzz30sld1ZIF

What could he mean by 'happy outcome'?

Hobnob said...

Hi Jenny

A happy outcome for gerry is they don't get atrrested and charged with homicide, concealing a corpse and filing a false police report

~mj said...

I have strictly a Statement Analysis question - If, over-time a parent will start referencing the child as past tense, due to being told by police that there is a good chance your child has passed (Ayla) or so much time has gone by that a parent starts to doubt (Dylan R's mother) and it doesn't mean deception detected in SA or unreliability - SOOO, would then perfectly placed emotion in a parents accounting of events that they had told many times over during the course of several years also just be a product of the passage of time and not necessarily mean deception or unreliability?

~mj said...

I feel compelled to qualify my question, while I see a lot of red flags for the McCanns and hinky behavior, I ask the question because on this point alone I would think that unreliability or deception may be a hard sell. There is a plethora of other things these two wack-a-doos having going against them that screams guilt (h/t to Hobnob for pointing to most of those.). As far as Statement Analysis goes though, I truly am curious what the passage of time does for many pointers of deception and reliability. I hope my question makes sense! ;)

jenny StMaire said...

Hi Hobnob - he possibly knows there is nothing to be found because the body and any other evidence was put elsewhere.

I went over to your blogspot earlier and bookmarked it. :)

Hobnob said...

Thanks Jenny and you are welcome.

off topic

Closed circuit television footage has been disclosed which may cast doubt on the alibi Amanda Knox has used to protest her innocence over the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Security camera footage time-stamped 20:53, November 1, 2007 - the night of the murder - shows a woman resembling Knox walking through a car park in Perugia, near the house she shared with British student Ms Kercher.

The woman’s jeans and long coat are similar to those Knox was pictured in in the days following the murder and it has been suggested by the Italian TV progamme that aired the footage that the two walk in a similar fashion.

The footage was shown on investigative programme Quarto Grado, which explained that Ms Kercher appears on the video two minutes before the woman resembling Knox does, walking towards her house, according to The Times.

Knox said in court that she had spent the night of the murder with her Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, reading a Harry Potter book and having sex.

However the footage - if it was proven to be Knox - would raise serious questions over the validity of that alibi, which remains central to Knox's defence.

It is unclear why the footage has never been used in court and why it has only emerged now. The television programme did not disclose how it had obtained the footage.

By raising questions over her alibi, the footage could be problematic for Knox.

However the footage would also raise questions over the prosecution, firstly over why it has only emerged now, and secondly as to why Knox was leaving the house she and Miss Kercher shared before the crime was recorded as taking place.

Knox remains convicted of the murder and a third trial - which in Italian law will finally decide on her guilt or innocence - is under way. However she refused to return from America, despite Miss Kercher's family calling for her to do so.

Latza Nadeau, the author of Angel Face, which was inspired by the case, said the footage is not helpful to the prosecution or the defence.

She told The Times: ‘If the prosecution shows someone like Amanda Knox walking away from the crime scene it's not helpful. For the defence, if there is a video of her anywhere near the house it's not helpful to them because her alibi is that she was at Raffaele's house.’

Miss Kercher enrolled at the city’s Universita per Stranieri (Foreigners’ University) in 2007 and found a houseshare with Knox and two others.

She was found dead in her bedroom there shortly after midday on November 2, 2007. She had been sexually assaulted and her throat slashed.

Knox and Sollecito swiftly became prime suspects along with Rudy Hermann Guede, a drifter and small-time drug-dealer originally from the Ivory Coast who was on the fringe of their social circle.

Knox and Sollecito were convicted in a joint trial in 2009 but were acquitted on appeal in 2011; Guede is serving 16 years after a separate fast-track hearing a year earlier.

In March 2013 Italy’s highest criminal court overturned the acquittals of Knox and Sollecito and the third trial began in Florence in September.

Knox declared her innocence in an email submitted to the appeal court in Florence by her lawyers before their closing arguments in which she said: 'I didn't kill Meredith.'

On January 30 this year the pair were found guilty of the murder of Miss Kercher.

Hobnob said...

The court in Florence has now published the reasons behind Knox and Sollecito’s reconviction.

A 337-page report stated that Knox stabbed Kercher to death in a fight over money.

According to the report, known as a 'motivation' of the sentence, Knox inflicted the fatal knife wound to Miss Kercher.

The document stated: 'It is a matter of fact that at a certain point in the evening events accelerated; the English girl was attacked by Amanda Marie Knox, by Raffaele Sollecito, who was backing up his girlfriend, and by Rudy Hermann Guede, and constrained within her own room.'

It added that it is difficult to establish a reason for the brutal murder of Miss Kercher, but goes on to cite allegations of tension between Knox and the student.

It also refers to a statement that Guede made to police that Ms Kercher believed Knox stole 300 euros (£246) - and two credits cards - from her, which is described as a ‘valid motive’ for the murder.

After she was freed in 2011, Knox immediately returned to her hometown of Seattle to rebuild her life.

She has found love with old friend James Terrano and is now a creative writing student.

Last year she released a prison memoir for which she was paid a reported £2.6million.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2620517/Is-CCTV-proves-Amanda-Knox-lying-Footage-shows-near-house-Meredith-murdered-contradicting-alibi-stuck-murder-trial.html

john said...

Update:

Horry magistrate moves to dismiss newspaper's request for search warrants in Heather Elvis case.

http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/crime/article_06526bf6-d20b-11e3-a386-0017a43b2370.html

Anonymous said...

Hobs-its wrong to assume that an abductor would not risk confrontation with an adult in order to kidnap a child. History has shown in many many cases that an abductor Did exactly that. Look at that infamous abduction of the girl from the bedroom she shared with her sister while the parents slept. I agree with most of your ideas but you missed the boat with this one idea.

Anonymous said...

If Knox stole money from the victim that would be motive for the victim to have killed Knox, not the other way around.

Anonymous said...

I'm confused, I think it's because I've read so many different bits and pieces. Another adult, that the McCanns were with, supposedly checked on the kids (on Maddie) that night?

If so, what did that adult supposedly see? Did he actually supposedly see Maddie? Maybe I'm cobfused, and this hasn't been said to have happened. If it has been said, then like Hobs has said, what are all the adults hiding? Did the McCanns set it up to look like Maddie was sleeping?

I've read so many different pieces, it's confusing to me, as to what they actually claim happened. Is there somewhere I can read, all in one shot, what supposedly happened (what was going on, during the whole trip, with leaving the kids alone, parents checking on them, who checked when, etc)?

Hobnob said...

Hi Anon, the case you referred to showed the abductor took his victim in the same bedroom her younger sister was in. She was, i think 9, she was not an adult. He felt safe enough to tell the sister to stay quiet and like most children, she did as she was told.

An abductor is not going to go into a room with 8 sleeping children and an awake babysitting adult and try and grab a 3 year old toddler.

The adult isn't going to sit there and say go ahead take your pick, in fact take a couple. The adult will take action to protect the children and will attack the abductor and make as much noise as possible to attract attention, the children will wake up and start crying and screaming and even panicking.
The abductor runs the risk of not only being trapped or restrained by the protective adult, they also run the risk of serious injury as no adult is going to take attempted abduction of a child lightly.

Paedophile abductors will usually snatch their victims from outside where they have lots of escape routes, there isn't likely to be an adult around to protect the child or any witnesses and they will invariably kill and dump their victim within a couple of hours.

A paedophile abductor isn't going to break into a home, rape and kill his victim and then abduct the dead body.
Doing that only leaves them with the bigger problem of getting a dead body out the house and dead bodies are heavy and hard to move, it also leaves them with the problem of dumping said body and a greater chance of being spotted or leaving incriminating evidence, especially with all the CCTV around these days.

The elephant in the room is the fact that 2 dogs with a 100%track record indicated for blood and cadaverine in the apartment kate's pants, a child's red t shirt, cuddle cat and the hire car,blood and body fluids being founs behind the sofa and in the hire car. A bit of a coincidence that the abductor hired the same car as the mccanns.

To the other Anon, everything to do with the mccanns, every interview, press release, statement etc can be found here http://www.mccannfiles.com/index.html

You can also find info , analysis etc here https://www.facebook.com/groups/HiDeHoCONTROVERSYofMadeleineMcCann/?fref=nf

and also

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/

john said...

Madeleine McCann: Police To Dig For Evidence.

Officers will use ground penetrating radar equipment to examine three sites in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz.


http://news.sky.com/story/1256070/madeleine-mccann-police-to-dig-for-evidence

GeekRad said...

Hobnob, I have not followed this case. Why do you say that the children had a babysitter each night from the group (Tapas)? I do agree that based on SA the McCanns have guilty knowledge, but I can't fathom how a group of chums could conspire to to keep quiet.I am having trouble wrapping my brain around that.

dadgum said...

Did anyone see the Dr. Phil show Monday? The mom and boyfriend whose 1 year old son and 4yr old daughter 'died in their sleep' 3 months apart? These shows are edited, but still, it was very telling imo. I will look for more statements..
http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/2225

jenny StMaire said...

Yes Dadgum, watched the first part today - I am betting neither the mother nor her partner agree to the polygraph. I am so glad I know about SA now for picking up clues about guilt or innocence.

Hobnob said...

Hi geekRad

Each night of the vacation apart from the first night, there was an adult missing from the table, allegedly due to sickness.
A sickness that was so selective it affected a different adult each night and one child who allegedly had a runny diaper resulting in the male parent removing the child changing the bed bathing the child putting on clean bedding, washing the soiled bedding and putting said child back in her nice clean bed in her nice clean jammies inside 8 minutes.
The complexx noted that no requests had been made for clean laundry for any one.

For there to have been an abduction to take place, the mccanns and chums had to claim they left their children home alone every night whilst they ate drank and made merry popping off every 30 mins or so to do a check.
The mccanns it is noted never checked the children of the rest of the tapas 7 yet the tapas 7 allegedly checked all the children including the mccanns.

This was the only way in which there could have been an abduction, the perp entered the apartment between checks and made off with Maddie.

I know the children weren't left home alone since the parents told us as did a staff emember.
Gerry talked about one of the other... twins crying except there were no other twins only the mccanns. He was going to say other children but stopped himself as it would be incriminating.
There was also them talking about the children crying and wondering if it was when they were being bathed or put to bed.
If the parents had been bathing etc the question would not have arisen. if they were all in the same apartment ditto. So where were the children if they weren't in 5a and who was bathing them and putting them to bed.
Matt oldfield who claimed he checked on them described a totally different bedroom to the one the children allegedly slept in, and a staff member mentioned the twins being moved BACK to the apartment.

If they were babysat, there was no neglect and if there was no neglect there was no abduction and if there was no abduction what did they do to Maddie?

I too don't know what the dirty little secret is that is keeping their chums in line. Sedation is the obvious one , and, given david paynes sexual predilictions, paedophilia as well.
Why would the moms keep quiet if they knew it was going on though?
Are they complicit?

This would explain them all staying silent, even payne who has outright been called paedophile.
If it came out they would lose their children, their jobs, their licences, everything.
That is a good reason to say nothing and hope for the best

Baxtie said...

Hobnob,

I find it interesting that in the Pistorius trial Stander said:
"It's not something I would like to experience again, my lady," Stander said, addressing the judge who will deliver a verdict in the trial. "Because that young man walking down the stairs with the lady, with a young woman. His face. The expression of pain, the expression of sorrow. And he's crying."

Really? What bothered him was the expression on Pistorius's face? NOT the fact that there was a bloody dead woman in his arms? NOT the fact that a person had been killed? These weren't the things that Stander didn't want to relive -- just Pistorius's sad face.

To me this smacks of prep by the defense attorney. It echoes Pistorius's narcissism and how awful this has been for HIM. If it had been me standing at the bottom of those stairs, even if Pistorius was my best friend, I think the ONE thing I wouldn't want to relive is finding a dead woman I couldn't help save.

Hobnob said...

HI Baxtie, yep it does smack or prepping by the defense.

His defense experts were torn to shreds, his defence witnesses are fairing just as badly.

I can see why many are thinking he took acting lessons before this came to trial.
It is also so predictable.
It is all so fake.

I know when certain key words are said he will cover his ears, other wirds warant his head down and pretendy crying.

Certain special words bring on the theatrical retching and vomitting.

It is like going through a check list.

I know with afrikaans, the accent tends to flatten out the emotions, when pistorius spoke there still should hae been detectable emotion especially as he relieved the moment he shot her thinking she was an intruder.
This was the woamn he allegedly loved , who was much loved when she went to sleep, it was missing though.
He was flat and expressionless,I suspect he is all or nothing, either he is hyper brash and loud when winning, when getting his own way, when angry, when he wants to be and is the centre of attention.

When he isn't the centre of attention, when he doesn't gwet his own way, he sulks, he ignores everyone around him, he is rude, crude and annoying.

Any attention good or bad is better than none, especially as we have seen with his actions in the restaurant and car when he was firing his gun.

I can see him raging if he is denied something, if someone says no.
We saw this when he didn't win in the olympics, he was beaten by a better runner, he got abusive and bitched and whined and cried and made false allegations of illegal blades etc.

When he is found guilty, as surely he will be, if not of murder, then manslaughter for firing a gun and killing Reeva by recklessly shooting through the door, i expect him to show emotion then such as anger.
We saw flashes of it when he was being cross examined and his statements disbelieved and torn apart.

Pistorius is a selfish nasty piece of work and i expect more women to come forward with complaints when the trial is over.
Unfortunately Reeva was in the wrong place at the wrong time when he lost his temper.

Anonymous said...

Hobnob /John ... It's(me)again lol...I have a point 're the MCCann 's.If it was YOU who'd "lost"a daughter...and where the topic of doubt etc (i know for certain if it were I)...wouldn't you show"anger"??? Every time I've seen these2 on tv their faces show"pleading"??? Wouldn't you just want to scream out???? Or at least express "frustration"???? I was falsy accused once of playing a "practical joke"(putting playing cards on stairs)many years ago (in a workplce)prior to this accusation,,,I'd unwittingly seen the actual culprit,pleading his case,,,his shoulders slumpped,,,eyes all red.When I got accused I flew into a rage,!!! Insignificant tale YET different response...if your wrongly accused most would"erupt".

Anonymous said...

Thank you Hobs, for the McCann links.

john said...

Monica Lewinsky: Time to 'bury the blue dress'

Monica Lewinsky breaks silence to Vanity Fair about her affair with President Bill Clinton.

Lewinsky, now 40, says it was consensual and she is tired of 'tiptoeing around my past'


http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/05/06/monica-lewinsky-vanity-fair-affair-president-clinton?sr=fb050614monicalewinsky9pstorylink

charlotte from denmark said...

For seven people to keep silent about what happened that evening is one thing, for all of them to be able to keep their stories straight is on a whole new level.

It is too far fetched. I believe Gerry killed Madeleine, and for some reason, Kate helped him cover up.

I have no idea where or how they disposed of the body. The car? No, they rented that after the "abduction". The sea? Well, a small body will not travel far, if at all. Hence, there is need to go out to open water. And he would have been seen. So, he needed a boat. From where?

Anonymous said...

The children were in seperate apartments. There were not 8 children in one bedroom. Also the adults were at the restaurant and purportedly checking every 30 mins or so. There wasn't a baby sitter/adult in the room with the children. So I don't get what you're saying Hobs. I was only saying that abductors have stolen kids while adults were in the home in many true cases. Even while siblings were in the same room, like the Elizabeth Smart abduction, who was 14 when kidnapped.

S + K Mum said...

Regarding recent news of new dig searches, Gerry said 'They are chipping away and obviously there is new evidence...'
This makes me shudder! Chipping to me infers digging into stone.

GeekRad said...

Thanks for explaination Hobnob. Now I understand.
Dadgum, I watched the second part yesterday. The mom switched between I and we at inappropriate times repeatedly. I think she is beginning to realize the partner abused (and killed) her children but she she has not accepted it. I will be following this case.

Hobnob said...

Anonymous said...

The children were in seperate apartments. There were not 8 children in one bedroom. Also the adults were at the restaurant and purportedly checking every 30 mins or so. There wasn't a baby sitter/adult in the room with the children. So I don't get what you're saying Hobs. I was only saying that abductors have stolen kids while adults were in the home in many true cases. Even while siblings were in the same room, like the Elizabeth Smart abduction, who was 14 when kidnapped.


Hi anon.

You are buying into their version of events, what they want the world to believe, rather than the facts of the case from numerous witnesses, the forensic evidence, their own rogatory statements and their subsequent intervies, statements and pressers.

They have to claim the children were all left home alone each night in order for there to be time for an abduction to take place.

if you believe the tanner sighting ( which has now been disproved) then the abducter had approx 90 seconds or so tio break in sedate all 3 children, grab Maddie and escape, without leaving any DNA, no fingerprints, foots prints, ear or face prints, no fibres or hairs or skin cells, no nothing.
You also have to believe that the abductor was in the apartment when gerry allgedly checked on his children and had a proud dad moment as he looked at Maddie. You have to believe that the abductor was in the bedroom when gerry was, that the window, shutters and curtain were open and that gerry failed to see or hear or smell said abductor who was allegdly hiding behind the door/in the wardrobe.

If you believe that the abductor made his escape with maddie as soon as gerry left, then how come no one in the street (gerry. jez ir tanner) heard the distinctive sounds of the metal shutters being raised in a silent street late at night. We all know how noisy metal shutters are when we hear shops raising or lowering them in a busy street.

There is also the problem of tanner being physically unable to have seen the abductor from where she was standing and that jez and gerry would not have seen her since hshe had to walk right round them.

Then we have the claims of shutters smashed open and doors hanging off as the families were told that night, only for it to be shown the shutters and door were undamaged, followed by clarrie claiming it was possible for the abductor to leave no forensic evidence whatso ever.
No mention being made of the lack of forensic evidence that 3 toddlers were ever in the apartment or kate and gerry even given it had been so forensically cleaned.
We then have kates chaging story of windows and curtains wide open to curtain tightly closed and window open so they whooshed when she went to close the door ( the door slammed shut when she went to close it, which, breaks the laws of physics since the door would have cslammed shut the moment she opened the patio dooe, also no mention is made of the fact it was a near windless night with apprant local temp discrepencies in that gerry said it was hot and Maddie was on top of the bed, kate saying it was chilly and tanner saying it was very cold and she needed a fleece.
We also have tanners super visio, in which, under sodium lighting at 50 mtrs ( 150 ft) she could see the pj's had a pinky aspect and had a frill and it was a girl, the abductor , whose face she did not see changed almost daily in appearance even to her identifying Murat as the abductor ( he looks like david payne and also Angus Symington - a local estate agent)

For there to be an abduction they had to claim neglect. If the children were babysat as we know, there was no neglect and thus no abduction, in which case, what did they do to Maddie?

Peter Hyatt said...

Charlotte,

I think it was unintentional and may have been "sedation" (drugging) to go out to dinner.

Both have shown deception and distancing language.

It is sometimes difficult in analysis to tell which one (see Ramseys) as married couples "enter into each others' language" quite frequently.

Interesting comments all around.

Peter

Mary said...

Hobnob,

I'm a day late & dollar short so hopefully you'll see my question. I don't understand what you saying about Kate admitting to re kids crying in the bathtub.

I used to have more time to read numerous sites about these cases but now I only get all my info from Peter & the comments you all leave. Your comment has left me lost & curious!

Anonymous said...

I just started reading through mccannfiles (thanks to Hobs). There's definitely a lot to read through, but what I'm noticing first off, is Gerry speaking of Maddie in past tense pretty early on. It's also weird that Kate made a big deal about people calling her Maddie and saying no one ever called her that, and Maddie herself didn't like it, yet it appears to not be true. What was the point of her saying that?

Mary (again) said...

Hobnob has made a good point of how the whole group has went along with admitting to neglecting their kids, etc. that'd never occured to me. However, I can't imagine the entire group going along with covering up for their friends' kid being sexually abused (if hobnob meant they all went along to cover up sexual abuse) but it sure meshes well with Peter's sedation theory. As doctors, maybe the friends all trusted them to sedate all their children so the parents could be out having fun, doing checks every 30 min.

If all their children were being sedated, every night, that sure is a darn good reason for everyone of their group agreeing to keep going along with the story, as agreed. But even murderers can't stand a pedo, so I can't imagine the whole group covering for that, to this day. I do believe she was sexually abused, though. Even had I not read a word from Peter's blog, the way Gerry goes on & on about the beauty of his daughter is abnormal & creepish. It stood out to me.

Also, the way Madeline's head was described- it's shape, etc., but not a word of 10 little fingers, little toes, and all, as most parents do. Having worked with far too many doctors to count over the last 15 years, gives me a bit of confidence in saying not even doctors would describe their baby, or anyone else's baby, using such bizarre, undetached terms. Not even in a medical setting. It has to be the most bizarre thing I've read to date on this blog!

With every new interview Gerry & Kate give, only the witless aren't raising their eyebrows about what their hearing.

Thanks Peter. (Still hopeful you just haven't seen my requests & that you'll post your analysis from years ago about Cindy Anthony and the serpent. It's still my all-time favorite!)

Rose said...

I think that one reason that the Mccanns have gotten away with this for so long is because they are both highly intelligent and are of a social class that understands how to "work" the system to their advantage. I hate to say it, but I am just go to come out and say it anyway: most of the missing baby/toddler stories we see here come from the lower class/white trash/redneck demographic. The parents are not very smart and they are not at all sophisticated. They say and do very stupid things and so they are found out rather quickly.

The Mccanns are much, much smarter than most people we see in this predicament (I swear someone stole my baby!). That is why they have been able to keep this charade going for 7 years.

My own theory is that Maddie died in the apartment before they went out to dinner. The Mccanns stashed the body in the closet and made up a plan: they would go out to dinner that night and use the neglect of their children as their alibi. At some point during the dinner, Gerry removed the body and hid it in one the tunnel systems in the town. This took less than 20 minutes. Then it was Kate's turn to come back and "find" Madeleine missing. All of their friends and witnesses had been drinking quite a lot at this point, and so people's memories were muddled, and the timeline was confused. This would work very much the Mccann's advantage. Even before the "discovery," the excessive drinking meant that people were not keeping good track of time, and were also not aware of when someone left the table and when someone returned.

Ali said...

Te use of the word " compact" is unusual. It means, amongst other things, able to be fit into a small space or pushed together with force. Garbage is compacted.

" how could we of disposed – hidden her body?" It is interesting that Gerry changes " disposed of" to the softer " hidden". Garbage is disposed.

The use of " compact" and " disposed" makes me wonder how garbage is compacted and disposed of at the hotel.


Ali said...

Te use of the word " compact" is unusual. It means, amongst other things, able to be fit into a small space or pushed together with force. Garbage is compacted.

" how could we of disposed – hidden her body?" It is interesting that Gerry changes " disposed of" to the softer " hidden". Garbage is disposed.

The use of " compact" and " disposed" makes me wonder how garbage is compacted and disposed of at the hotel.


Ali said...

The phrase " then she opened her mouth" bothers me.

Kate McCann: she was just really compact and was just really the really nice, round, perfect head...and......you know...and then she, she opened her mouth ..."

Disparagement of the victim? She was ...perfect ...then she opened her mouth."

To open one's mouth can also be a way of saying divulging a secret.

Anonymous said...

I believe this happened the day previous to the staged scene. I also believe that there was abuse of a sexual nature taking place. It is my opinion only, that the group is untouchable as it is part of a wider ring. If you do not wish to publish this due to the nature of the beast, feel free to delete.

Anonymous said...

''for all of them to be able to keep their stories straight is on a whole new level.''

Charlotte, they haven't kept their stories straight - which is why all have refused to go back to Portugal to do a reconstruction....

The reconstruction is impossible because people are lying.

I know it's hard to believe such a level of group depravity and that these people could enrich themselves by sueing for libel.
The British and Portuguese governments have also been complicit in this coverup, hard as it may be to believe.

I agree with Hobnob - the neglect/abduction story is their alibi. I also believe they had reasons why they could not admit to her accidental death, ie evidence of long term abuse. It;s the only explanation for all the behaviour and the group cover up.

I believe innocent parents would look for someone to blame, and suspect everyone, including the friends who last saw their daughter. Continuing to play tennis with them is er ...highly unexpected





Anonymous said...

''when we cried last night''

Great catch! Spot on. A three year old would ask HER question about HER crying.

Another of Kate's alibi building lies, the day before!

Anonymous said...

''Prove we killed her''

The McCanns make my blood run cold. And they still have the twins!

Hobnob said...

Mary said...

Hobnob,

I'm a day late & dollar short so hopefully you'll see my question. I don't understand what you saying about Kate admitting to re kids crying in the bathtub.


Hi Mary
Regarding the crying in the bathtub,
Gerry McCann: Anybody with young children will understand that children cry; they wake up at night. During that week there was one night, errr… and we can't give too much detail because it's part of the investigation file but there was one night where Madeleine came through and one of the other, errr… twins were crying, so, you know, and when she did mention to it… it to us and we asked her about it and she just dropped… she was completely fine and we thought, 'Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired.

And also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqQ1-rUuTxM

In both cases you will see they pose the question was it when they were being bathed or being put to bed?

Now,

If kate and gerry were doing the bathing then the question would not have arisen since at least one of them was doing the action, there would be no need ask where they were when they cried since they were already present.
The same also goes for the being put to bed.

Thus, since we know the parents were not present when Maddie and Sean cried, we have to ask the following.

Who was bathing the children if it wasn't kate or gerry?

Since the parents did not report hearing the crying and the fact they didn't check to see who was crying and why, who was where?

If the children were being bathed in the apartment by someone other than the parents, where were kate and gerry and why were they not in 5a?

Since this is an unlikely scenario, that the parents would get ready for the night in another apartment, it is probably safe to assume the parents were in 5a and thus not able to hear the crying.

This then leads us to ask, in whose apartment were the children if not 5a?
Who was bathing them and in which apartment and why?

Was this a case of bathing all the children and putting them to bed in one apartment so one adult could babysit all 8 children without running round apartments?
It also meant none of the children would have been left home alone.

At the end of the night the parents collect their child(ren) and return them to their own apartments, and, if sedated as seems to be the case given the admissions from the mccanns, there was no risk of them waking up during the move.

Hobnob said...

This also fits in with the comment from a witness that the twins were moved back to the apartment, as well as missing bedding.

Given what is known about david payne, the Gaspar statements and the allegations he likes bathing other peoples children, the finger points straight to him regarding the bathing.

What normal family lets a a non family member, especially male, bathe their children, especially one that isn't supposedly a close friend.
Most families let only the mom and dad bathe their children or a female family member, males generally are dissuaded from such activities unless really close and trusted.

Here we have a male aquaintence bathing other parents children and this seems to have been expected.
It also fits in with what the social worker said on seeing payne and recognising him from her work, although not sure in what capacity ( witness, expert, or offender) and the fact payne hauled the mccanns away and prevented them talking to her, as well as his comment that there were other things relevant to the case but the interview was not the right forum for them.

If there was no neglect since the children were being babysat, there could be no abduction.
if there was no abduction, then what did they do to Maddie and where is she now?

If the babysitter was responsible for what happened, why did the mccanns no say what happened and blame the babysitter?

Why have the group stayed silent on the babysitting if there was an accident?
Accidents happen, as doctors they know this as do we the public as it is in the news almost daily.

The obvious conclusion is that it could not be explained away as an accident and if they blamed the babysitter, the babysitter would instead say it wasn't me, Maddie never showed up the night i was babysitting and thus the finger points straight to the mccanns.

What was going on that the whole group stayed silent?
it has to be something so bad that saying anything would mean curtains for the whole group.
It is a secret so bad that no one will say anything as it will be charges all round.

OldPsychNurse said...

Kate was expelled from an OB-GYN residency and also from an anesthesiology residency. She has spun this information as if it was her personal choice to leave these residencies, but she was expelled from both for having an incomplete knowledge base. (She didn't retain or learn necessary information from her medical school program.) She's the most dangerous type of physician: incompetent, deceitful, and prideful. Madeline died r/t injuries consistent with her mom's personal characteristics. She was incompetently medicated, so her pride-filled, deceitful mom could attend a dinner party.

trustmeigetit said...

Plus she stated the window was open as we'll. that window is on the street.

I wouldn't leave my son alone ever....much less with an open window even if another had not been kidnapped from that very room.

And their connections to someone has protected them. I think had this been the average Joe they would have been charged.

trustmeigetit said...

I think all the parents sedated their kids.

That puts them all in the same boat. Only one may have died (I think she freaked out looking for her parents and fell off the couch) but if they even tried to claim accident (Madeline got into something) if the other kids in the group all were sedated... It's likely police would have required the other kids get tested.... And what now....all 7-8 (not sure how many total kids) accidentally got into the drugs. That's not gonna fly.

So I think it was accidential (drugs then she fell) but it implicated all the parents for drugging their kids if they allowed one to be drugged.

trustmeigetit said...

I wonder if they will dig on Murats property. With that claim by the guy (Steven something) that something is buried on his property.

I am curious.

But even if they find the body, I doubt the Nccans will even see justice.

Also, I believe they confessed to the priest, he spoke hardly of them and that's not normal. And I pray, like in the case of Irene Garza...he may someday break his silence. We can hope.

trustmeigetit said...

Hobs said "there was an adult missing from the table, allegedly due to sickness.


Was this in the PJ files? I've never heard this before.

trustmeigetit said...

I too think she died early on and they hid her.

I am positive the Smiths saw Gerry and Gerry tried to exaggerate how long he spoke with his buddy on the street (Jez?). He stated like 15 mins but that guy said it was a couple mins.

pat Brown (criminal profiler) went to the location and walked around. She said in about 6-7 mins, Gerry could have hidden Madeleines little body so many places (Gerry and Kate also sued her over her book - I think it's the truth that scares them most) and been back at the table in time for Kate to come ring the alarm.....

S + K Mum said...

Yeah I don't know if they will dig on Murats property but I think they will dig close to it. It's too much of a coincidence that the finger was pointed at him at the beginning.
I agree about the priest, possible that he knew something because Kate slipped up and someone had to relocate with a hire car...... All my own opinion of course!
Very pleased to see the search back to where it should be - around the world search not a great diversion tactic any more.

trustmeigetit said...

I am not sure about the bath..but I still think Madeline cried the night before (and the lady upstairs confirmed this much) and likely did call her parents out on it. I think Kate shared the story because it was known already and she tried to use that to lead us to another conclusion. Not that they neglected their kids and one of them cried for over an hour (so much for those constant checks) but to lead to someone being in the apt the night before. Which is ludicrous.. Lol

I think the sedation was just not working on Madeleine (she woke up the night before) and they increased the dose the next night and that killed her.

I think all the kids were sedated and that implicated them all. No way to claim accident with on. The rest the kids would have then been tested and we'll, I bet the volume of drugs in their systems would show how much had been given and that would take them all down.

Just because only one died...it could have been any of the kids so that links them.

I do still however think the Mccanns are selfish. As if leaving the kids didn't show that...I don't think that even losing Madeleine devastated them. Accident or not.

They were fine days later.

I even think Madeline was very hyper like many think and was a handful and she was more work than they planned.

Anonymous said...

Gerry when questioned about the infamous last photo, which many consider to be fake or taken a long time before they claim:

"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."

"And" can show missing information when used in this manner.

"Just" is minimising the typical poolside actions in the unremarkable photo he describes. He's trying to emphasise the banality. This could be a comparison to the extraordinary, infamous events that later took place. Or, since there is doubt about the credibility of the Last Photo, the unnecessary description could be seen as a need to persuade that everything was exceptionally normal and happy until the night they claim she went missing (there is evidence to suggest she died a day or two earlier).

I think Madeleine and her siblings were drugged but don't think Madeleine died of an overdose. They found droplets of blood behind the sofa and on the tiles below the window. She must have been injured. In the above interview the parents keep saying "fell" and "died". I think one of them lashed out at her and she fell and was injured.

Unturned Stone said...

Hi, I am new to commenting and love the site and Peter and so many commentators on here! OT has anyone seen the German version of Crimewatch and Gerry being asked what would he like to say to the 'missing' Madeleine and he said '.... That we LOVED her'. SY still spending our millions not looking for the McCanns.

Unturned Stone said...

Hi, I am new to commenting and love the site and Peter and so many commentators on here! OT has anyone seen the German version of Crimewatch and Gerry being asked what would he like to say to the 'missing' Madeleine and he said '.... That we LOVED her'. SY still spending our millions not looking for the McCanns.

HC said...

These are extremely astute comments specifically the one re: parents who have lost a child to abduction. The aforesaid are so obsessive about keeping their other children within eyesight to the point of smothering them; they don't traverse the world like these a-holes do.

foodnerd said...

Katie, that "cuddled on my knee" description jumped out at me also; I kept re-reading thinking there had to be an error or I'd misread something. It just produces an awkward, jarring image rather than a soft, gentle one.

Ali, after reading many hours on this site the compact, dispose association with garbage also made me instantly think it's related to how they got rid of her body.

All of that babble about the distance in direct terms, Kate even corrected Gerry's estimation further down by specifying the (supposed) exact measurement. Does the fact she included a decimal and extra numbers (extra emphasis?) point to anything other than the obvious minimization of using that number? Wouldn't concerned parents evaluating the risk factor think more in terms of "how many steps – in both the literal and figurative senses – from reaching my children" if there were a fire; I saw a stranger up in the apartment window; someone told me the children have a bottle of pills, etc.?

As to why would the group continue to go along, the McCanns dragged them in a little bit at a time until they convinced them that the sum total of their proven wrongdoings would have huge negative consequences regardless of if prosecutors can convict them in Maddy's death. Convince them to drug the kids for a quiet adults-only evening (or their idea of a fun adults-only evening...); then convince them Maddy's death was an accident but "looked" highly suspicious for all of them; then formally and publicly put the friends behind perjurious statements so the friends felt locked into them, etc.

The sexual abuse, the other friends may or may not have been aware and may or may not have been complicit with their own children's involvement, but whoever all was in on it were either paid large amounts of money or traded video and photos with other pedophiles for their own preferred ages and types of pedophilia pornography.

Thanks, Peter for the excellent articles and to the commenters for intelligent, thought-provoking discourse!

Anonymous said...

I find this analysis fascinating! Do you think the fact that this interview is 4 years after the incident has colored the way they speak about it? Have you analyzed their statements to the police right after it happened for comparison?

Peter Hyatt said...

Many of the McCann interviews, including the first one, have been analyzed and they are all the same: deception indicated.

It is a valid question.

Peter