Sunday, November 27, 2016

Madeleine McCann Embedded Confession: Announcement

Richard Hall did an excellent job as an interviewer in the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann documentary.  

Readers here know that i embrace "Analytical Interviewing"; that is, a legally sound, non-intrusive method of interviewing a subject where no interpretation is done by the interviewer.  This means the subject interprets his or her own words for us.  

The Analytical Interview is based upon the subject's own words and allows us to "enter into" the language.  

Richard Hall went into the interview well prepared, knowledgeable, and with the purpose of seeking information.  This is not the norm in media where the 'focus' is often the interviewer, himself or herself, for the purpose of ratings.  Mr. Hall sought information in his interview and has, in my opinion, bested some professionals, including some very high paid ones.  He wanted information and fulfilled this role accurately.  Although we strongly follow the 'rules' of Analytical Interviewing in investigatory interviews, law enforcement knows that the rules are guides; not absolutes and will, when need be, interrupt, for example, the subject.  After the interview, law enforcement will enter the interrogation phase; something unique to their roles and not part of journalism. 

He came into the interview with many strong opinions on the case, but allowed me to 'allow' the parents of Madeleine McCann, to speak for themselves.  Whether this agreed with his beliefs about the case or not, he did not allow anything to interfere with this flow of information.  This is dramatically different than the propaganda or narrative driven journalism of main stream media today.  


 Mr. Hall sets a solid example for journalists interested, not in self promotion, but in information.  

                                             What's next?

Next up is the written analysis of this particular McCann interview for readers.  It will be more in depth than most blog entries, and for those interested in studying analysis, it is of value to see how we avoid interpreting a subject's words, instead, we embrace them and seek to learn why a specific word was used.  

On Thursday, December 1st, I intend to bring a team of analysts through the work, but with a singular focus:  Sexual Abuse. 

According to the words of the McCanns, Madeleine was not sold into sexual slavery but died in Portugal.  This is most evidenced in that Maddie was "beyond parental concern"; something that parents who know their child is deceased often indicate.  This is why so many thousands of people, particularly in the UK, felt strongly that the McCanns were not truthful.  Many comments reveal the line of thinking:  'the McCanns are more concerned about themselves than the child...', of which the analysis agrees. 

Was Madeleine a victim of child abuse?

This is an open question in that child abuse investigations include:

Neglect
Verbal Abuse
Physical Abuse 
Emotional Abuse (which can differ from Verbal Abuse) 
Exploitation 
 as well as the number one form of child abuse in terms of scope, "Neglect."

In all child abuse investigations, a safety "assessment" is made.  Regardless of the allegation, all aspects of child abuse are explored, including:

Sexual Abuse:  Doors and Lights 

In statement analysis, the topic of sexual abuse is so broad that it requires not only competent study, research and application, but advanced work as well.  

We do not interpret:  we listen. 

We also ask, "why?"

"I opened the door, turned on the light, and there she was."   

John Ramsey on the discovery of murdered Jonbenet Ramsey.  

First, we believe him.  

We believe he opened the door.

We believe he turned on the light. 

We believe she was there. 

We do not interpret or assign any alternative meaning to the words.  

We do ask "why?" in our analysis.  

Why did he need to tell us that he opened the door?
Why did he need to tell us that he turned on the light?

The "Law of Economy" says he could have simply said, "I found her in the basement."  

Instead, before the 'finding', we have two distinct and unnecessary inclusions:  

"door" and "lights."

Decades of research has found an association between the unnecessary use of these words and sexual activity, including childhood sexual abuse. 

It is not difficult to understand why. 

Here is a short lesson:

"Doors."

If a child is sexually abused in her home, in her own bed, and by a trusted adult, the trauma is more severe than we currently understand.  

The heightened hormonal alert can sometimes leave imprinted sensory descriptions upon the brain that stay with the victim her (or his) entire life.  

Consider repeat sexual abuse of a child where the child has a distinct and hormonally elevated memory of the sound of a door opening.  

The child will suffer.  This can be anything from self-destructive promiscuity to compromised immune system to un or underdeveloped brain processing, to...self loathing, substance abuse and a life time of hyper vigilance and night terrors.  

The child will suffer. 

Some will go on to reoffend.  

Others may become "failure to protect" parents, while the vast majority of them become extremely protective; sometimes to the detriment of the child's development.  

The "door" is remembered by the brain and will, at times, unnecessarily enter the language.  

We do not interpret the "door" as something other than a door:  We ask "why" the subject used it and we explore for possible child sexual abuse: 

his own, as a victim, or possibly as a predator.  

Since "doors", when used unnecessarily in a statement, is sometimes linked to childhood sexual abuse, we next look at the word "light" in the same way. 

The word "light" expresses energy and we find it, when used unnecessarily, as a possible signal of sexual activity.  

When someone writes, "I turned off the light and went to sleep", we see the action of turning off a light as not necessary to say.  We then seek to learn why the subject felt the need to tell us the light was turned off and we sometimes find:

it is due to a negative sexual experience; sometimes impotency or rejection.  

In John Ramsey's statement, we find that in the murder of a little girl who was in a "sexualized environment", was a bed wetter, and who had been treated for repeat urinary tract infections, two indications of sexual activity (including one child sexual abuse specific) in one sentence.  

We then look at other statements by the parents to learn more about this.  

                                      Analysis Assistance

We often find, particularly in a confession or admission, that the subject is now willing to "help" us learn.  This is one of the most marvelous educational opportunities any analyst can experience:

The subject's commentary on your analysis.  

I first experienced this years ago in a case of theft where a suspect was cleared by a well experienced law enforcement investigator.  

She had allowed for her person and vehicle to be searched and was cooperative with the investigation, including a thorough interview.  

The officer was convinced she "didn't do it" to the point where he was angry at the analysis.  This was my first encounter with "junk science" (also said about polygraph, voice stress analysis) from within law enforcement.  

He did not want to do a joint interview and declined the analysis before he interviewed her, calling upon his decades of experience instead. 

The statement she had written showed not only the theft, but the time of the theft, the mechanisms of the theft and her motive. 

I interviewed her twice.  

It is in the follow up interview that we get our most confessions or admissions.  (An admission is a confession without moral responsibility.  In this case, she admitted the theft, but denied it was immoral to do so as she felt justified).  

After the admission, I asked her if she would "take me through" the analysis.  

It was amazing.  

When, for example, she wrote, "did my work assignment" without the dropped pronoun, she told me, "Well, actually I didn't do it.  I went out for a smoke, instead."  

Where she wrote, "I sat down with the supervisor" she confirmed:

a.  "sat" as body posture was added as she was very tense;
b.  "with" showed the distance between them:  they strongly disagreed about work hours
c.  "the supervisor" is a strong signal of a "bad relationship" between them.  She said, "I can't stand her!"

When it came time to show her the exact moment of the theft and how she did it, she was amazed and confirmed it. 

I finally asked her,

"How did you fool the investigator?"

She said it was "easy" and that she cried a little and he did most of the talking.  She said it was like "he did the work for me." 

In Analytical Interviewing, we not only let the subject do 80% or more of the talking, we do our best to use only the subject's words, avoiding introducing any new words.  

Interestingly enough, local law enforcement refused to believe she had admitted the theft.

I had her put it in writing.  

The twist of fate?

The original investigator had to deliver the court summons.  He was not pleased.  

A subject who admits or confesses is a golden opportunity for personal growth for an investigator.  It increases resolve, confidence in the analysis, true enough, but much more, it broadens his understanding of how powerful this tool is.  

For training at home, or through hosting a seminar, please go to Hyatt Analysis Services.  

This is for police, journalists, human resource professionals, therapists, and so many other professions where detecting deception is needed.  

We offer tuition payment plans, as well as an automatic 12 months of e-support:  your work is "proofed."

Everyone makes mistakes.  If you are formally trained, you are given the opportunity for precise correction of the error, while in study, and will learn how to spot error, and where to key in on missing information.  

With this support, you will never submit an errant report or opinion, if you have your work checked by other professionals.  

This is key to learning.  

Stay tuned. 

I hope to publish analysis and findings on Friday, December 2nd, 2016, as we continue to study the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and sift through the deception offered by the parents.  

  




53 comments:

Gem said...

I can't wait for the rest to follow. Thank you for sharing this with the public.

LisaB said...

Peter,
I watched your interview, all three parts, staying up way too late in doing so. It's the first time I have seen you speak, and I was completely fascinated by the way you were sble to dissect the McCann interview. It all makes sense.
I had always assumed they mentioned how sleepy she was to explain her not calling out while bring "abducted"... she was asleep.
Today it occurred to me that, if I had really thought my children were fine alone while I had dinner with friends nearby, I'd seriously rethink my child-care solution after my daughter came to me to express concerns that nobody came when they cried.
Yet, the very same evening, by their own admission, they did it again! Who does that?

Kimberly Smith said...

I've been following Rich Hall's investigations for years. He really is masterful, and teachable, an invaluable pairing of traits, which you possess as well, Peter, imo.

LisaB -- I completely agree with your post. They should have been charged with neglect, for starters.

mew waters said...

I have found your work remarkable and I totally agree with your outcome, I would love to know why they are seemingly above the law.

So Sez Kez said...

Thank you so much for your work on this case. It's being covered up over here, so it's so refreshing to see someone speaking facts.

When I first heard the news and was told that the parents were out at the time I immediately said 'you can't leave a child alone, what if they vomit in their sleep and choke themself? That's what I thought had happened at first and when I learned that the parents were doctors I assumed that they'd sedated her and that's why they felt comfortable that she wouldn't need them while they were away. In my opinion Kate is clearly sedated in earlier interviews and I think that was so that she let Gerry do all the talking.

As I read further information though, it became clear that this was much more sinister than first appeared.

In my opinion, the Butler did it. Well, David Payne anyway. He either did it himself, or was the facilitator for an outside buyer.

I would be interested to know your thoughts on Kate McCann's book, specifically the part on page 129, where she confesses to Gerry that she couldn't get the image out of her head of Madeleine's 'perfect little genitals torn apart'.

Why would she think such a thing? Why would you conjure up an image like that out of nowhere? It sounds to me like it was something that she actually saw.

Sorry to go all Miss Marple on you. You're the professional. But you said that you welcomed other people's input, so I'm going from that.

Also, you described so many things in your videos that were total 'hitting the nail on the head' moments. It was so exciting to see someone say the things that I was thinking.

I bow down to your talent, good Sir. Please, please, keep going?! xXx

Anonymous said...

There is an extraordinary amount of showering/bathing going on on the purported day of the disappearance and the famous Mrs M in the towel incident. I don't know if there is any direct statements on this or just the reported speech of the Portuguese police statements. Either way it would be interesting to have a view as this activity seems to me to be a major red flag.

Jon said...

Has anyone been keeping up with #Pizzagate? Or #Twittergate? There's even a link with the Madeleine McCann case with two "suspect" drawings having a stunning likeness to John & Tony Podesta, who are both at the centre of this controversy, and who may or may not have been around the area where Madeleine disappeared at the time.

I beg of Peter and anyone else who feels the need for justice to look into this affront against humanity and investigate #Pizzagate/twittergate. This should be front news page over the entire world (I'm not exaggerating!).

James Alefantis is the owner of Comet Ping Pong pizza which is said to be the hub of the operations involving child trafficking and he has given a few interviews which are on Youtube as well as written transcripts on NY Times, who amazingly enough have simply claimed the story to be "fake" or "debunked" based solely on his word alone with no apparent fact checking on his claims.

tania cadogan said...

The mccanns were never charged with neglect as if they had done so, they could not then have been charged with the more serious crimes of homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.

Had they been charged with neglect, since Portugal has double jeopardy, all the mccanns would have had to do was say we didn't leave the children alone each night as we claimed. They were babysat by one of our group in one apartment each night.
They are then cleared of neglect since there was none and they could not have been charged with the more serious crimes. They get away criminally scot free.

They would have lost their licenses to practice medicine, access to the fund and their reputations would be in tatters but they would be out of jail, which was the main point.

Regarding the shower and kate.

She tells us she was in the shower when david payne popped in and then later on she tells us in a different interview she had a bath when gerry came home.

Now, if i believe both stories as i must then i have to wonder why the need to have a bath after a shower earlier that evening.

Since payne visited i wonder if there was some form of sexual activity and that then required kate to have a second bath to remove the evidence/ scent of another man before heading off to the tapas bar.

Anonymous said...

CHICAGO -- At least 51 people have been shot, 6 fatally, in attacks across the city over Thanksgiving weekend, according to Chicago police. ...Wow...

Foolsfeedonfolly said...


LisaB November 27, 21016 @ 1:39 PM- You said...

"Today it occurred to me that, if I had really thought my children were fine alone while I had dinner with friends nearby, I'd seriously rethink my child-care solution after my daughter came to me to express concerns that nobody came when they cried.
Yet, the very same evening, by their own admission, they did it again! Who does that?"


Very good point!
_____________________________

Kimberly Smith November 27, 2016 @2:22 PM- You said...

" They should have been charged with neglect, for starters."

Totally agreed! I liked the "for starters". In view of their own interview remarks, they should also be charged with Child Neglect Leading to Child Endangerment.
____________________________

So Sez Kez November 27, 2016 @ 2:48 PM- You said...

"I would be interested to know your thoughts on Kate McCann's book, specifically the part on page 129, where she confesses to Gerry that she couldn't get the image out of her head of Madeleine's 'perfect little genitals torn apart'.

Why would she think such a thing? Why would you conjure up an image like that out of nowhere? It sounds to me like it was something that she actually saw."


Not Peter by a long shot here, but Kate began her practice in Obstetrics and Gynecology. She then moved into Anesthesiology (patient sedation/pain management), followed by General Practitioner. All three would have precipitated knowledge of genital development, injury, and abuse. It is quite unexpected though that the mother of a missing daughter (a toddler no less) would "let herself go there"...much less in graphic, excruciating detail. For the emotionally attached and invested mother, mental denial would be essential to the mother's psychological survival. She would actively not "go there" in order to keep herself together to continue searching for her child, even more so if she had other small children also depending on her. Yet unexpectedly, Kate does indeed go there.

So Sez Kez said...

The fact that is was the Men's job to bathe all of the children, whilst the Mums had some rest, alarms me greatly. How the chuff leaves their toddlers with a load of blokes. Ain't no Man looking at my kiddies' tiddlies!

Trudy said...

LisaB and others, the Peter Hyatt interview about Katelyn Markham (with a different interviewer) is very good, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u84qJYjsCSE

One thing that struck me during Kate's narrative building about the door being open wider than "we"d left it", is that Kate says she pulled it to close it and a gust of wind slammed it shut. The shock of the door slamming shut prompted her to open it and the curtains billowed to reveal that the window was open and Madeleine was gone. But what if the door hadn't slammed? Why was she pulling the door to close it before she had checked the children? It doesn't make sense.

LisaB said...

Trudy,
I wondered the same thing. Also, since her husband had returned once to check the kids, I would think he would have opened the door to do so.

Anonymous said...

Peter,
please consider making an analysis of this interview with James Alefantis, the owner of Comet Ping Pong (of #Pizzagate twitter fame, or infamy):
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/27/503489400/fake-news-surge-pins-d-c-pizzeria-as-home-to-child-trafficking?sc=tw
Eric

Nic said...

Gerry McCann:
"I'd actually stuck my head around the door and I, I lingered for a few seconds... thought how beautiful she was…”

^^This very much reminded me of BJD when she looked in on Hailey “but didn’t touch her”.

Moreover, Davey Blackburn :

"When I walked in the bedroom, however, I didn’t see her in her normal spot propped up on the bed reading. I peered around the corner to check the bathroom. She wasn’t there either.”

"When I went back into the house for the first time I saw this window still in tact on the wall around the corner”


*************

Could someone please chime in on the above-mentioned statements? I'm interested to hear others' thoughts, specifically, about “around” the corner/door. Both men describe a movement that is sneaky/spying when in fact there shouldn’t be anything sneaky about being in the company of a loved one (note in two examples, both victims are in the vicinity of their bed (vulnerability)), or in the third example, DB is alone (?) in the cleansed aftermath of the house he shared with his wife.

Katrina said...

DB looked for Amanda in that spying fashion when she was still allegedly alive and he found her "bowed by the bed in a posture of surrender praying". He also did claim to do that after she had died also.

Peering around doors in this "spying" way...I am torn as to the meaning...I think there is a possibility it indicates tension....in other words, it indicates the victim is dead at that point...similar to someone "peering" into a coffin at a wake.
There is a possibility this "peeking around doors" can indicate essentially the predatorial motions towards the victim as the predator goes to kill the victim....part of me thinks that is likely what it means.

Bobcat said...

Nic,

"stuck my head" is curious to me.

Possible leakage?

Why not just say "I looked". Why the need to mention his "head"?

Writing that makes me frown.

tania cadogan said...

Trudy said...

LisaB and others, the Peter Hyatt interview about Katelyn Markham (with a different interviewer) is very good, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u84qJYjsCSE

One thing that struck me during Kate's narrative building about the door being open wider than "we"d left it", is that Kate says she pulled it to close it and a gust of wind slammed it shut. The shock of the door slamming shut prompted her to open it and the curtains billowed to reveal that the window was open and Madeleine was gone. But what if the door hadn't slammed? Why was she pulling the door to close it before she had checked the children? It doesn't make sense.


This bit about finding the door more open "we"d left it" shows deception.
Considering their claim that the children were being checked every half hour or so and that matt oldfield had done the 9:30 pm check then unless the door position was clearly marked so he knew where to leave it then the door would not have been in the same position they had left it.

If, however, there had been no checks done as claimed, then the door would have been in the same position and her statement about finding it more open than when they left would have been applicable.
It cannot be both
Either they checked and left the door in situ and no further checks done meaning someone else moved the door who was not in their group
Or she is lying about the door and windows since matt would have moved the door to check.
Also matt makes no mention of doors or open shutters nor does gerry and the story falls down that the abductor was there when gerry went in and abducted Maddie when gerry was talking in the street with jez wilkins, being passed by by an invisible jane tanner who saw the alleged abductor.
The street was quiet and the noise of the shutters being open would have been heard by all three.
We all know how noisy they are and can be heard even in a busy street.
No reports of noise means the shutters weren't moved when claimed.

Also her claims about the curtains whooshing was physically impossible since a through draught would have been needed which didn't exist as well as the curtains being tucked behind the furniture

Trigger said...

When Kate talked about the slamming door, then she opened it, and then saw the curtains blowing and moving, I thought about a movie, where someone died. In a effort to not show the body, the film makers, showed billowy, moving sheer curtains on a window in the room where the body lay, instead of the body, to let the imagination of the viewer, assume that death was present in the room.

While Kate was trying to get her audience to visualize a living child being taken through the window where the curtains were moving and blowing, without saying Madeline was kidnapped, I envisioned a dead child laying somewhere in the room because of the movie I saw.

Story telling is what, Peter picked up on, like a script in a movie.


Katrina said...

It reminds me of the Lindburgh kidnapping narrative.

Some have theorized the Lindburgh baby may have been dropped as he was being carried down the ladder from his bedroom window and that that is what killed him.



Katrina said...

"cuddled on my knee" could mean she was in a car at that time

Katrina said...

The curtains flowing....was she wrapped in a blanket? Was she discarded in water? "Flowing".

Katrina said...

Was she passed through the window and handed off to someone after she was deceased?

Katrina said...

The father describes Madeleine as being "ecstatic" when the twins were born. I thought that was an odd choice of words considering most toddlers are somewhat jealous of new siblings and rarely are they "ecstatic".

"Ecstatic" comes from the Latin "to step out one's of proper place" "to stand out from" "to step away from"....I remember reading yrs ago that some psychiatrist analyzed his patient's dream which was the patient dreamed he was on the side of a mountain and saw the word "ecstatic" and the psychiatrist jotted down in his notes that the patient would one day fall off a mountain and die, and sure enough, it actually happened. Because "ecstatic" comes from the Latin "to step away from" "to stand out from" the psychiatrist felt the dream was a premonition that the patient would step away from/stand out from the mountain and fall.

Now, the father probably learned Latin since he comes from a country that teaches Latin I bet, so for him to choose that word "ecstatic" to describe Madeleine, could Madeleine have fallen from a window or was she disposed of by being thrown from a high place into water or a hard to reach area on land?

Katrina said...

OK...I'm seeing at 16:00 in the 3rd video that the Dad, right after his embedded confession says "if she fell...and died".

I"m coming to this case cold and and learning what happened through the videos, but I get a strong sense Madeleine fell out the window, was brought inside, and died in the apartment. I don't understand why a parent would cover that up though and dispose of their child's body. It seems incomprehensible. However, this is the sense that I am getting is that she fell out of the window.

Katrina said...

Sorry I meant at 11:00 in 3rd video.

Katrina said...

After watching the rest of the 3rd video, I think Madeleine may have attempted to flee from or escape the molester father by trying to climb out through the window and fell.

Katrina said...

Also I think when the Mom describes Madeleine "very tired but cuddled on my knee"....I think that was when they were moving her body in the car they rented...something intuitively told me before I knew that fact about the car that the awkward body position indicated Madeleine was dead at that point and that rigor mortis had set in and also I felt that she was in the Mom's lap in a very awkward way in a car. Then I learned in the 3rd video that they rented a car a few weeks after she died and may have moved Madeleine's body in it.

Peter did a fantastic job extracting info from the McCann's words.

Katrina said...

Short video shows examples of body language examples of duping delight and contempt from the McCAnn's facial expressions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JebImnPFcuI

Anonymous said...

I think the Mom knew Madeleine was being molested and didn't care.

I just watched an Oprah interview with the McCann's where Kate, upon discovering Madeleine missing, says she "checked in the wardrobe to see if she was cowering in there or something". Why would she be cowering in the wardrobe when Kate enters the room? I get the worst vibe off these people like the mother would bring her to the father to be molested. Why would she be cowering in the wardrobe when she hears her mother enter the room? These people are the WORST liars too!!!

I see what Peter says also how they often ask questions (you could see this in the Oprah video) and look at the interviewer like "did you believe that? Does that sound plausible?"

AnnaEsse said...

I try out how I would describe some situations or events which are analysed here. The doors and lights, for example. OK, I think of a real situation. A few years ago, I was awakened by the sound of my grandson crying out from his bedroom. It was the kind of sound that made me think this was an emergency. How would I tell you what I did and what happened subsequently? Well, I rushed into his room. Do I need to mention doors or lights? No. I rushed into his room and found him sitting bolt upright in his bed, with tears streaming down his face. Do I need to tell you where I was when I asked him what was wrong? No. I asked him and he told me. "Nanna Anna, I always have three stories and you only gave me two." So, while I am sure that my way of describing events is not the way everyone would, I do wonder why someone would need to say that they opened the door etc.

Peter Hyatt said...

AnnaEsse,

this form of 'self analysis of language' is quite helpful.

We look at "doors", "lights" (and water references) when they are unnecessary.

If an account needs "light" (I used my flashlight", or "my grandson yelled to turn on the lights") is is considered a necessary use of the wording.

It is in the unnecessary use that we ask "why?" the subject chose to use it.

The use by John Ramsey is 'off the charts' given:

a. the context
b. the short sentence

When we add this to other things he has said...

the conclusion presents itself.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

So Sez Kez said...
The fact that is was the Men's job to bathe all of the children, whilst the Mums had some rest, alarms me greatly. How the chuff leaves their toddlers with a load of blokes. Ain't no Man looking at my kiddies' tiddlies!
November 27, 2016 at 5:29 PM


This is an important point made.
Peter

Scarlett said...

Re urinary thract infections and Jon Benet. Didn't her doctor say that she had them once or twice?

Although I know she was killed in her home, by the very people who gave her life, I think she was somewhat healthy?

Peter Hyatt said...

Scarlett,

no, she was treated regularly for them and her doctor said he did not find this "abnormal" and did not suspect sexual abuse.

By itself, it is not "proof" of sexual abuse.

In the years I investigated allegations of sexual abuse, a UTI in a child was a concern, but not a red flag. When it was combined with bed wetting, it took on more notice. If there were other signals...such as to give increase in concern, further exploration was needed.

Sexual Abuse, by state definition, can vary, but a "sexualized environment" is key. This can include a child's exposure to pornography, for example, or sexualized behavior, dress, or appearance.

When the elements become to come together, the concern grows quite a bit.

But...

When it is in the language and we have the elements above, it becomes a clearer portrait.

Peter

Sally Harley said...

Would love to observe thank you

LisaB said...

Katrina,
I don't know enough to be sure if this idea is fully supported by their words, but it makes sense.

Especially if they had given Madeleine a little too much sleeping making it more likely she would fall (leaving the blowing curtains in the window, where she had been sitting just a moment before), and more likely they would feel a need to hide it. This would be especially true if the medication they used to get her to sleep was not something you would typically give to children.

For example, they could have explained away Benadryl, even an overdose of Benadryl by saying one parent mistakenly dosed her inappropriately, or that both parents administered the medication to her without realizing the other had done so. Had they used something like Benadryl, they'd have had no reason to hide her body.

As Physicians, and apparently with Kate being in anaesthesia, they might have had access to medications that it would have been professionally irresponsible for them to administer to a child. Therefore, even the smallest trace of such a medication would raise red flags upon autopsy, potentially even costing one or both of them there license to practice.

I also hadn't considered the possibility of her being passed out through the window to be concealed elsewhere, but that also makes sense, as somebody might have seen them carrying her out the door. It's typical to carry a sleeping child INTO your apartment, but less typical to carry a sleeping child OUT, which would be something they might have to explain down the line, so avoiding Witnesses was key.

Had she indeed fallen from the window, I would also assume that there would be visible abrasions, most likely to her head, that would alert any witnesses that she was not merely sleeping. A lot of injuries, and the child not crying would be a huge red flag.

I really wanted them to be innocent, but let's be honest... They know exactly what happened.

Matthew Taylor said...

Great work Peter. I'm fascinated by your approach to finding out the truth.
Here is a link to a news story I wrote about your work on the Madeleine McCann case.
http://uk.blastingnews.com/opinion/2016/11/madeleine-mccann-is-dead-says-expert-001261943.html

John Jasper said...

I've only just been introduced to Statement Analysis through Richard D Hall's show and once again, I'm gobsmacked that I was completely unaware of such an important area of research already being used practically. Perhaps in this new era of Brexit and Trump, SA will prove to be the lever that breaks through government falsifications such as the McCann case.

Regardless, it's a pleasure to be a witness to your success.

Buckley said...

I have to admit, I'm still not "there" on this case. I came to it late and most I read and hear have already decided and, it seems, take every detail to prove their guilt rather than listen and let words guide. A lot seems to delve into "an innocent parent wouldn't..." rather than pure analysis.

It's frustrating to have not "decided", and I'll probably get slammed for it. Maybe the discussion Friday will help :/

UK P Investigations said...

Buckley said...
I have to admit, I'm still not "there" on this case. I came to it late and most I read and hear have already decided and, it seems, take every detail to prove their guilt rather than listen and let words guide. A lot seems to delve into "an innocent parent wouldn't..." rather than pure analysis.

It's frustrating to have not "decided", and I'll probably get slammed for it. Maybe the discussion Friday will help :/
November 29, 2016 at 7:19 AM


What part of the analysis is wrong? I am new to this form of analysis but not the case. Here we have explored it in detail more than you in the states or Canada.

Andrew Johnson said...

Thank you Peter for your courage in speaking the truth and also spending time with Richard D Hall - himself a courageous investigator. You both set a fantastic example, which few can follow - and many more do not wish to, preferring deception over honesty.

Thanks again!

Lisa21222 said...

I was just noticing that, on "true crime shows" they often show a bedroom door opening and a man peering in (from the perspective of someone in the room) to represent child sexual abuse.

Example:
Woman speaking: "We were abused by him, sexually" and then a cut to a door opening and the man peeking in.

Bedroom Door opening = Child sexual abuse.

Anonymous said...


Not all disappearances of children are related to sexual abuse. This one is related to parental stupidity, selfishness, and a drug overdose.
1. Dr. Kate McCann failed an anesthesiology medical residency and was booted from it.
2. Madeleine was heard crying relentlessly while her physician parents were "partying" the night before she disappeared. She was supposed to sleep, so her parents could drinking wine and talk with their friends.
3. Dr. Kate and Dr. John went on this holiday expecting to party with their adult friends, but couldn't when their children were awake.

Anonymous said...

In this case, the word "sleep" is synonymous with "anesthetized".

Katrina said...

Anon, you are overlooking the presence of a very predatory pedophile who actually planned the whole trip and made sure all the families were in very close proximity. (I also would not doubt that he knew that the doors could only be locked from the inside considering he revealed to police he was very detailed in finding out information about the rooms and whether the families would be right next to each other and he even knew that this resort did not have a child "listening" service like some other resorts he had been too which meant the parents would have to all take turns checking on the kids.) This same pedo is the last person outside of the family who claims to have seen Madeleine alive. This same pedo stated "It was great when they (McCann's) left their door open at night." This same pedo has been shown through statement analysis to have knowledge of Madeleine being disposed of in a bag. This same pedo describes Madeleine using the "idealistic" terms common to pedophiles. This same pedo disparages Madeleine, referring to her "iris defect" and making a disturbing link between her having an "iris defect" and her ability to get along well with children (implying that a line in her iris which he considers a "defect" could effect what kind of person she was and whether she could "get along with other children". (I also believe this pedo leaks manner of death in the portion of the police interview which relates to the bag).

tania cadogan said...

Regarding sedation of the twins and Maddie.

If we go with Maddie dying due to over sedation, why did the mccanns go through all the trouble of disposal and filing a false police report and the subsequent investigation.

The easiest option and one most likely to be believed was this.

Maddie found some medication such as pills and thought they were candy and ate them.
During the alleged checks, no crying was heard and the checkers thought all was well or they peered around the door and saw what they thought were three sleeping children.

In the morning they couldn't wake Maddie and realized she was dead.
Having call 911 or the Portuguese equivalent as parents would instinctively do, it was learned Maddie had ingested sedatives and died as a result.
Only crime they would be guilty of is not making sure the medicines were out of reach.

Even if she had been found behind the sofa dead, the parents could have claimed they were drunk and didn't check the children visibly and only realized what had happened when Maddie wasn't in her bed and they find her behind the sofa dead.
911, short investigation, accidental death , possible risk of censure from the GMC for not making sure medicines were out of reach and they are free to go.

That they went to such extremes to dispose of her body and cover up a crime or crimes indicates there was something that would be found that could not be explained away as above or as an accidental death.
An autopsy would be conducted as a matter of course.
What would have been found in the autopsy that they could not allow to be found?

Sexual or physical abuse?
Ongoing sedation found in the hair?
Old scars or injuries that had not been treated in a hospital but would have warranted such?

The mccanns told us if it had been an accident, why would they have covered it up?
They covered it up so it could not have been an accident which then points then non accidental death.

Death as a result of or during the perpetration of other crimes?
Premeditation?
Something else?

Katrina said...

If she died of an accidental OD, why would there be blood found behind sofa, etc?

If there is a wolf circling a sheep pen at night and the next morning a sheep is found dead and bleeding, there is almost a 100 % likelihood the wolf killed the sheep. Same thing in this situation involving David Payne--we have the "wolf" circling as a clue.

Katrina said...

Kate has said "(I knew) someone had tried to get in the night before."

WHO tried to get in the night before?

David Payne told police "It was great when they (McCann's) left their door open at night."

Did someone lock him out the night before? Possibly even Madeleine? Could this have enraged Payne enough for him to brutally attack Madeleine the nextt day?

Katrina said...

Another interesting bit of info: Payne told police that his kids were not checked for crying EVER during the vacation bc he claims he had an excellent monitor which allowed him to monitor if they were crying etc. Therefore, what if Maddie had been hidden in Payne's hotel room at any point? No adults would know bc noone checked on Payne's kids in the evenings!

Katrina said...

Jerry could have communicated with Payne through the monitor
Also Paynes room was the only room
out of the group on the 2nd floor.

Katrina said...

Why did Payne set things up so noone would go near his hotel room in the evenings? How do we even know that Maddie didnt sleep in his flat on some/all nights?

Mosaic said...

In their June 19/2007 interview with the Irish broadcaster RTE, the McCanns were asked why it was important to for them to stay in Portugal:

[3:12] Interviewer : "Why do you think it is important to stay here in Portugal"?

Kate replies: "I mean, I feel closer to Madeleine here, which - I mean, I might be wrong, she might be closer to the UK than, than here, but [breathes in audibly] I do feel close to Madeleine here; we're also close to the investigation here. And, er, to be honest, I can't really think about gong home - to our home, without Madeleine."

Gerry's reaction to Kate using the phrase "closer to Madeleine":
When Kate says it for the first time, his eyes move to the right [3:19] in a way that conveyed "concentration on something of crucial relevance" to me.

When Kate mentions "closer to Madeleine" for the second time, he abruptly turns his head toward her at a 90 degree angle and distorts his mouth.


To me it looks like Gerry tried - via body language - to stop Kate from continuing.
Because her words "closer to Madeleine" might be too revealing?
Could these words indicate that the McCanns knew that Madeleine's dead body had been disposed of at a spot 'close' to Praia da Luz?