Friday, November 25, 2016

Statement Analysis: The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann Part One




There are several elements within the language, from part one through part three, that will highlight:

1.  What an "embedded confession" looks like
2.  The verbal indicators that bring sexual abuse into this case. 

We allow the words to guide us.  

You will see that the parents show no concern for the missing child's welfare, as Madeleine was beyond all help or "concern", within their language.  

The analysis will be published after Part Three of the interview.  

19 comments:

tania cadogan said...

Yaaaay and well done Peter

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

Excellent analysis, Peter, and illustrates the importance of formal and ongoing training

Anonymous said...

Great stuff! Quick question, would length of time change your prospective about your missing child being dead or alive? Perhaps you lose hope? And without verbalizing it would be a natural out flow of expression to think of your child in the past tense?

Annski said...

Listening to this now. Very good.

tania cadogan said...

Please hurry up with parts 2 and 3 Peter

Trigger said...

I listened to all three parts. It was cogent and easy to stay focused on.

I signed up for Mark McClish's program.

Anonymous said...

Could any of this be due to the proverbial British "stiff upper lip?"

chivanotrix said...

I found this blog thanks to Richard Hall's video. I'd never have thought that there are ways to tell lies by studying statements, without dealing with the people. This is fascinating.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Peter- Listening to Part 1 here and thinking about your comment about the McCanns minimizing their responsibility in Madeline's "disappearance" and the fact that they left the door unlocked. They are more concerned with defending their actions.

Would the same principle also apply to Davey Blackburn minimizing that he left the front door unlocked? He did countless speaking engagements, Facebook, Resonate sermons,interviews, and blog posts without ever acknowledging that he left the front door unlocked, knowing that there had been enough serious criminal activity in the surrounding neighborhoods to warrant concern on Amanda's part. Would that evidence a need to control the narrative? He did not address it until it became unavoidable with social media posters,familiar with the Affidavit of Probable Cause, bringing it to public attention.


When he finally did acknowledge it (7-8 months later), it was in an interview by his uncle in his uncle's church...not an actual interview with a reporter. He blamed the victim with "we never locked the door" and "she was about to get up anyway, so I wouldn't lock the door". He shows an awareness that he is lacking "survivor's guilt", an awareness of how he is being perceived, and a need to counteract that potentially negative (i.e. damaging) perception...A need to correct the unexpected course the narrative had taken.

His account has been markedly absent of the expected Survivor's Guilt- the overwhelming and debilitating cycle of "If only I had..." or "If only I hadn't..." that consumes family and friends in sudden loss/tragic situations. As the purported head of his household Biblically-speaking (via his sermons, Amanda's prayers for him as spiritual leader of their household, her Love Song Q &A responses), I would strongly expect him to take responsibility for her safety and that of the baby. He blamed Amanda. As a husband, I would expect him to assume responsibility for his wife's safety and his subsequent failure. He blamed Amanda. As a father, I would expect him to assume responsibility for his part in Weston being motherless. He asserted that Weston no longer needed, missed, or even asked for Amanda. He asserted how Weston cried for him when he left for speaking engagements.

He has yet to speak about what Amanda actually went through as the victim. His versions are quite glorified and sanitized: Amanda the sacrificial lamb now lounging on the beach, virgin Pina colada in hand; Amanda the Virgin Mary birthing the Church; and Amanda as Stephen being stoned, filled with peace and heavenly glory, instantaneously being caught up into Heaven. They contrast with Davey recounting how bravely she fought, she was a warrior princess. They directly contrast the stark account of her injuries and the scene as detailed in the Affidavit of Probable Cause.

He expressed zero alarm or concern whatsoever for his neighbors or his community, while the killer(s) were still at large.

Anonymous said...

Great comment.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it probable she'd be alive if the door wasnt left unlocked? That seems to be the very act which facilitated her death. The guilt would be heavy. One simple, quick, instant, effortless act of locking the door. That would haunt someone a long time. I wonder if the door was also left open? Just alittle so there'd be no noise made by turning tbe handle and latch disengaging.

Nic said...

@ anonymous 10:48pm,

IMO, no. The unlocked front door was a red herring. Whomever it was that killed Amanda entered via the back door. Subsequent to that, was for show. Amanda was already laying, dying on the living room floor.

jmo

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

Peter,

I noticed you yourself used the word "child" often, in these interviews. Is this common with professionals as yourself and those whom work in this field. In other words, because you hear this language employed frequently by those who do abuse, in one form or another, you end up entering into their language.

Ps

your passion is palpable!

CptKD said...

I think you 'Nailed it', Nic!
;-)

Buckley said...

How long after Madeleine went missing is the interview with Kate and Gerry?

tania cadogan said...

Maddie went missing may 2007, this interview was in 2011

Calvin said...

A part of me wonders, when the mother said, "And it just HIT me..."