Saturday, November 26, 2016

The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: Conclusion



 This is the third and final video of the interview and the analysis will post afterwards. 

 Some may have already noted that within the language, there is a linguistic association with sexual abuse. In every and any child abuse investigation, sexual abuse is covered even if not alleged. In statement analysis, there are various linguistic connections to sexual abuse that must be explored. 

 It could enter the language, for example, of 

 a. Professionals who work in the field of child abuse. This includes doctors, nurses, social workers, therapists, investigators and teachers. Even being concerned about possible sexual abuse can trigger indicators within the language. 

 b. It could be that the adult subject is a victim of childhood sexual abuse which is showing forth in the language.

 c. It could be that the adult subject is a perpetrator of childhood sexual abuse. 

 d. It could be that a family is involved in child sexual abuse. 

 This last one is something that when I was first confronted with, I did not believe to be true. I had long heard rumors of such in rural areas where neighbors perpetrated acts of sexual abuse upon each others' children. It was difficult to accept, even under a burden of proof, until I obtained an admission. (not a confession, which would have included the assertion that what was done was morally wrong). This changed my thinking towards such and I eventually learned (and accepted) that this practice does go on more than we may realize and that it infects society at all socio-economic levels.

Simply put, money and education are not  exemptions from the sexual abuse and exploitation of a child.  

In Islam, there is pedophilia of "child marriages" as well as an acceptance of the rape of young boys, while condemning homosexuals to death.  

 Jonbenet Ramsey was a victim of sexual abuse. 

 Not only were there the obvious signs, including frequent urinary tract infections, bed wetting and the overt sexualization of the child, but there were linguistic indicators within the language of the father seen through the lens of statement analysis. 


 The 'death scene' was staged but his words gave him away.  

 In a sense, Maddie McCann is the UK's version of the Jonbenet Ramsey murder. This coming week, I am asking a team of experienced analysts to jointly work through the language seeking to uncover a single indicator: Was Madeleine McCann a possible victim of sexual abuse. This will be done live on Thursday, November 30th, over a period of 6 hours online. I hope to post the results of this analysis on Friday, December 1st, as well as put together a written report.

If you are interested in training, please see Hyatt Analysis Services for training opportunities in detecting deception.  

38 comments:

Me2l said...

Peter says, "When a guilty person asks questions...."

which is not the same as, "the person is guilty because he asked a question...."

Right? Or was that simply mis-worded?

Mimsie said...

I am looking forward to reading your conclusions. This case has interested me since it happened. I have followed Tania's blog and found her analysis very good. Thank you!

Nic said...

Thank you for sharing this interview with us, Peter! I'm looking forward to reading next week's analysis.

Anonymous said...

I analyzed the leaf text.
"It'll get done tomorrow" does not say "I will do it" and leaving all his shit (leafblower etc. "mid-action") means he thinks me or my son would go out there and do it, so he (ex) can lay on his jellified ass all day. He thinks thats how it will "get done". Bull. His crap will stay there till he does it. I predict he will try to get out of it...he says in text he will "start off raking and hauling"..."start off" means just that...he will start off and then pretend he strained himself terribly like the ballerina he is and stop doing it.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant thought provoking analysis Peter.
Would love to learn your trade.

Anonymous said...

Where did jill stein get five million dollars for a recount that cant help her in any way? Clinton foundation donors? Please go away HC.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Thank you, Peter for this very informative series of posts! This is really fascinating to see it unfold. Thank you for breaking this down into manageable, bite-sized chunks and walking us through it with their individual statements and then your analysis.

Anonymous said...

Its been 2 weeks. Please get over the psyche trauma of hillery losing. It'll be ok.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Watching and listening to Part 3

@ 10:28

Gerry: “Well when did she have the accident and died…”

First, because the interviewer asked "Did you kill her?", Gerry can truthfully say no they did not kill her if it was an accident.

Secondly, Gerry does not deny that Madeline had an accident, died, and that they covered it up. He’s throwing out a red herring- That because there was only a 30 min-1 hr window while they were at dinner with friends, Madeline could not possibly have had an accident and died and there been enough time to hide the body.

Thirdly, follow the tenses in Gerry’s argument as he attempts to challenge the interviewer. In his attempt to ridicule the theory that Madeline died while they were in the apartment and specifically, that she had an accident and died and they covered it up, Gary loses track of his tenses. He should have said “Well when did she have the accident and die…” . He said she died=Leakage

Moreover, Gerry asserts “And if she died when we were in the apartment or fell and di-…”.
The totality of the interview Parts 1-3 are important. Remember that their Part 1 interview opens with Gerry describing how “beautiful” Madeline was and Kate specifically describing in detail how round and perfect Madeline’s head was.

-Now ask yourself, when you see a baby, do you marvel at how round and perfectly shaped the baby’s head is? Is that what you verbalize? Have you ever said that to anyone about any child- yours or theirs?

-When you describe a baby to someone else (your baby, a niece/nephew, a friend’s baby, etc.), what features do you describe?

-Note what Gerry and Kate chose to focus on and describe about Madeline. Of all the things they could have said, they chose - her beauty, immediately followed by her head, followed by her crying/screaming loudly (Order is important)

-Note what they did not describe- her eyes, her smile, her hair (color or texture-even though it’s a part of her head), her cute voice, her chattering/sing-song preschooler voice/her singing, her facial or skin coloring, her petite features, her chubby baby cheeks, or any personality traits special to Madeline.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Part 3 @ 26:40-26:42

Kate: 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.”

“I think…” –allows for others to think differently

“I think that kids can be written off…”- By whom? Under what circumstances? When the child becomes a liability?

-These two doctors are very wealthy, vacationing at a Portugal resort with their wealthy friends. -Their stated lifestyle entails dining out every evening on a vacation in a foreign country and freely leaving all the children in the care of others- putting their adult needs first, with no regard/concern/thought for their children as children (waking up in an unfamiliar place, having a nightmare and needing their Mommy/Daddy, being overtired from the changes in surroundings/activities/routine and being cranky/unable to sleep soundly, having wet diapers/pull-ups or needing to go potty/interruptions in potty-training, etc.).

-Written off is a financial term, as in assets and liabilities. When does a child become a liability and in what way, personal or professional?

“…written off…”- Passive voice. Who’s doing the writing off? Writing someone or something off involves weighing the circumstances and choosing the best (least damaging) option for one’s self. Writing off is a last resort, when one has no other option or choice available. Not only has a decision been made, but it has an air of finality. There is no going back after you've written something or someone off. Is that what you expect to hear from any "good mother"? How about one who tried in vain to conceive a child for 3 years? One who finally did conceive, but only through IVF procedures? How about the mother of the much-longed for, long-awaited, medically-conceived child who has "been taken" and is "out there"? SMH

Anonymous said...

OT:
Projection^^^^^^

tania cadogan said...

THE accident

Not

AN accident?

Big slip up there gerry

rjb said...

Peter --

A friend of my cousin posted a picture online today showing a small cut on her eyelid, captioned, "When you say you don't support Trump, it may trigger a grown man to throw something at your face." She provides no other details regarding the attack except to later state, "Thanks guys. I didn't mean to cause any panic, I wanted to post this to show the reality. This took place at a very safe, LGBTQ friend karaoke place and they were all very wonderful. Plus side: I still have my eye, my wit and now some built in eyeshadow. Pink and purple doesn't necessarily go with any of my fave outfits but I'll make it work for the time being. 😘 thanks for the love guys." I have become quite cynical about any such claims, especially since the election, and am curious as to whether or not there is enough information in her statements to determine if her claims are true.

The things that stand out to me are: the caption for the photograph is a hypothetical. She never says that "a man threw a rock/book/glass/whatever at me because I said I don't support Trump." Also, would one be expected to describe the place where one was attacked as "very safe" (present tense)? There's nothing "safe" about having objects thrown at one's face by an angry stranger.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Long Post Warning

Post 1 of 2

I'm probably waaaay off here. I hope so. I’d like to be wrong.

When I listened to Part 1, Gerry's description of Madeline as "incredibly beautiful..." bothered me. I would expect a father to describe an infant or preschool daughter as pretty/adorable and an adult woman as beautiful. Perhaps that's just my internal vocabulary, but where I live, beautiful has the connotation of physical attractiveness to the opposite sex. The "incredibly" beautiful, to me, was creepy.
____________________
Part 2 @ 26:25-26:27

Gerry's comment "I'd actually stuck my head around the door and I, I lingered for a few seconds..." was equally creepy. His use of "actually" is unnecessary and sensitive. Why does he need to tell us where he was in relation to Madeline? He either stuck his head around the door or he did not. Why is he unwilling to commit either way? He seems to have a need to persuade us that he did not enter the room. Why? Fathers check on their sleeping children world-wide every night. So, there's sensitivity over him entering the room, the mention of a door, Kate's odd need earlier in Part 2 to overshare about the door's positioning (vivid memory with an exacting description of "but about" where "we" left the door open to- you're child is missing and you're worried about exactly where the door is???), and Kate's vivid memory and her follow-up assertion that the door was not where "we left it". Stumbling over the pronoun "I" in conjunction with the lingering is really troubling to me. Lingering means a yearning to stay, but something or someone is forcing you to go and you're internally struggling. Let's forget for a moment that Madeline is a 3yr old child. Picture a man describing himself as lingering at someone's bedroom door, whom he's previously described as "incredibly beautiful". What comes to mind? A 3 yr old? His preschooler?

But he didn't stop with lingering at the bedroom door though. He continued with "I, I just lingered for a few minutes…”. Why would a father feel stress and verbally stumble (stuttering personal pronoun) seeing his daughter ( a preschooler, at bedtime)? Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but neither parent places Madeline in her bed or any bed in this point in the story. Why does he need to tell us how long he lingered? Why does that matter? Why does it matter to him? The context is coming off as having sexual overtones.

He goes further with "I, I just lingered for a few minutes thought how beautiful she was...". Again, forget Madeline's age and relation for a moment. What comes to mind? Why is he lingering? Because he's struck by how beautiful she is? To contemplate her beauty.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...


Post 2 of 2


He goes on to add "I, I just lingered for a few minutes and thought how beautiful she was erm[pause] and that's the last time I saw her." Could the verbal pause here actually be considered a temporal lacunae, because he introduces the element of time within the same thought? So how long did he "linger"? Where was he when he lingered? Did he do anything while he lingered? Before or after he lingered? Did he only linger? He seems to feel a need to carefully define his lingering, as if there’s something wrong with a father checking on his daughter. His language has the feel of voyeurism, but also of one defending oneself against such an accusation…yet no one has made one in the interview. Where was Madeline while he lingered? What was she doing?

That he’s gone from sticking his head around the door, to lingering, to waxing poetic about her beauty, to "...that's the last time I saw her" is alarming. Does his language constitute an incomplete action? He said he lingered (with all of its sensitivity), but he did not state that he left or when he left. The awkward detailing seems to come to an abrupt (almost jarring) stop with “ and that’s the last time I saw her.”

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Last one tonight! LOL

In Part 1 @ 31:30-31:34 where Kate describes Madeline as "just really compact...", I was reminded of the compact car they rented in Portugal and the cadaver dog hits on both the trunk and Kitty cat (Madeline's favorite lovey- stuffed animal she took everywhere). It reminded me that, for a time, Kate carried Kitty cat everywhere like a security blanket. Then there was the McCanns explanation that the cadaver dog hit on Kate herself because she's a doctor and has come into contact with cadavers previously on her job.

chivanotrix said...

Sorry for the off-topic. Can anyone recommend books or other resources on statement analysis. I tried googling, but it only shows results on financial statement analysis.

Trudy said...

Thank you.

Ney said...

Peter, You spoke about about the term "floating around" (in the Ayla's case). It is interesting, that statement made me think the opposite. I was thinking, most likely, he did not write that statement alone. The term could have entered their language after watching the searches in water. He had time to review before issuing. He was very careful, and very silent. He would have seen the association to water, and remove the term. I think she is hidden in land. (He laid low during the whole time, he did not even try to pretend to help the investigation, seemed very nervous, IMO Ayla is not hidden far from his home)

IMO the disappearance was reported a few days later in both cases (Ayla and Madeleine).
The very first tv interview with the McCanns is one of the most telling.

Anonymous said...

All night tirade instead of helping rake your own leaves.

Anonymous said...

Pres Elect is up early Tweeting about HC's accept the results statements.

Anonymous said...

OT:

Question: When someone interested in you describes you as "You are in..touch with reality"

where did that statement could have possibly come from?

Anonymous said...

CAIR- los Angeles. Hate letters to mosques. Director blames Trump. Says Trump didnt create the racists he normalized them.

Anonymous said...

Who hasnt been in the news for past 3 wks? Hmmmmm. Abedin. Podesta. Weiner. Brazill. Who has been? Russia. Russia. Russia. Russia.

Anonymous said...

@8:10, Shush. The fact you think a man shouldnt have to do ANYTHING to help his family, particularly when he does NOTHING else to help EVER, and the picture you painted of yourself as watching whatever exes you have lift heavy wet leaves bc you dont want to strain your muscles is absolutely disgusting. I think thats absolutely repulsive when a man has women lift very heavy shit, it shows a total lack of masculinity. As well the picture you painted of yourself whining if a woman asks or needs anything of you that means they are a "taker" is nauseating. You were the most selfish guy (whether boyfriend or male friend) Ive ever encountered. You are a very internally corrupt person. Your selfishness is so unmasculine also. What is the point of you being a man?! Do you do anything masculine?! Whining about how women are "takers" while YOU GIVE NOTHING TO ANY WOMEN WHILE DEMANDING YOU BE CATERED TO LIKE A PRINCE. Men should want to give--that is part of being a man. You can go to hell.

Anonymous said...

And 8:04, You are the kind of guy still hooked onto your Mom's apron strings Im sure...she probably consoles you about all those mean nasty ladies who ask anything from you. YOULL NEVER HAVE TO BE A MAN BC YOULL ALWAYS BE HER LITTLE BABY. Theres nothing else to explain the way you are.

Anonymous said...

@935,
Maybe a crackhead pulled that thought out of their crack pipe?

Anonymous said...

Dear old bi polar couch potato, sounds like you missed medication time? keep meds near you with a check list. Maybe someone can remind you such as a support group maybe.

Anonymous said...

Oh no, sweetie, youre a bipolar couch potato. You must have us confused. Maybe Mommy can puree some leftover turkey for you and spoonfeed it to you. She can reassure you all women are "crazy" and youre not. Go to hell.

Anonymous said...

Mommy can reassure you that when women get angry at you bc youre a complete selfish &sshole, that it must mean they are "mental" bc her little baby can do no wrong. YOURE A DISGUSTING PERSON INTERNALLY WHETHER MOMMY CAUSED IT OR NOT!

Anonymous said...

Have you ever lifted something for a girlfriend? I bet if you did Mommy rushed to you with ice packs to put in your muscles. YOURE A JERK.

Anonymous said...

I wont even insult you anymore, bc youre such a selfish jerk a relationship will never last longer than a few weeks for you, which is truly pathetic. There is no need for me to insult you, youre romantic life will always be an abysmal failure and I suppose thats karma enough.

Anonymous said...

Please discontinue disrupting this blog, back and forth under numerous names.

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Ya'll noticing the war of words heating up past few days btwn Pres Elect & HRC campaign? Jill wants recount & HRC joins. Then news that the new AG can persue HRC. Then hate mail left at Calif mosques attributed to Pres Elect. Then news that foreign Govts should investigate C foundation. Then millions of illefal votes in blue states. And the shameful bashing of deceased F Castro. Continuous garbage all weekend.

Calvin said...

While I know this blog is based on statements, I noticed how she kept her eyes closed momentarily when she says "she needs us to find her". The interviewer says "You'll keep looking forever" and the mother replies "We will" followed by a micro-expression grin (because she knows she's duped her audience).

Scarlett said...

Madeleine was not beautiful, nor was she pretty. She looked ill and malnourished.

Anonymous said...

The photo of her on this articlce is beautiful.