Tuesday, December 6, 2016

The Case of Missing Madeleine McCann: Statements 2007


     The Case of Missing Madeleine McCann:  Part One  
by Peter Hyatt 

This will be a series of analysis articles to answer the question:

                "Was the original analysis correct?"

In analyzing the interview done by the McCanns, the criticism that it was done after a significant passage of time is appropriate. 

 That time had passed, allowing for processing of information and its impact of language was taken into consideration in the original analysis.  The defensive posture of the parents was also noted, in particular, in the "weighting" given to sensitivity indicators; the degree of sensitivity reduced, yet it did not alter the conclusion. 

But what of the very first things the McCanns said when they reported that Madeleine was kidnapped?

Would these statements affirm the analysis, deny the analysis, or remain indifferent or "neutral" towards it?

The analysis of the interview conducted by Richard Hall concluded:  

"Deception Indicated."

The content analysis showed 4 dominant points:  

1.  That Madeleine was not kidnapped. 
2.  That Madeleine was deceased. 
3.  That Madeleine died in the apartment.
4.  That the McCanns conspired together to conceal her remains.  

With these four points of conclusion we look at the early statements of the McCanns to see if the language shows:
a. A kidnapping did take place
b.  Urgency for Madeleine's recovery from the kidnapper or kidnappers.  

This will be in a series of analysis articles.  

We begin with the first released statements, as read by Gerry McCann.  From there, we will cover more of the statements, including analyzing the transcripts of interviews and televised appearances.  Statement #1 is covered here, with Statement #2 to be entered separately. 

Statement # 1   4 May, 2007 BBC News 10pm 


"Words cannot describe the anguish and despair that we are feeling as the parents of our beautiful daughter Madeleine.  
We request that anyone who may have any information related to Madeleine's disappearance, no matter how trivial, contact the Portuguese police and help us get her back safely.  
Please, if you have Madeleine, let her come home to her mummy, daddy, brother and sister.  
As everyone can understand how distressing the current situation is, we ask that our privacy is respected to allow us to continue assisting the police in their current investigation." 

We begin with an expectation:  a child has been kidnapped and the biological father is going to speak about the kidnapping. 

We do not view this statement as the "free editing process" where the father is speaking, freely, for himself.  In this expectation, we do expect him to speak for himself (personal) and for him and his wife, using the pronoun "we", but in a prepared written statement, he is speaking for both.  Therefore, the pronoun "we" is expected and not to be considered weak. 

When one should be speaking for oneself, the pronoun "I" is expected.  As parents of teenagers know, when guilt is present, the pronoun "we" is sometimes used to share guilt, or to 'hide in a crowd' as if "everyone was doing it, Mom!" to alleviate the burden. 

Context:  Madeleine is just under 4 years of age, and has been kidnapped.  

She is with her kidnapper and the parents are left with parental protective instinct stifled:  It is "unknown" what Madeleine is experiencing now.  This is to bear the unbearable for parents, while stymieing the father's ability to "make it ok" for the child.  After hearing the uncertainty of what Madeleine may be experiencing, we expect to hear a plea for her return, made directly to the kidnapper.  

Although it can sometime creep into the language, we hold to the expectation of priority:  Madeleine's safe return and not a focus on self.  That their child is in the hands of a stranger is unthinkable and the parents' concern is focused solely upon what Madeleine, currently with a stranger or strangers, is going through.  


"Words cannot describe the anguish and despair that we are feeling as the parents of our beautiful daughter Madeleine.  

Where one begins a statement is measured in statement analysis as priority.  

The statement begins with what the parents are going through. 

This is noted now, as the priority of the parents:  not an alert to the world that Madeleine has been kidnapped, or a direct plea to the kidnapper to return her.  

The statement begins with "self."  This is not expected in a kidnapping.  

We have, first, the parents' suffering but not what Madeleine is experiencing, nor a direct statement to the kidnapper.  

This is consistent with the recently published analysis where the focus and attention, including the number of words, is upon the McCanns themselves, with no concern for Madeleine.  This brought to the conclusion that, versus the parental instincts, Madeleine was 'beyond help'; that is, deceased.  

We now listen for a direct plea to the kidnapper.  Recall in the interview that they said they "knew" Madeleine "had been taken" (not "kidnapped"), so there should be no equivocation.  

The passivity of "words cannot describe", which is also in the negative, tells us:  the parents are restricted by what they can say as to their own emotions.  

Humans do not like to lie about their own emotions.  If they are, indeed, scared over being caught in a lie, this is not something they wish to express, therefore, they make a statement that tells us what they cannot do.  


We request that anyone who may have any information related to Madeleine's disappearance, no matter how trivial, contact the Portuguese police and help us get her back safely.  

This avoids speaking directly to the kidnapper.  This is also a peripheral statement; that is, not "to you who have taken Madeleine from us..." nor is it information about the kidnapping.  It is any information "related" to, not the kidnapping, nor even abduction but to "Madeleine's disappearance."  

There is no statement of belief that Madeleine has been kidnapped but now introduces the mysterious "disappearance."  They do not seek information about the disappearance only "related to", which is to show:

The statement not only distances itself from a kidnapping, but to any information about the kidnapping, the kidnappers and Madeleine's state of being.  

The statement literally distances itself from:

a.  kidnapping 
b.  obtaining tangible information about the kidnapping or kidnappers. 
c. forensics regarding Madeleine's recovery. There is no concern for what Madeleine is going through, no pleading to take care of her, nor even a description to help the public spot her:  

 She will not be seen by eye witnesses because she has "disappeared." 

Please, if you have Madeleine, let her come home to her mummy, daddy, brother and sister.  

The word "if" is not expected in a kidnapping case but keep in mind, the statement allows for her not to be kidnapped, but "disappeared", that is, no longer seen visibly.  

This weakens the assertion that Madeleine was taken, with the simple word "if", allowing for other possibilities into the disappearance of Madeleine.  

Although this is a minor point, "let her come home to her mummy, daddy, brother and sister" is to add in the young twins.  It forms a 'crowd' that is consistent with their inability to speak for themselves in the originally analyzed interview where they even spoke each others' "mind" and "emotions."
The desire for plurality is often a signal of guilt.  


As everyone can understand how distressing the current situation is, we ask that our privacy is respected to allow us to continue assisting the police in their current investigation." 

While parents of kidnapped children want the most possible media coverage, this statement, while avoiding commitment to a kidnapping, wants the opposite:  "our privacy."

This is explained as needed to "continue assisting" the police.  The word "continue" is weak unless there has been an accusation from police that they have not been doing what is not needed to be said:  assisting police. This is a weak statement and should have been unnecessary. 

The need to explain "why" they wish to be left alone, without being asked is very sensitive.  This means that they anticipated being asked, "Why would you want to be left alone?" because parents of kidnapped children seek as much media exposure as they can possibly obtain.  This is a very sensitive point to them. 

That it is so sensitive is measured against the absence of a single word that expresses concern for the victim. 

This continues the theme that began with the opening words:  it is about them; their well being rather than the child's, and now their well being to continue by not being scrutinized by the media.  They want their privacy because, as the statement begins, words cannot describe what they are going through. 

As this statement was made shortly after reporting that Madeleine was kidnapped, the void of concern for Madeleine in the face of protective capacities and instincts of parents suggest that Madeleine is, at the time of this statement, beyond parental concern.  

She is deceased.  


Analysis Conclusion:

The statement's priority is the parents' well being; not the child.  The parents do not want to do what parents of kidnapped children do:  talk to the press. 

Parents of missing or kidnapped children often fight for "air time" to highlight their child's plight via media:  it is the way to facilitate the child's safe return.  

Madeleine's current state with the kidnapper (s) is not addressed. 

The statement does not commit to a kidnapping, gives no description to help people locate her.  Therefore, the priority that is identified in statement analysis is affirmed;   it is the parents' well being and not the child. 

The statement shows the author (writer) does not believe the child was kidnapped. 

This statement affirms the original analysis conclusions above.  

The statement began with the priority:  the parents and it concluded with the same, actually wording against the recovery of the victim. 

They do not linguistically 'commit' to a kidnapping and since she is "disappeared", there is no need to describe her appearance to the public.  





Next, the McCanns made a second statement, also read by the father.  

Will it affirm the analysis, deny the analysis, or remain indifferent?

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

For training in statement analysis for law enforcement, journalists, bloggers, human resources, and other professionals, we offer a complete statement analysis course to be completed in your home, at your own pace with recorded lectures, workbook and submission of work via email.   It is a challenging course, and it comes with 12 months of e support; proofing and working through the various principles and applications to insure successful deception detection. 

Hyatt Analysis Services:  Training 


17 comments:

LJR1626 said...

Thank you Peter. Are you in process of dealing with the next statement or have I missed something?

Nic said...

"let her come home"

I have two observations:

First, the word "home" is unexpected. She wasn't abducted from her "home". They weren't at "home" when Gerry made this statement. It would have made more sense for him to say "let her go".

Secondly, to "let her come home" would mean that she could leave wherever she was being kept of her own volition. She wasn't quite four years old and she was in a strange land. So she was limited not just by age, but by means to "come home".

jmo

LC said...

I wonder if they might have been coached at all before preparing the statement.
I do know that with real abduction cases, law enforcement encourages Personalizing a statement - using family members and the victim's name repeatedly (while Pleading for their release).

ulla said...

OT

Sherri Papini case

https://www.drlillianglass.com/body-language-blog/

tania cadogan said...

Peter, since it is the Portuguese police in charge of the investigation since it took part in Portugal. can you please send your analysis and conclusions to them to point them in the right direction.
The UK police in the form of operation grange cannot investigate the alleged abduction, they can obly investigate any crimes that took place in the UK such as the fraudulent fund.
Their remit when formed was to investigate the disappearance of Maddie as if the abduction had taken place in the UK.

It is the PJ who need this information so they can then decide to recall the mccanns as arguidos (suspects) and question them in relation to the case and also any of the tapas 7 as well.

I also suspect their spokesman clarence mitchell knows Maddie is dead and the whole thing is a scam in relation to the fund.
Given he leaks stories to the media and controlled interviews and the like, i suspect he could be charged with obstruction of justice, perverting the course of justice, obtaining money by deception and whatever else they can think of.

Thanks Peter, you have definitely caused a stir and a lot of people are now having their eyes opened as to the truth.

John mcgowan said...

OT Sherri Panini

Snipped:

Police are looking for two Hispanic females who are believed to be her abductors. Police don’t have a motive for the kidnapping.

Keith, meanwhile, revealed on ABC’s “20/20” how Sherri was picked up.

She screamed so much, she’s coughing up blood from the screaming trying to get somebody to stop,”he said in an interview last Friday. “And again just another sign of how my wife is, she’s so wonderful. She’s saying, ‘Well maybe people aren’t stopping because I have a chain that looks like I broke out of prison,’ so she tried to tuck in her chain under her clothes.”

In another ABC interview, he said that his wife is showing some signs of trauma.

“When the lights are off, when doors shut, when she hears certain sounds, I mean, it’s something that I don’t know how to deal with, and we’ll need somebody who can help her through that from a professional standpoint,” Keith said.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2194685-report-sherri-papini-husband-leave-home/

Hey Jude said...

Why does Gerry say 'current', and why does he say it twice? I wonder is he thinking of other possible 'situations' and 'investigations'?

---

Yes, so I was quite wrong about the author of the letter - a middle aged guy is not a young girl, so I will shut up now, 'cept to ask questions.

---

I am so curious to know if there are any strong indications from Gerry or Kate as to what they did with Madeleine's body.

?

Tiffany Gerik said...

This Mccann case reminds me so much of JBR. So sad about this poor girl.

Alex said...

John.

“When the lights are off, when doors shut, when she hears certain sounds, I mean, it’s something that I don’t know how to deal with, and we’ll need somebody who can help her through that from a professional standpoint,” Keith said.

I was wondering what is the significance of these words since they were chosen by the spokesman for the victim instead of the victim. Is he telling us what she said or is this something about himself?

Alex

Anonymous said...

Is it certain sheri was abducted while jogging? Who determined that? Her husband? Maybe it ocurred at home.

Habundia said...

Iam also curious to that answer.....could it say something about his background? Hope someone can clear this up

Habundia said...

Thanks again for your great lesson in SA, Peter, it's amazing to see how much one can "read" in what one says....and it's "fun" (though serious) to think along.

About this blog.
That picture of them both at the top. When i look at it it gives me the creeps....they look as a lovely couple together, but something in me has the feeling this isnt the case at all.....if they are guilty together (which i highly intent to believe), then their "bound" is even more toxic then it probably already was before the "disappearance" of their beautiful daughter. Domestic abuse doesnt always comes with black eyes and bruises....it runs much deeper at psychic level.

"We request that anyone who may have any information...."
In this situation would "may have" be weakening? Because you would think there would be urge for getting information...so i would think 'has' would be more appropriate to say then 'may have' (because he has no need for this information)
Or do i see this wrong?

About the Papini case
What i find significant is the fact he speaks for her. Not once did i see an article in which she herself has described what has happend.....all i read is what others have said she has said. Especially her husband.
He found her headset by her car or something, together with her phone, thats when he concluded she was kidnapped.
The car was at their home i believe.

Anonymous said...

Is the beginning of the narrative from tracing her phone to a specific location true? Isnt it all based on his statements? Abductors took huge risk but so sloppy to leave a traceable phone behind? Nothing but his word from the beginning to verify she was abducted from that spot. Was she witnessed leaving her home that day? A phone can be dropped anywhere by anyone. And most importantly it would've been very wise for her to have done it if abductors for some reason were inattentive momentarily. But I havent read that she did so.

Jay said...

"we’ll need somebody who can help her through that from a professional standpoint" = it means they need funding and a lot of it.

She was in the hospital just a few hours, not even overnight - then he picked her up. How is that possible after all that torture for several weeks, surely they would have kept her for observation/X-rays .... If that would happen to my family member, I would think it would be important that she tells all she can tell when it is fresh in her mind. She was too upset to be questioned by police but fit enough to leave the hospital and go home?

lynda said...

OT

The sheriff in the Papini case has gone on record saying that her phone, which her husband found, had been "placed" there. It was lying face up with the ear buds neatly coiled on top of the screen. So..phone was a plant. Either by Sherri/Keith/or the "mysterious latino women"

KP:
“When the lights are off, when doors shut, when she hears certain sounds,

I noticed that to, and all I could think of was the "lights' "doors" and their relation to possible sexual abuse.

lynda said...

I am SO sick of all these parents killing their children and getting away with it! Why are children so easily disposable in our society and no one seems to care?

Planned Parenthood said...

lynda said...
I am SO sick of all these parents killing their children and getting away with it! Why are children so easily disposable in our society and no one seems to care?
December 8, 2016 at 12:30 AM


In the US, they actually kill them and sell their parts for profit and are praised by civil rights activists. But they hate competition.

If someone isnot government certified with a government license to kill they go to prison. they really protect their business.