Sunday, December 4, 2016

What Is An Embedded Confession?



In this article, I will attempt to explain, briefly, what an embedded confession is.  

The topic is complicated, so I can only give a short synopsis so that better understanding of the McCann case may be obtained.  It is not a topic meant for a single lesson or single article; it is more complex. 

Shortly, I will publish the analysis of the interview by the McCanns that was the topic of Richard Hall's documentary in which an embedded confession is identified in the conclusion of the analysis.  

For those who were unable to enter the chat room, this written version will address some of the questions posed that I was not able to get to, as well as those who had questions, but weren't able to type fast enough to get the question entered.  

But, by conducting a 2.5 hour review of the analysis and reading questions, comments and disagreements, as well as viewing the work of other analysts on this interview, I am able to address some of the disagreements or objections that have been addressed.  This scrutiny is helpful.  

Then, we look at other interviews and statements of the McCanns to learn:

Will these other interviews, particularly those closest to the date of Maddie's reported kidnapping, affirm the analysis, or conflict with the conclusion?

First we must understand what an embedded confession is, and how it is to be understood.  

An embedded confession identified as such is rare.

"This is ridiculous!  You guys think I stole the money! "  


Most of the encounters with embedded confessions show two designations:

1.  It is not an embedded confession

2.  It may be an embedded confession.

From amateur analysis the former is mostly highlighted while the latter is expressed generally by professionals who recognize that the embedded confessionappearance is only classified as a possibility or probability.

It is necessary to encounter many statements that present themselves as embedded confessions in order to build a reference point in order to construct an analysis conclusion.  

If we are not familiar with many examples of possible embedded confessions, we have no reference point from which to judge the quality of such, and are left with little above guess work.  

This experience must include examples of potential embedded confessions where the subject went on to confess or admit to the alleged crime.

"I can't believe you said that I am using drugs."  

Next we can quantify those who appeared to embed confessions and went on, not to confess but went on to fail a polygraph.  

Then we move one step further:  those who made a possible embedded confession, did not polygraph but had their case adjudicated with guilt of some level, as well as those who were found guilty by a jury or in a bench trial.

To add to this complication, we may then view unreliable embedded confessions who also later were proven guilty whether by confession or adjudication.

This happens and is why "unreliable" must not be reinterpreted because although the analyst was correct in this case where the unreliable embedded confession was followed by guilt, this analyst will be incorrect on the next case, likely sooner than later.

Hence, the reference point for embedded confessions must be a data base of such.  Without study of such, analysis can be reduced to educated guess work. Although success levels will be strong, they will not be at or near 100%, which is our standard.  The only accepted errant analysis report is from contamination.  

Contamination is when the language of another 'contaminates' the language of the subject.  There are a number of examples in the blog that you may search on.  

One in particular case I have highlighted is a statement submitted by law enforcement for analysis in a murder case.  

I sent it back stating it was "contaminated" by a prior interview.  

The investigator denied interviewing the subject before he had him write out the written statement and sent it back for analysis. 

I returned it again stating that the language shows strong indication that the subject is answering a specific question posed to him before the written statement.  

The investigator admitted asking this question.  Perhaps he was 'testing' the analysis and there are cases in which a contaminated statement can be analyzed, but it is rare.  

I keep a contaminated statement for the purpose of advanced training in which the analyst will come to one of two conclusions:  either the subject was robbed by a prostitute or the statement is contaminated.  The truth is that the subject wrote this as a witness statement, having nothing to do with prostitution but had just finished a fascinating conversation with the police officer about prostitution prior to the written statement, hence, what was on his mind came out in his words, making the witness statement so unreliable that it needed to be discarded.  

Regarding the Embedded Confession, we begin with a definition:

An embedded confession is when a guilty subject forms the words of confession within the free editing process; that is, when he is freely choosing his or her own words.  

To discern this:  

1.  The internal dictionary of the subject must be examined,  and the understanding of the the speed of transmission in language (Statement Analysis 101 is a perquisite for the analyst).  To discern an embedded confession, one must have:

a.  A basic understanding of statement analysis 
b.  Experience in analyzing embedded confessions 

This experience must include resolution.  Resolution is when we later learn whether or not the embedded confession was genuine; that is, they study embedded confessions where the case's resolution proved the analysis to be correct.  

The subject's internal dictionary must produce the embedded confession. 

Therefore, the source of wording must be learned.  

It is critical to understand what the "free editing process" is within language.  This is when someone is producing their own words:

Notion

The "notion" is the idea.  

The notion must be transitioned into language.  

If the notion is common, the translation into language has few options.  (parroting reduces options down to a singular option).  

The more variables produced in the transition of notion into language, the greater the reliability.  

The notion, or idea, must transition into language.  The subject (speaker) who has many choices will increase the reliability of an embedded confession if he or she chooses unique language.  

*If the subject introduces new words, the reliability increases dramatically.  This is something to consider in the McCann case.  

2.  What is not an embedded confession:

"The police said that I set the fire."

Here, the words "I set the fire" are ascribed, directly to "the police said."

This is not an embedded confession.  It is to use the language of another.  

This identifies who made the statement and that it was communicated in the words of the police, with the word "said."

It is not, therefore, an embedded confession.  

This does not mean he did not set the fire and herein lies an error of the amateur who claims it is an embedded confession:  should he be found guilty, the pattern now is claimed by the amateur which all but guarantees that his guess will prove future analysis incorrect. 

It is not categorized as "this may be an embedded confession."  It is said that it is not an embedded confession because it is the language of the police. 

"The police said that I set the fire and I used kerosene."  

Here, if the word "kerosene" was not used by others (police/fire), but is introduced by the subject, the introduction of a new word, "kerosene" completely changes the classification. 

"The police said I shot him and took his wallet."

We must now examine what, specifically, police said.  If the police did not ever use the word wallet, it means the notion (armed shooting robbery) has now been transitioned to words by the subject, who has introduced "took" and "wallet" where they were not used previously, making this an embedded confession.  

Although this may seem 'overly simple', it not only happens, but it may have relevancy for the McCanns.  

We must learn the Transitional Process.  It changes a notion, or thought into specific language.  

                                       Notion Into Language 

"You think I am cheating on you!"

Here is the next example of what is claimed to be an embedded confession.  The subject uses the words "I am cheating" but ascribes the "notion" to "you", the person in the conversation.  

This may be an embedded confession and the person may have cheated, but it is not to be deemed anything above the status of unreliable or "may be" by the analyst.  

We do not know if it was produced in the free editing process (a) and secondly (b) it is common language that brings "notion" to "language" without having many choices.  

"You think I am falling in love with someone else..."

Since "cheating on" is so common, and may have been used in the argument, was "falling in love" also part of the linguistics?  

If husband had not said to wife, "you are falling in love with someone else!", her statement that includes these words should be of great concern to the husband.  "Falling in love" is not as common as "cheating on", and only the couple will know if this notion (falling in love/emotional commitment) has been part of their vocabulary.  

Remember:  statement analysis recognizes that long term marriages cause husbands and wives not only to use each others' language, but literally to "enter into" the personal subjective dictionaries of each other, to a point (perhaps after 10 years or so) where they even share a single dictionary.  (After many years, people comment on how a couple 'looks alike.'  This is similar to the sharing of a single dictionary but is in facial expressions.  As they share a single internal subjective dictionary of words, they also mimic each others' face expressions, training the facial muscles.  They do, actually, begin to resemble each other because of this.  Remember, "notion" (idea) not only transitions into language, but into face expressions (body language) just as it does into hand writing.  

Parroting Language 

Parroting language is 'low stress.'  It is easy to repeat what another says.  This is true in denials and in lies. This is why "yes or no" questions are so unreliable. 

"Yes or no, did you kill your daughter, Madeleine?" is answered by the denial, "I did not kill my daughter, Madeleine."  

This is unreliable. 

It does not mean it is true, and it does not mean it is deceptive.  It means that we classify it as unreliable because it is not reliable as parroted, though if it was produced in the free editing process, statistically, it would increase in strength.  If followed by "I told the truth", it is 99.9% (+) reliable.  It is something that de facto innocence often produces, while guilty parties will delay making this denial.  (see "Reliable Denial" in the search feature)  

The unreliable denial is deemed as such because:  

It was not produced by the free editing process.  

3.  What is an unreliable embedded confession  

4.  What 'may be' an embedded confession and why professionals classify it as such

5.  What is a reliable denial and why it is rare

a. Confession by Pronoun as separate classification
b. Introduction of language essential.

The Unreliable Embedded Confession:

One that identifies two factors:

a.  the source of the notion 
b. the transition 

a..."newspapers said that I am guilty" identifies "newspapers" as the source

b.  "said" identifies the transition into language.  

"think" may or may not be an embedded confession because it does not specify the transition into language "says" but still allows for it as possible. 

In the McCann embedded confession, note what we have:


I suppose what’s been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body


We need to identify two things:

1.  The source of the notion of death
2.  The transition into language (who says so?)

1.  The notion is that Madeleine died and is not kidnapped.  Therefore, in order for this to not be an embedded confession, we must identify the source.  Who said this? Or, Who thought this?

Question:  Where do we find this source?
Answer:    In the subject's language.  

This is where we look.  

Even in the "obvious" (which would be that Madeleine is dead and not kidnapped) we look at the details that the subject provides.  

After we find the source of the notion, we look for

2.  The transition from idea (notion) into words.  

Question for us:  What words did McCann use to indicate the transition into communication?

This is critical. 

He began with the technical "weak assertion" withe the words "I suppose."

This is a supposition.  He begins by telling us what is on his mind (the notion) and now tells us the genesis or origin of the notion.  

Have police told him this?
Have newspaper journalists accused him?
Social media?

Listen to him. 

He begins with "I suppose."  He does not say "police are saying", or "the public is saying" or even "social media is reporting..."

He "supposes" is to tell us that what follows is his supposition or thought.  He does not attribute it to anyone.  (1)  

This is similar to "I think..."  The common example that seems to help is this:

"I locked my keys in the car" is strong, while
"I think I locked my keys in the car" is weak; appropriately so if uncertainty exists.  

"I didn't shoot the man" is strong, while, in context,
"I don't think I shot the man" is weak.  

Remember:  the brain tells the tongue what to say in less than a microsecond in time.  

Here, he begins the notion's source with uncertainty.  In other words, he does not even know if what is to follow is 'truly' said of others.  

This is point (1) of weakness. 

2.  "purported" is a more intelligent word than the simple "says" or even "reported."  He is not saying "it is purported" (which is weak enough) but he only "supposes" that this is "purported."  This is point (2) of weakness. 

There is no specific source being quoted.  This should alert the analyst that what follows may be an embedded confession because there is no specific nor even general source cited. 

Notion

The notion, or idea, is that they are not telling the truth about Maddie being kidnapped and she is either "out there" (rumors of being sold into child sex ring) or deceased. 

Since he avoids the source, the notion should be as bland or general as possible.  Any single detail within the notion being transitioned into words must, therefore, come from his personal subjective internal dictionary.  

This is key. 

When we "suppose" , we allow for someone else to "suppose" something else.  This is the point of weakness.  

"Suppose" is the same thing; he is only speculating, yet, the article, "the" addresses a very specific "ludicrous" issue.  If he does not quote someone else, the language is now his own.  When one says “you say I killed her” it is not an embedded confession.  Yet here, he only “supposes” what is being purported.  The passivity of such conceals any singular source, such as a definitive police officer or news paper or journalist. 

In the larger analysis, you will see that he adds in "passivity" to the equation.  Passivity seeks to conceal.  This adds to the conclusion.  


He does not quote any specific person nor article nor even agency.   

We have no transition. 

Devil in the Details

When one attempts to portray the notion and gives additional information, it is a strong signal of experiential knowledge.  Like the subject who introduced "kerosene" in the language, solidifying the embedded confession, listen to the details and the words introduced by McCann:


I suppose what’s been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body




Not only do we have "suppose" and "purported" but we have this coming, not from the UK, nor social media, but from "Portugal" as a country.  Note it is not Portugal police that this notion or idea arises, but just "Portugal."

He then gives us his own transition into wording:

"That Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body."

1.  Madeline died.  This would suffice a general notion of disbelieving the kidnapping and he would have been better off just stopping there, but in less than a microsecond of time, his brain told his tongue to include the very location of death. 

His point is not that Madeleine is dead or deceased but the location of death is specified, in his own language, with the introduction of the word "apartment."

Were the people of Portugal actually (verbally) saying that Madeleine was dead, or were they going as far as to commonly report that she did in the apartment?

He produced the location of death; from his own internal, subjective dictionary.  

Next, he continued on with even more details. 

He took the notion of death and specified, in language (transition) the location of her death.  Not only is he affirming that Madeleine is not kidnapped but dead, he is adding to the detail to tell us where she died. 

2. Then he addressed motive:   "accidental", which is a death that it not intended.  

He introduced the protective motive that what happened to Madeleine was not a kidnapping, and it happened in the apartment, but, don't look at them too harshly, because it was an "accident."

First he acknowledges "death", which could be considered "maybe an embedded confession" because "death" is the general expectation of not believing a kidnapping, but he brought in the location of death and the motive being unintentional. 

Yet he is still not done transitioning an idea into communicative language;

not only is she dead;
not only did she die in the apartment;
not only did we not mean for it to happen, but...

4.  I was part of the cover up; and

5.  So was my wife. 

"we hid the body." 


This is an embedded confession in which he takes a notion, and gives it specific details including motive and conspiracy.  

In fact, it is an overwhelming embedded confession because of the details:

a.  location 
b.  motive
c.  conspiracy
d.  cover up 

What is stranger than this is that this then allowed his wife to "add" to the "ludicrous" notion that has just been transitioned into words by Gerry McCann.  

Yet before that, we go back to the embedded confession and judge the structure:

I suppose what’s been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body

"Madeline died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body" use:

*strong past tense verbs;
*Madeleine's name (which is not something they did regularly, making its use even more important) 
*No additional language
*No qualifiers. 

For the analyst, this embedded confession is deemed very reliable on its structure.  

Another detail is transitioned from "notion" to linguistics, not by the people of Portugal, or the press, or social media, but by the subject:  

 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?

Kate McCann:  


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

The notion began with "these people are not telling the truth about kidnapping" to which they took this notion:

1. Refused to assign it to anyone
2. Used no communicative language 
3.  Added specific details, in their own language, in a reliable structure. 

Statement Analysis has concluded "deception indicated" by the McCanns. 

If you ask me my opinion on what happened to Madeleine, I would answer that the truth lies within the words of the people that were there.  

What has Gerry and Kate McCann told us in their own words?

1.  That Madeleine does not provoke protective parental instincts in them. Madeleine is beyond their parental help.  
2.  That they have no need to use the word "kidnapped", nor to call out to negotiate to the kidnappers. 

why?

3.  Because Madeline died. 

They also gave us the specifics:

4.  Location of death:  Maddie died in the apartment. 

5.  Motive:  They did not mean this to happen.  It was an accident or unintended death. 

6.  That she did fall, too, and

7.  That they hid her body so well that it is not likely to be found and the searching can go on, in their words, "forever."

This is a general lesson in Statement Analysis and the "Embedded Confession."  It is condensed to a single article and it is based upon decades of research and upon many statements worked through by analysts, including those with known conclusions.  

Having experience with embedded confessions and studying them is the only way to build a reference point of both understanding and of discernment.  Otherwise, it is just guess work; most often subject to emotion and not science.  

This is a good example in what an Embedded Confession actually looks like, and how the many claims of such are not accurate.  

An idea is expressed with no source, and is transitioned into language by the subject, not the source, where additional detail is given.  The detail is also given in a technically reliable form.  

Parental Protective capacities are instinctive; articulated thousands of years ago by Solomon, and known to us acutely experienced.  When our child falls, we have a need, deep within us, to make things well again. If we had to watch, incapable of helping, it would trigger a deep sense of "impotency", or weakness that would not only frustrate us, but would frustrate us for as long as our child needed our intervention.  

When the parents of a kidnapped child show no linguistic impotency it is because there is no need for intervention for Maddie. 

If you wish to formally study Deception Detection, our course on Statement Analysis is offered to be taken at home, listening to lectures and submitting work in for correction.  

Please visit Hyatt Analysis Services for more information.  


69 comments:

Anonymous said...

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


Could 'incredibly well' indicate a hiding place? There was talk of her body hidden in a well...

Anonymous said...

Peter, very instructive. A few questions: Although Jerry does seem to suggest Madeleine died accidentally of a fall, there are few scenarios that could have occurred within their apt where a fall could have led to death. Where would she have fallen from? Also, the apt was on the ground level. The only apt of the group on the 2 nd floor was David Payne's and it had an outdoor balcony.
Also, how does SA show the death was accidental...is it from Jerry's words? Im just kind of lost on that.

Anonymous said...

Sorry I had read the article backwards.

Anonymous said...

I am very troubled by David Payne's statement that 'the bag wasnt big enough to hide a tennis racket in".

Peter Hyatt said...

Peter, very instructive. A few questions: Although Jerry does seem to suggest Madeleine died accidentally of a fall, there are few scenarios that could have occurred within their apt where a fall could have led to death. Where would she have fallen from? Also, the apt was on the ground level. The only apt of the group on the 2 nd floor was David Payne's and it had an outdoor balcony.
Also, how does SA show the death was accidental...is it from Jerry's words? Im just kind of lost on that.


1. Gerry does not "seem to suggest" anything. His language produced:

a. that she died in the apartment
b. that the death was unintended
c. that they were involved in a cover up

they introduced "fall"; so it is their word, not mine nor anyone else's. I don't need to construct any scenario, I just listen.

In terms of suggestion, they may being doing this with sedation. They are not truthful when quoting the 4 year old child about crying.

If Maddie was sedated and woke up after other mostly successful sedations so the parents could go out, was disorientated and fell, it would not be of surprise to me since this is where they led me, linguistically.

Whenever we follow a subject's language, even when deceptive, we often find the forensics follow the analysis nicely.

I trust in the words to reveal the truth and when faced with a clear analysis, even in the opposition of other evidence, I stay with the words.

It has served me well for many years.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Peter, absolutely. I was thinking more where did she fall from? For example, she could have fallen from Payne's 2nd Floor balcony and then died inside of the McCann's apartment.

Peter Hyatt said...

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


Could 'incredibly well' indicate a hiding place? There was talk of her body hidden in a well...



Answer:

it could.

This is the next step in analysis: leakage.


What we do with it is this: We do not 'declare' it to be any definitive. We recommend that wells be searched due to the possibility that it entered her language.

We also view larger sample and see if "well" and "incredibly well" are her norms. If so, it reduces the urgency to follow this lead, but...

leakage is real and it is used not only in investigations, but used greatly in therapy.

Bobcat said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4EIxwtAJF8&app=desktop

I'm working on this transcription now.

Peter Hyatt said...

Her fall could be anywhere, but if she was still alive, I believe, from his words, that he is telling the truth about the location of her death: her final breath was in that apartment.

Had the word "fall" not entered into the vocabulary when it did (during the embedded confession), I would have concluded unintentional overdose. But to have both, a sedation with the sudden and unexpected awakening, only to be unsteady and fall, is something that they have led me to believe.

Some good questions and observations here!

Anonymous said...

Peter, I agree, her final breaths would have been taken inside the McCann's apt. When the police questioned Payne, Payne in his own free-editing process talks about how the kids were up and dowm to his apt and talks about how the children werent allowed on the balcony without an adult, so there is sensitivity surrounding his balconyI think. He volunteers the info.

Nic said...

The layers of analysis you apply to a "simple" sentence, in order to define an embedded confession is overwhelming, Peter.

Anonymous said...

It is felt that Madeleine may have fallen off the back of the sofa. The sofa had been moved by Gerry. The dogs actually indicated in that area.

An extract from here (below) http://davidcfreeman.wixsite.com/thefactsaboutgerry/the-facts

In the living area, there were 2 windows, in front of 1 was the sofa, the sofa had been pushed back against the wall and had crushed the curtains behind it, a sign that the sofa wasn't in it's usual place. The police at the time felt it was strange that the parents would have left the sofa against the wall knowing that the window above it leads directly onto the street below and there's a possibility that their children could climb the sofa and fall from the window but felt that the sofa may have been moved by police officers during the inital search. Gerry McCann later admitted that he had moved the sofa against the wall as he was sick of the children playing behind it and that he had given no though to the possibility of a fall from the window. The sofa having been hastily pushed against the wall is key later on in the investigation.

Anonymous said...

Um, a fall off the sofa out the window would not have killed Madeleine. Have you seen how low the window was to the ground? Also, isnt it more likely that Jerry had pushed the sofa against the wall bc he was trying to cover the area behind the sofa where a dead body had been hidden?
I think that in solving this case, obviously whatever she fell off would have had to be high enough off the ground for the fall to have killed Maddy. The sofa, the window behind it was NOT far enough off the ground. Im surprised with the high intelligences here that people dont seem to understand that falling from something a short distance from the ground is not going to cause death. (?)

Anonymous said...

Also, are people aware that David Payne told police (in a free-editing process) that the day they all arrived there "was a lot of talk" amongst their group of friends how David Payne had gone to such great lengths "to make sure they had all been put next to each other and yet supposedly when they all arrived Payne was surprised to find his family alone had been put on the 2nd floor and had a better view of the sea, etc. and that the cop asked him "So a rivalry developed did it?"
What it seems like is that Payne intentionally got himself and his family placed on the 2nd floor, for whatever reason, and he seems to think others were "jealous" of him, but I doubt they were. He seemed to betrying to distract the cops by getting them to look off in the wrong direction at whether people were jealous of his 2nd floor room rather than letting them wonder why, in fact did he get a 2nd floor apartment when he goes into excessive detail to police about how he had gone to great lengths to make sure they were all together.

Happydays said...


A sedated child falling could easily have died this way imo. Who said Maddy fell from a short distance? It is possible Maddy hit her head during a fall, causing death whether high up or not. Imo. this is why they hid her body/ An autopsy would have revealed the drugs in Maddy's system. The twins also slept through all the commotion that night, the screaming, police everywhere. This is why the police questioned if the McCanns sedated their children.

Hey Jude said...

Gerry had a blind in the apartment repaired during the holiday - towards the start, as I recall.

It was said many times on various message boards that Kate had washed the curtains, but I don't know if that is true.

It's possible Madeleine fell and became entangled in a blind cord and that it was a while before they found her. She could have fallen from the back of the sofa into the blind, or fractured her skull on the tiled floor.

There was mention of a broken neck in a tv news report which was made outside the police station while the parents were inside being questioned - it was not repeated.

Anonymous said...

I have a question regarding language: What could cause an individual who, their entire life, spoke in a down-to-earth way with, someone who is intelligent but who typically would not use big vocabulary words when speaking to suddenly begin speaking and writing in a very formal way???

For example: If the person pre-change would have said "You haven't told me...." they now say "I haven't received any input from you as to....shall I be expecting that?

Or if they would have said "it seems you didn't know..." they now say
"evidently you willfully chose to remain ignorant of..."

Or if they would have said "I don't have much gas in my car" they will now say "I am low on fuel in my vehicle"

Or if they would say "I didn't know...." they now say "I was unaware and remained uninformed of...."

Their language has changed to being totally formal in a way that sounds constantly like you are communicating with a snooty butler. It is so freaky, it is the fact that it is totally different than how the person ever talked or wrote before...it has the effect that you feel like you are being so condescended to particularly since the person seems unable to stop talking or communicating in that way. Does anyone know what could cause someone to change like that? Is it a mental problem or just a personality change like becoming extremely arrogant or something??? It is probably one of the most unnerving things I have ever encountered...the "change" into this new personality. Does anyone know what can cause that? Can someone just decide they will change how they talk/write like that???

Anonymous said...

This analysis stuff is really cool and exciting to someone like me who is only learning from the blog and not a student of. It rankles me a bit that the McCann's having know all this time, as shown by their embedded confession what had happened to their precious daughter; and the police were led on goose chases to find fake culprits. All that time, money, manpower worried parents that an abductor was on the loose. WWould the McCann's have.suffered much jail time for doping their daughter? They didn't intend for her to die, just sleep through while they partied. Not good, not nice even but not an intended murder., So why the cover-up?




CptKD said...

Head injuries can occur from 'short' falls.
Especially a child who has been 'sedated' - Stumbling about ...
I believe, even tripping up on one's own feet & hitting the head on something could bring on 'dire' or critical circumstances!
From there, left untreated ... Death!
It is possible!
Not all 'falls' must stem from HIGH RISE locations to bring about the 'end'!
In fact, it usually IS the results of that fall that cause the 'complications' or creates the 'cause' itself! Not typically the fall itself, unless it stems from a higher location, of course.
Just saying ...

CptKD said...

Precisely!
My point exactly, above!

Sedated & stumbling about, is a 'head injury' waiting to happen, where I come from!
No need for 'Great Heights' to introduce a FALL then, right?
We're on the same page there, 'Happydays'!
(Cool name, btw! ;-) )

CptKD said...

Ligature Strangulation, is also then a possibility, no?
Those 'Blinds' whether - Verticals or mini, have been controversial for many years on account of the cords used to manipulate the 'open/closing' of them.
There's another possibility, if not a direct 'head injury' from a FALL!

CptKD said...

On account of their precious Medical Licenses!
Of their 'other' children - The 'Twins'!
Their REPUTATIONS ...
THEIR FREEDOM ...

Peter went into great detail about this in previous analysis on the McCann's!
Being Physicians, both Gerry & Kate knew that all aspects of their & Maddy's life would be delved into, INCLUDING any & all ** Prior 'sexual' abuse!! Everything would be opened up & investigated!
For what-ever & every other reason I've mentioned above & then some ... They simply could NOT have that¡!

Scarlet said...

Direct transcript, 14 days after the "kidnapping"

..."people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well."

Kate: “(Pause) I mean, I did. Errm... (Long Pause) Errm, we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, errm, but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back."

End transcript.

I have four children, my youngest is four years old.
I know that both my husband and myself would have been searching on our knees and hands crawling through sand, mud, grass, continuing until our feet were raw, our hands bloody and our clothes torn from our bodies.

I do not understand how a mother can even answer like this, and not see how highly inappropriate it is.

Scarlet said...

On a somewhat similar note, I have always found it strange that John (or Patsy) Ramsey did not cut open the rope around JonBenet's neck when he found her.

Yes, she was dead, but as a parent he should have had hope, and tried cpr.
Also, it goes against our instincts to see such a horrible thing, and not doing anything to relieve the child from what seems to be painful.

I understand the forensic here, and that he did a "good thing" by not cutting it open. I don't understand how he could restrain himself, though.

Anonymous said...

John Ramsey couldnt see the rope bc it had dug into her skin.

Peter Hyatt said...

Scarlet,

When innocent mother picks up deceased cold infant she rubs body to warm it, instinctively.

Great point.

Peter

Anonymous said...

A fall from a short height on to floor tiles (they don't have carpets) could cause significant injury

Scarlet said...

25 years ago, I had a neighbour, whose two year old son fell out of his high chair and died.

And in 1981, my best friend's 19 year old brother fell (he was a drunk idiot) from a balcony, from the 9th story, and lived.
He was paralyzed, but he lived on for over 20 years.

So, a minor fall can be fatal, if one is unlucky.

lynda said...

Yes, tripping over your own feet and falling can kill you, slipping on the ice and falling can kill you.

It's interesting to me that "fall" has entered because I would have bet my last buck it was accidental overdose.

Peter, could she have died from accidental overdose and then they threw her down a well or some such and this could be seen as a fall? I guess what I'm asking is, could fall have entered the language AFTER she was already dead because of HOW they disposed of her body?

Anonymous said...

Maybe something "fell" on her. Maybe she was injured or mortally wounded and then "fell". It's impossible to simplify the possible scenarios by saying "she fell". It may not be that simple.

Anonymous said...

Scarlet, I agree, most mothers would crawl through thorn bushes until the flesh was torn from them. If their hands became bloodied from crawling over shattered glass, they would simply crawl using their elbows.

Anonymous said...

Scarlet, true, I know someone who bumped their head into a door frame...instant death. I myself have bumped my head, I had a bruise but little else. It all depends. I know someone who was tired and drunk and "fell into bed" hitting their head on a pillow, and now they are with God up in Heaven. It's all so variable. Great forensic work guys!

Anonymous said...

I agree I myself was hit in the head with a baseball and it hurt a lot but I lived with minimal brain damage. Someone else I know got hit by a cotton ball and that was it for them :(

Jessie--Med Student said...

Hi, I hope it's OK if I pipe in with this group. I was a medical student, and in the medical text book under "Fatal Head Injury--Causes" it was amazing the variability. Everything from 'falling from a skyscraper' 'getting hit in the head with a hardened raisin', falling down stairs to flopping into bed and hitting a 'firm' pillow'.

Wanda said...

Personal anecdote: One time someone whipped a hard gumball at my head and it hurt like hell.
This combined with Jessie's input, I think basically anything can cause a fatal head injury. It depends I think on skull thickness, hair style, general health, etc.

trustmeigetit said...

Remember there were traces of her blood on the wall behind the couch. To me I pictured her waking up, disoriented and looking for them. Falling and maybe with the drugspassing out. And what could have been fixed had she been rushed to the hospital, she was alone and died there. Also explains the cadavor scent thee as well.

Just my thoughts on this.

Lilly said...

I agree, one time a feather brushed against my skin, and it caused excruciating agony. jmo

Carla said...

What about "fell asleep", "fell unconscious", "fell victim"....is there any possibility these things could have leaked into the language? jmo

Peter Hyatt said...

We must be very submissive to the language. Kate gave us the context, along with her husband, that it was death, in the apartment, and a fall took place.

Reading into the language what is not there isn't part of the science. After many years of child abuse, a fall could mean different things but according to the language, it contributed to the death of Maddie McCann.

When I consider the possibility that she was sedated by her mother, it is some guess work, but the plain sentence, context and structure, are clear:

she died.
she died in the apartment.
a fall was part of what happened that caused her to lose her life.

Anyone is free to guess, or to disagree. My point is from following the principles of analysis that brought me to this conclusion. This is why formal training is so important: it reigns in our emotions, including mine, and experience in cases has taught me:

the language ends up being proven accurate in the long run.



Peter

Nic said...

The [...] means I had a very heard time understanding Gerry/Kate's accents. If someone familiar with their accent could verify this transcription, I would greatly appreciate your assistance.

Cheers,
Nic

_________

Gerry and Kate McCann
Rare Footage Amsterdam June 7th 2007

GM: Madeleine was abducted from her holiday apartment nine days before her 4th birthday on the night of the 3rd of May. […]

GM: Despite a very extensive investigation conducted primarily by Portuguese police but with marked assistance from the British police, uh, they’re still uncertain who's abducted her, what their motives are, and where she is now. She was wearing pyjamas almost identical to these ones. (Both Gerry and Kate hold up example.)

KM: These are almost … but they're a little bit smaller than Madeleine’s. As you can see it’s a pink top with a[ .. … ]and short sleeves. And white, white pyjama bottoms with floral print on [...] and a little picture of […] on the right leg, lower right leg [… ]identical to what Madeleine’s wearing only they’re a little bit smaller and Madeline’s doesn’t have you know, [...]

KM: And certainly when I’ve come across similar cases or cases of child harm in the past, I thought how can people get through that, how do people, and you just don’t know how you behave, we didn’t know we’d be able to come and publicize it, you know, but we've got strength from somewhere and we, we believe it’s vitally important, you know, I can't understand why people would say, “How can they do that” cause I would have …

Reporter: But how, do how do you cope with, you, you seem, you are relaxed, is is n-not the right word. But you seem very, uh, … what do you think about, what do you say, how, how do you feel when you’re sitting here talking about this aw-awful thing what happened.

GM: Thinking, you know, we’re not going to talk about what happened in detail. Emotionally, that is incredibly difficult to talk about how we were in, you know, at the time. But, we have had som-assigned psychologist and we have taken a lot from it, and in the very early days, um, and hours after Madelein’s abduction we felt completely helpless. And, I’ve said this before, it was the darkest place imaginable. And many people have said to us, “It is a parent’s worst nightmare.” And it is. And it was every bit and it continues to be as bad as you can imagine.

We’ve got time for perhaps one or two more. [...]

Reporter: Sir? I have a question. Is the main focus now on Morocco to find her? Is that your hope?

(Gerry clearly does not know how to answer the question, so Kate steps in and Gerry…smiles!)

KM: The main reason we need to go to Morocco is we're aware that there was a window where someone could have travelled from Portugal into Spain and then could easily get to Morocco. That’s why, it’s the access really. I’m aware there was a-an alleged sighting of a child in Morocco early on in th-the investigation erm. But we don’t deal with that, we deal with, I’m not even sure if it’s a-a line of enquiry anymore.

Reporter: But is it for yourself the main focus: Morocco.

GM: It, no, I mean, th-the police investigation, um, you know, that’s very much continued based in Portugal. Um, they direct the focus. Uh, it just happens to be that Kate and I are en route and we’ve chosen, actually chosen countries probably in priority that we thought, um was there but, you know, we, we don’t know where she is, and we want to cover the most likely places that she could have been moved to.

Reporter: Thank you.

Nic said...

and in the very early days, um, and hours after Madelein’s abduction we felt completely helpless.

Note order of time.

Nic said...

And certainly when I’ve come across similar cases or cases of child harm in the past,

Oops. Madeleine was abducted.

Side note, my in-law's neighbour fell getting out of the tub and died. Her daughter found her however many days later.

Anonymous said...

"it was the darkest place imaginable"

did they hidd her in a well?

"window"

did she fall out a window?

sidenote: I believe she did fall as Peter has said; I am somewhat scoffing at people not seeming to understand that a 4 yr old is only about 2 or 3 feet tall and they weigh very little also, so when they fall from a standing position or off a couch it is VERY different than an adult falling from a standing height of 6 feet at 200 lbs. I was proposing that wherever she fell from need have been somewhat high off the ground. This should not be difficult to understand. Kids do not trip on their shoelaces, fall over, and then die. A high elevation needs to be involved.

anon said...

They have an "assigned psychologist"?

"Oh it's OK Gerry. Lay on my couch and tell me about your mother. You feel better now? OK buh-bye. Come back next week and I'll tickle your feet with a feather."

Anonymous said...

"It's OK Gerry. Just relax and tell me what you see when you look at this inkblot. An &sshole with wings? Is that what you said Gerry-poo? "

Nic said...

Reading through Payne's interview, he made excuses for why the McCann's routine differed from everyone else's, tennis being the excuse (they weren't into water sports/sailing like the others). I realize interviews can be tedious and maybe it was my impatience reading the um's and err's and stutters; however, my impression was he was making excuses for them not being part of the group. I would question it, too, seeing as how everyone was vacationing together. Based on the handful of interviews I read, it doesn't sound like they socialized with the group outside of dinnertime.

David Payne


Err I mean we would, so they, I mean they had the you know if they ate at the err kids club you know and again it's just difficult what happened after, you know for the weeks after because we ate at the kids club then, did we eat before, how often did we eat, ours were a bit fussy on the eating and from what I can remember sometimes we ate you know in the, in the room, but that could've been mixed up with my recollections of you know what we did after. Err but that was generally around five, five thirty so we wouldn't certainly get back to the room till six, we often went to the play area you know that seemed to be quite another time of the day where we, you know most people would be there and the children were there err you know played, sometimes you know there was a social tennis bit in the evening err certainly we tended to watch a little bit of that if we hadn't played, you know, ourselves and then from err from there you know say right okay it's time to go up, so perhaps you go up around six thirty, seven o' clock, then they'd have you know the, most nights we liked to give ours baths because you know we just felt that we liked to get them into as much of a routine in a strange environment as possible. Err you know so probably we're looking at trying to get them down about seven thirty, somewhere around there.'

Nic said...

From Richard Hall's BURIED BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA: The true story of Madeleine McCann
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4o24jRjOy4

@37.15 - He remembers that once inside the apartment he was surprised that the door to the children's room was slightly more open than how he had left it when he and Kate left for dinner. However, it could have been Madeleine who had opened the door after waking and getting up, eventually to go to her parents' room. On this occasion the three children were lying in their beds asleep, he is sure of this. Madeline was lying down on her left side, completely uncovered, i.e., lying on top of the covers...
@38.15 - Concerning the bed where his daughter was on the night she disappeared, he says that she slept uncovered, as usual when it was hot, with the bedclothes folded down.

_________

The weather was 13 celsius that night and every single person in their party commented how cold it was. Every time they were interviewed, they described the weather as either cold or chilly. Even Kate reports in her book that Madeline was snuggled under the covers.

There was/is only one person concerned about heat and that was Gerry M. Heat is very sensitive for Gerry McCann.

"and in the very early days, um, and hours after Madelein’s abduction we felt completely helpless."

Self-sensoring. Note missing information after early days. There are two periods of time, here. The early days and then hours after Madeleine's abduction.

Why was HEAT so sensitive for Gerry McCann? Could it be, as per how much cadaver was found in the apartment (two separate rooms/areas in the apartment), Madeline was already dead for an extended period of time, and moved more than once while dead in the apartment, before she was removed from the apartment, and the ambient temperature was TOO WARM for a cadaver?

What I post is my opinion based on my application of statement analysis to the public reports of Gerry and Kate McCann's statements they provided and which were released and reported on in the media about their daughter Madeleine.



Nic said...

@37.15 - He remembers that once inside the apartment he was surprised that the door to the children's room was slightly more open than how he had left it when he and Kate left for dinner. However, it could have been Madeleine who had opened the door after waking and getting up, eventually to go to her parents' room. On this occasion the three children were lying in their beds asleep, he is sure of this. Madeleine was lying down on her left side, completely uncovered, i.e., lying on top of the covers...

Again, there are two references to time. The context of this statement is in regards to the night Madeline disappeared. But he also refers to another time when Madeline had opened the door and after waking and getting up, eventually to go to her parents' room, but doesn't make it. Then he switches back to "this" occasion (the night Madeleine disappeared,) the three children were lying in their beds asleep. "he is sure of this" (need to persuade).

Then he describes Madeleine's body posture, and I believe he is telling the truth. She was lying down on her left side, completely uncovered, on top of something which to wrap her.

Speculating based on SA of statements: Madeleine's left side is very sensitive. They always report her lying on her left side. Why wouldn't she lye on her right side? Was that the side from which the blood fell?

jmo


mom2many said...

A short fall makes more sense than a long fall with the language. Kate's repeated insistence that Maddie was so tired fits with suffering from a traumatic brain injury. If Madeleine did complain why no one came to her cries, that point in time could correlate to the time of her injury. As medical doctors, they should know the signs to look for in a head injury, but they wouldn't know they should be looking for symptoms if they weren't even there when the injury occurred. Their parental neglect compounded by medical neglect could have frightened them enough to hide it all.

Katrina said...

Nic, I think heat was so sensitive to Gerry (seeing as how it was a cold night (55 degrees) when Maddie disappeared BECAUSE OF THE FACT MADDY'S BED LOOKED LIKE SHE HAD NOT BEEN UNDER THE COVERS and therefore it seems she was never in her bed that night. Gerry says it was actually hot out (lie) to try to create the possibility that maybe she was actually put to bed but if it was hot she may simply have been lying on top of the cover--no need to get under them if it was a hot temperature that night.

Nic said...

Thanks, Peter! I look forward to reading your analysis.

Nic said...

mom2many said,
As medical doctors, they should know the signs to look for in a head injury, but they wouldn't know they should be looking for symptoms if they weren't even there when the injury occurred. Their parental neglect compounded by medical neglect could have frightened them enough to hide it all.
__________

You're right, they should have known better. There is something else that has been strongly suspected because the twins never woke during the kerfuffle made by everyone looking for Madeleine, or when the police arrived, or when they were moved to another apartment. Many suspect the kids were medicated at bedtime. If Madeleine indeed woke in an induced state and she fell trying to make her way to her parents' room (and subsequently was i.e., found unconscious on the floor when they arrived back at the apartment,) it would be very difficult to ascertain even for them whether her unconscious state was either from the medication or from hitting her head. I say even for them because both are physicians and had knowledge of/access to more than the run-of-the-mill, over-the-counter stuff and then administered professionally. Based on the forensic evidence and what has come out of the investigation, no third-party medical intervention was ever sought for Madeleine. (DNA analysis said it was Madeleine's blood in the apartment.)

jmo

Nic said...

Gerry McCann 2/3:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm


On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, ... Still on this night, KATE slept in the children's bedroom, in the bed next to the window, because he was snoring. ...----- He cannot say exactly, but he thinks that on Monday or Tuesday MADELEINE had slept for some time in his bedroom with KATE as she [K] had told him that one or both twins had cried making much noise.

_____

I wonder if Madeleine woke sometime between after they got home on Monday night and very early Tuesday morning.

Nic said...

This meeting happened when every young family was at the recreation centre or watching tennis.

While the children were eating and looking at some books, Kate had a shower which lasted around 5 minutes. After showering, at around 6:30/6:40PM and while she was getting dry, she heard somebody knocking at the veranda door. She wrapped herself in a towel and went to see who it was. This door was closed but not locked as Gerry had left by this door. She confirmed it was David Payne, because he called out and had opened the door slightly. David's visit was to help her to take the children to the recreation area. When David returned from the beach he was with Gerry at the tennis courts, and it was Gerry who asked him to help Kate with taking the children to the recreation area, which had been arranged but did not take place. David was at the apartment for around 30 seconds, he didn't actually enter the flat, he remained at the veranda door. According to her he then left for the tennis courts where Gerry was. The time was around 6:30-6:40PM.
______________

Here is some speculation based on Gerry's, Kate's and David's statements. Kate reported that Gerry arranged for David to help her "with taking the kids to the recreation area"... (but it did not take place). Could it be that he was "helping her" with "taking" i.e., a mattress? up to his apartment and then switching out one of his for theirs?

They both admitted she needed help, but they report the time spent together differently. i.e., he reports "helping her" for 30 minutes, between leaving/arriving back to the tennis courts), she says he was only at the apartment, but did not go in, for 30 seconds. So he did all the lugging up and down the stairs (required more time and effort,) and she just opened the door to give/take the mattresses.

jmo

John mcgowan said...

Nic said

"He cannot say exactly, but he thinks that on Monday or Tuesday MADELEINE had slept for some time in his bedroom with KATE as she [K] had told him that one or both twins had cried making much noise."

Hi

This is interesting in the light of Peter's analysis were the mccanns said Madeleine was loud. It's seems to me that they [mccanns] do not like noisy kids, even their own.

Katrina said...

Maybe Jerry lied about it being hot because he feared someone saw him or David Payne IN WATER either that night or the night before when the temperature of 55 degrees would have made swimming unappealing. If he was seen in water, this could in hindsight appear suspicious unless Jerry states that HE FELT HOT...TO HIM IT WAS HOT. Why would he have been in water? Washing evidence off Madeleine? Washing evidence off himself? Disposing of Madeleine? Disposing of clothing or any other evidence?

Katrina said...

@Nic, Maybe they report her lying on left side due to appendix pain? Appendicitis? Crying for 2 hours the night before....again could this have been appendix pain? They may have drugged her to dull the pain and quiet her not wanting to ruin their vacation by a stay in the hospital for appendicitis or did not want sexual abuse discovered if they brought her in for appendix pain. Appendicitis could have killed her quickly and if she was drugged and in pain it certainly could have contributed to a fall.

David Payne leaks the word "defect" in regards to Maddy's "iris defect"....perhaps leakage she had a "defective appendix"?

Katrina said...

Appendicitis causes severe right-sided stomach pain and can kill quickly through causing sepsis if left untreated. One of its causes can be parasites in the stomach which I did not realize--is it possible she ate raw fish, drank bad water once on vacation?

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/digestive_disorders/appendicitis_85,P00358/

Anonymous said...

I strongly believe that Madeleine died from falling from the back of the sofa onto the tiled floor, the blood dog and cadaver dog both alerted to this spot. There were also blood spatters on the wall behind the sofa.

I do not believe that the children were ever left alone, this was just invented by the McCann's as it enabled them to push the abduction nonsense. For them the lesser of two evils.
There was always one adult of their holiday group absent each night whilst they dined at the tapas bar. Many suspect the children were all put together in one room and babysat by a different parent each night.

happyuk said...

Is there anything else in the analysis that indicates just what it is that the McCanns are so eager to cover up, aside from the blindingly obvious accidental death of a child?

I must say when I listened to the Richard D Hall interview that mentioned the frequent references to washing/cleansing etc as being indicators of sexual abuse my blood went cold. This goes way beyond negligence to being a different, much more sinister conversation.

I am still a little confused between the connection between references to bathrooms/washing/cleaning and sexual abuse. Is this connection based on a lot of empirical evidence? I will go and listen to this interview again and read up a bit more.

And my perception of the transcripts of Dr David Payne, without going into to any depth (I am only recently introduced to this subject and have little to no knowledge), are that it contains a lot of erms and errs and other means of distraction. A little odd for such a highly skilled highly qualified person that is used to using precise and scientific language.


Katrina said...

Anon, I very much doubt she died from falling off the back of the sofa. First of all, it is unlikely that would have killed her...have you EVER heard of a 4 yr old dying from falling off the back of a sofa? Secondly, none of us know if the sofa would have been close enough to the back of the wall to, in essence, break her fall.
I tend to agree with Happy UK that there is a much more sinister element involving sexual abuse by Payne and Gerry.....if you look at his "planning" of the trip, and him getting ONLY his apartment on the 2nd floor, THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THIS "ACCIDENT" was premeditated. Payne is a pedophile. Who knows what he did to Madeleine, something very bad, something he did not want discovered (I believe Jerry was his pedo buddy and harmed Madeleine also) and then oopsy she had a fall off Paine's balcony (see Paynes interview by police in which Payne makes the balcony as well as kids being out on the balcony VERY sensitive.
Unfortunately this case is very disturbing to me because we have no way of knowing if her fall was genuinely an accident or whether she was not pushed off the balcony but drugged and placed on the balcony in such a way that she would "accidentally" fall. So that Peter's analysis holds true--yes, she did accidentally fall....she did not jump, she was not pushed...but through drugging her and placing her in a very precarious situation out on the balcony....oopsy, she fell. Payne got his apt on the 2nd Floor fot a reason and it wasnt to have a better view of the sea. His main focus on the vacation would have been molesting children because he is a pedophile.

Anonymous said...

Katrina,

Of course a small child falling from the back of a sofa head first onto a hard stone tiled floor could result in death. Why did both dogs alert to this area and why was there blood that had seeped under the tiles?

I certainly don't discount paedophilia but why didn't the blood and cadaver dogs alert to the area beneath Payne's apartment. Have you watched the Martin Grimes videos of the dogs in the apartment and hire car?

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

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I strongly believe that Madeleine died from falling from the back of the sofa onto the tiled floor, the blood dog and cadaver dog both alerted to this spot. There were also blood spatters on the wall behind the sofa.


The dogs (cadaver and blood) both hit in the living room and master (parents) bedroom. I was thinking maybe she fell into one of the twins cots trying to get out of her room (they kept a chart for her at home where she was awarded a star for each night she stayed in her bed). But the dogs didn't hit in the kids' room.

David Payne said that there was an issue with the cots and one ended up, upstairs. But that was the first day. It would still be interesting to know if either dog would hit on any of the furniture in DP's apartment as he did introduce moving furniture from the McCann's into their apartment.

jmo

Nic said...

happyuk said...
Is there anything else in the analysis that indicates just what it is that the McCanns are so eager to cover up, aside from the blindingly obvious accidental death of a child?


Contributing factors, such as medicating their children and with what. Maybe what they were using was not from the corner pharmacy. Neglect (not seeking medical help on her behalf). Child abuse? (Drug related, neglect.) If Madeleine were to be given an autopsy, what would they find out? Accidental death is forgivable. They had a need to cover up what happened to her and they had a lot of powerful people to help them along the way (per Richard Hall's documentary).

jmo

Anonymous said...

Drugged or not, what if she was trying to get away from david, gerry, or whomever, and fell? Or one got angry at her for not complying and accidentally hit her too hard or strangled her to shut her up? In terms of her placement in bed, my first thought was that it had something to do with one of them molesting her. Maybe they drugged Maddy for the sole purpose of molesting her while they "checked on" the kids. Maybe gave her too much and it killed her?

Nic said...

Given how the investigation has evolved and how often statements have been 'amended' a lot of scenarios can be thought about. One thing is for certain the group is tight.

jmo

lynda said...

Anon @ 11:17 said

This should not be difficult to understand. Kids do not trip on their shoelaces, fall over, and then die. A high elevation needs to be involved.

___________

With all due respect...uh, yeah they do. A high elevation does not need to be involved. What do you find so difficult to understand about that?

lynda said...

Also, because Peter says there was a fall involved..there was a fall involved. She didn't have to receive a "head injury" per se, she could have easily broken her neck also. All ANYONE, child or adult, has to do is land in the wrong way, and there goes the neck. I mean really, what are people obsessing about how "high" she fell and whatnot. She didn't fall from a great height..there was blood behind the sofa and dogs hit there. As far as that goes...she could have fallen and CUT herself on something and bled out by the sofa! She was more than likely drugged and antihistamines in general greatly increase the risks of falls and fall related injuries.They cause confusion. My point being, She didn't necessarily have to have a head injury tho people seem focused on that.