Monday, May 1, 2017

Kate and Gerry McCann Ten Year Interview


This is a recent interview that is 10 years after the reported disappearance of Madeleine.  Statement Analysis has indicated deception on the part of both Gerry and Kate McCann regarding what happened that night.  
Content Analysis reveals that the child was not kidnapped, or in the words of Kate McCann, "taken" by an intruder. 
The interviews since then have been consistent in affirming the original analysis.  
A complete interview using Statement Analysis in the McCann case is found here.
The same principles used here are used in all cases, including well known deception detection such as Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson, Lance Armstrong, and many others.  
Statement Analysis begins with the presupposition that the subject is telling the truth.  This is not a moral nor ethical position, but a scientific one.  To conclude one is deceptive, we must be talked out of our presupposition. 
By now, following the presupposition originally used, Madeleine should be 13 years old and living with someone else. 
The natural denial of biological parents should remain in effect.
Missing consistently from their interviews has been concern for Madeleine's well being.  Even highly abusive parents still show elements of parental instinct.  The McCanns have shown love for Madeleine yet, throughout the years, they do not address what Madeleine was going through. 
In fact, when a child goes missing, there is no need to say parents "should" act a certain way; as it is instinctive. 
The parent calls out for the child, as priority, and seeks the child's return by addressing the kidnapper.  Being innocent, they plainly state the kidnapping, personalize it because it is personal, and beg, plead or bargain with the kidnapper.  
The parents' natural protective capacities and natural denial do not allow for any other scenario. 
In the case of the McCanns, as loving parents, they showed no linguistic concern for Madeleine's plight, especially note worthy ten years ago.  There was no pleading that she should have her favorite blanket, teddy bear, or pleading to feed her.  
As loving parents, there was no need to. 
The language indicates that they knew and accepted her death.  

FB: Kate and Gerry, first of all, thank you very much for doing this interview. This is a very difficult time of year and it's the 10-year anniversary, obviously an anniversary you hoped you would never see.
KM: Yeah I mean I never thought we'd still be in this situation, so far along the line. It's a huge amount of time. In some ways it feels like it was only a few weeks ago, in other times it has felt really long. But it's a hard marker of time.

It is ten years, for context.  We listen for Kate to talk about Madeleine without needing to be prompted.  How has it been for her?  What has her life like? What efforts have the McCanns employed to negotiate for her release? 
What emphasis will be upon Madeleine, the victim?
FB: And you've referred to it on your website as "stolen time"?
KM: Oh yeah, I mean it's time we should have had with Madeleine. We should have been a family of five for all that time. And yeah, it just feels stolen.

Please note that kidnapping is child stealing.  For her, it only "feels", with the dependent word "just", which is a word used in comparison.  

This is not the language of a biological parent who's child was stolen from her. 

She is a mother.  The language should represent a ripping of her child from her, not from "we" and not from "you."  There is nothing more "up close and personal" than a mother and child relationship violently torn.  
FB: And you can never have imagined, 10 years ago, that you would still be in this situation?

We see in the language a distancing that will appear "cold" or even "sociopathic" in nature:  utterly unconcerned.  

Is this the case?

Is it the language of disassociation?

Or, is the indifference due to a different reason?

As in other analysis, we let the parents' own words guide us to a conclusion.  
GM: I think the situation is that we tried everything in our power to not have a long protracted missing person case like this. 

This is very impersonal and not the language of parents of a kidnapped child. 
He did not want to have a "long protracted" missing "person" case?
What length would have been acceptable?
This is depersonalization of Madeleine into a case.  This is consistent with the original analysis:  
The parents had guilty knowledge of her death and have processed it.  Thus, the concern is only for themselves. Madeleine is beyond concern.  

It's devastating and we really threw ourselves into trying to do everything we could to help find her. 

This, too, is not expected.  Consider:  "We did everything to find her" is active.  
Did this include negotiating via media with the kidnapper?
This is the first thing a parent does in a kidnapping:  they call out for the child.  
Those who refuse to call out to the child (pleading with the kidnapper) have a reason why they will not do this.  

Note the lack of commitment in the language.  It shows itself as a disconnect with the idea of kidnapping:  

It looks like that hasn't worked yet. 

"It looks like" is appearance.  This subtle distancing from reality ("we failed" or anything with less passivity) because the subject knows that the audience has been led to believe a kidnapping that did not take place. 
This is an indication of why the UK public has been so outraged by the McCanns.  This is not the language of a father who has failed to obtain his daughter from her captors.  

This weak language indicates that he did not want her found.  It would have led to personal trouble. 

Key is:  "it has not worked yet" because Madeleine has not been found.  The words do not fit the narrative. 
Now, take the premise of the original analysis:  Madeleine died an unintended death while being neglected and two biological parents have accepted the death. 

Now the words show congruency with the theme.  

But you know we are still looking forward, I think that's the most important thing - we still hope.

The most important thing is not finding Madeleine, but "looking forward."

This is a blunt lack of concern for the victim.  Consistent in their language has been identify the victim as themselves, not Madeleine.  This is why we do not hear concern, even when Madeleine was first missing, in the language of the McCann.  

Are they sociopaths without human empathy?

Or, is something else within their language? 

FB: And how are you doing as a family? The pair of you?
GM: I think we're doing a new normality, really, particularly over probably the last - and it seems like a long time saying it - but over the last five years. Since the Metropolitan Police actually started their investigation, it has taken a huge pressure off us, individually and as a family.

We wait for the natural and expected parental response:  what Madeleine's life has been and is currently like. 
If they believed their daughter was alive, as biological parents, this would be the expected. 

The weight of language upon themselves is reasonable once you factor in that the child died ten years ago.  

If you state what the McCanns have refused to state, that she was kidnapped, the language here, ten years later, does not fit.  
FB: Because before that you were trying to fight the case yourselves, trying to encourage the police to look for Madeleine, get the Portuguese police involved?

What is "fight the case"?
What parents of missing children do is what you expect parents of missing children to do:

1.  They call out to their child. 
2.  They plead with the kidnapper, if they believe she is "taken." 
3.  They immediately succumb to parental instinct and address:

They not only beg, but they instruct the kidnapper.  

a.  is she okay?
b.  are you feeding her?
c.  she needs this rx, she likes to sleep with a teddy bear, be read a story, etc. 

GM: Yeah I think the key thing was - and I suppose the injustice of it - was that after the initial Portuguese investigation closed, essentially, no-one, no-one else was actually doing anything pro-actively to try and find Madeleine. 

Note the inappropriate weakness. 
Imagine it is your daughter and she is kidnapped.  Would you say "you think" and "you suppose" here?

The "injustice is" rather than the weak assertions of "think" and "suppose."
People do not like to lie outright.  It causes internal stress. 

"I think I locked my keys in the car" is appropriate use of weakness when I have uncertainty. 
"I suppose" is to give an opinion when one is aware that this position may not be accurate or called for. 

If your daughter is kidnapped and police stop looking, it is injustice.  

The weak assertion indicates lack of commitment to Portugal police's decision that the McCanns caused her death and have hidden her body.  
To the innocent (actual) this is unacceptable, but to biological parents, it is to introduce fury. 

To this parent, it not only led to a weak and polite assertion, it led to two of them in the same answer.  

And I think every parent could understand that what you want and what we have aspired to is to have all the reasonable lines of enquiry followed to a logical conclusion as far as you can do that, and that was incredibly frustrating.

The focus of Portugal police was the investigation of this crime and  it led them to the parents.  
FB: You talked at the time about what a blow that was?

Here is where we expect the biological parent to talk about what their kidnapped child was going through and how betrayed the child is at this point: 
GM: It was terrible, it was horrible, and you know as much as we tried and were fortunate to have had so many donations into Madeleine's fund and to use that money to try and investigate, your hands are tied, you don't have the powers that law enforcement have.

It will be very challenging for anyone who believes that Madeleine was kidnapped to justify this statement. 
a.  It was "terrible" and "terrible" (repetition).  For whom?
b.  he introduces money into the interview.  
c.  he does not say money to be used to get Madeleine back from kidnappers but to "try and investigate."  
FB: So how much of a difference has it made. So for the last five years, the police have actively been investigating?

The McCanns now address five years of police failure to find Madeleine.  

Will this failure to find her be a failure or will it be a positive event in their language? 

It has been five years of failure to bring Madeleine home.  To any parent who believes their child is out there, this is unacceptable.  To parents who do not want the body found, it is:  
KM: Huge!
GM: Absolutely huge, I mean I can't emphasise enough just what a massive burden that has lifted from us, and those around us, and also knowing that the lines of investigation have been prosecuted. 

Context:  Madeleine has not been found in these five years.  
What burden is lifted from this failure? 
Remember, we allow their words to guide us.  We should believe this:  after ten years of failure to find Madeleine, a burden has been lifted. 

Here is what Statement Analysis calls "ingratiation factor" where one will attempt to formulate unnecessary unity with officials.  

I know the Assistant Commissioner, Mr  Rowley, spoke during the week, but you know a lot of those lines have been taken to a conclusion and that's almost as important as finding who's actually responsible but knowing that those lines have been shut down.
FB: And the police have talked about one significant lead they are still pursuing, can you tell me anything about that?
GM: The investigation is in the hands of the Metropolitan Police, who clearly have on-going inquires and from our perspective that's the important thing.

We wait to hear concern for Madeleine.  Will they offer this without having to be prompted? 
KM: They've managed to pull so much together and sift through so much information, so now we do seem to be on just several lines of enquiry rather than tens/hundreds.
FB: And there are four officers working on it full-time. You know there have been criticisms that the police shouldn't be spending so much money, still, so many years on, on this case, what would you say to that?

The money is wasted because the McCanns did not assert that Madeleine was kidnapped and their behavior since that time has been consistent.  They have not linguistically nor behaviorally changed and their focus has remained consistently upon themselves.
GM: I think some of that criticism is really quite unfair actually, because I know it's a single missing child, but there are millions of British tourists that go to the Algarve, year-on-year, and essentially you've got a British subject who was the subject of a crime and there were other crimes that came to light following Madeleine's abduction, that involved British tourists so I think prosecuting it to a reasonable end is what you would expect.

This answer is important:

"it is unfair because Madeleine is out there held by someone" is not what he said.  
Note that it being not "fair" is qualified by "really", "quite" and "actually."  The word "actually" means he is comparing unfair with something else.  What would produce that word here, within the weak and qualified assertion?  It is to compare it to reality, something he knows. 


Depersonalization and Weakness 

Please note he does not say "Madeleine is missing" but he "knows."  This, too, is a weak assertion as it is unnecessary.  Yet, even here, there is truth.

We find this, "I know that I didn't shoot the guy" to be very different than "I didn't shoot the guy."

In the former, he is telling the truth, he did not shoot the guy, but he is also telling us something very important:  he "knows" something.  In the above example, he knows.  He did not shoot the guy but he knows who did.  (an association via knowledge).  In this case, his partner did the shooting.  

Next:  


1.  "Case":  Note next he does not say "Madeleine is missing" but de-personalizes Madeleine into a "case."  This is not expected by a biological father, no matter how much time has passed.  It is, however, expected by a biological father who has processed his daughter's death.  This allows the brain some protection by distancing, via depersonalization, what happened.  It is the language of parents who have lost children, for example, to illness. It helps to refer to them as a "case."

Since they want the UK public (and the world) to believe Madeleine is a 13 year old girl, likely enrolled in school and still with captors, we expect him to not only remain personal, but it is not a "case", it is "my daughter in the hands of captors, living as a 13 year old."

We expect the father to even talk about what life is like for her, saying complimentary things such as "she is probably doing really well in school because she was so smart" (past tense reference appropriately referring back to Madeleine as a 3 year old) and openly wondering if she likes sports, math, or things that interested him (or Kate) when they were younger.  Remember:  Madeleine has their DNA.  She is their child.  This would be an example of linguistic concern for the child. 

It was critical that in the earliest interview, they showed, as parents, no concern for what Madeleine was going through in the hands of her captors. 

Did they show no concern because they were inhuman or sociopathic?

Or, did they show no concern for her wellbeing because Madeleine was beyond parental care?

This latter question has been answered by the McCanns language, here and throughout the years. 

2.  "A case." He further depersonalizes this by calling it "a" case. It is not Madeleine's case, as a biological parent would make this very personal, but only "a" case, making it one of others. 

3.  It is not "Madeleine" who is missing, but a "child", which is not related to him.  In this sentence from a biological parent, we assert that he knows that there is a missing child case because that is what he tells us.  The missing child is one of others and the child is not related to him.  This is his language.  This is the language of a biological father.  This is the language of one avoiding the internal stress of lying. 

"following Madeleine's abduction" is passive voice.  This is not to assert that she was abducted but refers to the British "case."  

Deceptive people will enter passive voice (going beyond a single passivity point, into an overall theme, which includes the depersonalization and distancing language in context) while truthful people will say:

"She was kidnapped.  Please return her.  Please treat her well.  Madeleine needs her parents.  Madeleine has to have..."

This was absent from the initial interview and it reflects upon the Portuguese police understanding of both their words and their behaviors indicating no such need and no such urgency.  

The parental instincts have been stifled.  

This means that either they are sociopaths who cared nothing for Madeleine, or...

they have come face to face with the stark reality that Madeleine is beyond their ability to help, and they must focus upon their own family preservation. 
If they are charged and convicted, they will go to prison, lose their careers and lose the other children.  

They chose to dig their heels in and their language has betrayed them for ten years running. 

Only McCann supporters dare say what the McCanns, themselves, cannot say. 


FB: But of course it doesn't happen, sadly there are so many children that go missing and the resources are not deployed on their cases?

Madeleine is a case among many to the interviewer, but this should not be to the parent.  They may feel pity for other parents, but Madeleine is "still out there!" and "her captors need to let her go now!"  

What is "sad", is that this has never been the language of the McCanns, but it is the language of the interviewer who has assumed a submissive posture.  This is a very poorly done interview and highlights why journalists who are trained obtain information.  
GM: Others within law enforcement have made it very clear, this type of stranger abduction is exceptionally rare actually and we need to put it into perspective and it's partly why Madeleine's case is attracting so much attention, thrown in with many other ingredients, but this type of abduction is exceptionally rare.

We look for him to say:  Madeleine was abducted, rather than continue within an overall passive voice.  

It is true that a stranger abduction is rare.  Note that he adds "thrown in with many other ingredients" may refer to the British public's discernment of ten years of deception.  They have shown linguistic interest in being disbelieved (parents focused on recovery  of kidnapped child do not care what people think; they are concerned with their child.  Please keep in mind that "Madeleine's fund" has entered their language before any concern for what Madeleine went through when kidnapped or what Madeleine is experiencing now is talked about. 
FB: One of the police officers in Portugal has been a thorn in your side for many years, he was thrown off the investigation but then he wrote a book, presented a documentary, presenting of you of what happened to Madeleine which implicates you, and you fought it through the courts. At the moment you've lost and he's won, is this the end for you now, are you going to continue to fight him?

Why would the parent of a kidnapped child care to "fight" anyone, including a police officer?  This "fight" will not bring the kidnappers to release Madeleine. 

To fight is to engage in the behavior of liars who are more concerned with their image than the truth.  

GM: I think the short answer is we have to because the last judgment I think is terrible. 

This may be to invoke Deity or, in this sense, Divine judgment. Is McCann concerned about the eternal soul of the detective?

 If Madeleine is kidnapped, this detective's book, many years later, is of no consequence.  It is to suggest that the detective is maliciously lying, rather than telling the truth, or he being in error on his opinion. 

The McCann supporters say it hurts Madeleine because people will stop looking for her while with her kidnappers, to which I answer:

The McCanns did not address the "kidnappers", and if the parents are not willing to do so, why do you think a social media posting by someone unrelated would change anything? 

This "fight" is consistent with deception's need for protection.  

After ten years of maintaining deception, they have increased in desensitization by the successes they've had.  They continue to "fight" for public opinion.  Listen for the use of the word "fight" in the language.  


So we will be appealing. We haven't launched that yet, but it will be going to the European courts. 

This is the language of Public Relations including "launched."
This is not the language of a parent trying to convince captors to release their daughter. 

This is a simple point that impacts and provokes the public.  

They will expend time and energy bringing a detective to heel.  
How would a court judgment against him bring back Madeleine?
Or, is "Madeleine's fund", that which entered their language, impacted by the detective's book?  Consider this with "launched."  

Note the amount of time that has passed:

10 years since they made the fraudulent report;
8 years since:  

I think it's also important to say that when we lodged the action was eight years ago and the circumstances were very different where we felt there was real damage being done to the search for Madeleine at that time, particularly in Portugal.

Madeleine was alleged to have been kidnapped at age 3.  
Two years had passed with not only no success in locating her and her captors, but the McCanns, themselves, had still not negotiated with the kidnappers.  
FB: Because he was effectively suggesting that you were involved?

Here, the McCanns are faced with the allegation that they were "involved" in the disappearance of Madeleine. 
It is here where we would expect a denial.  

Please note that after 10 years of no reliable denial, anything now would not be reliable.  

Still, it is expected that they would take this opportunity  to deny involvement not only because they have been accused, but because they are going after the detective.  
GM: I think, you know, what people really need to realise though is, you know, 

Before he gets to the message, please note:

a.  The weak assertion of "I think"
b.  the habit of speech with "you know", which shows acute awareness of the interviewer/audience's awareness.  Like other habits of speech, we note what causes it to emerge, and what does not.  
c.  Note within the weak assertion we have what they "really" need to know.  This is to suggest he has other knowledge that they may not "need" to know, and he is the arbitrator of such.  
d.  To "realize" is to show a process in which time passes and information is understood. 

Far easier is to say, "but we were not involved in her disappearance.  She was kidnapped. "

this lengthy introduction to his information shows deep sensitivity

as Assistant Commissioner Rowley has said again this week, 
he still has not gotten to it but uses official reference, 

and the Portuguese have said in the final report - 

he continues to build by references without getting to the information.  

have said there's no evidence that Madeleine is dead 

This is not to deny involvement.
This is not to say "Madeleine is not dead"

It is to not say that there is not evidence that Madeleine is dead:

It is to say, with heavy introduction and quality, that two others have made this statement.  

It means that it has not been yet proven, not that it does not exist. 

and the prosecutor has said there's no evidence that we were involved in any crime 

Here he states, not that "we were not involved in Madeline's disappearance"  and it is not to say 
"there's no evidence that we were involved..."
but to say that the prosecutor said it.  
If it is a lie, it is his lie, not their lie. 

next, note the avoidance of "involvement" with "any crime."

The distancing from a direct lie is vast.  

and really that's - saying anything opposite isn't justice, it's not justice for Madeleine.

This is the language of death.

This the language of one who knows the child is death and goes to justice. 

This is not the language of recovery.  

This enters the language of those who have accepted the death and move towards justice. 
KM: I mean I find it all incomprehensible to be honest, it has been very upsetting, and it has caused a lot of frustration and anger which is a real negative emotion, and I think we just need to channel that and I just have to hope that in the long run that justice will prevail, and all will be well.

The concern is not for Madeleine, but for Kate's emotion.  
If she thinks this is a "real negative emotion", what would she think of an indictment?

Note that "justice" is also in her language.  
GM: And I think it's also important for us personally, but for the rest of the family as well.

What about for Madeleine?

Please note that the McCanns have now addressed concern for Madeleine; something that has been absent in their language. 

The context that produced linguistic concern for Madeleine is consistent with death.  
FB: For your children?
GM: Yeah and our wider family, both parents, brothers and sisters etc, so - you know - we've got to challenge it, and we will do.

The impact remains self, including family.  Analysis of a brother-in-law's statement to follow. 

FB: The other thing that struck me when I was looking through various internet search engines before I did this interview was quite how much cruel, distressing, horribly tasteless commentary there is out there about you, about Madeleine. People giving their opinions about what they think happened, even though they don't know you. They were nowhere near, they can't possibly know. It's so hurtful for you, that that is out there - and for your children - how do you deal with that?

At this point, I would ask the interviewer specific questions. 

What has been "cruel, distressing, horribly tasteless" about Madeleine?
Has anyone written cruel things about Madeleine?  
If so, I have not read them, nor heard about them. 

This is to attack those who do not believe the McCanns.  It is consistent with McCann supporters who attack those who disagree while refusing to challenge analysis or reason.  

in spite of this, parents of missing children (truly missing children) sometimes address this by claiming gladness that their child's name is still out there.  
KM: I think the whole social media has got huge pros, but huge cons. On the downside, and all that's been written... I guess we protect ourselves really. We don't go there to be honest. We are aware of things that get said because people alert us to them. I guess our worry is for our children.

a.  deception indicated about reading the contrary views.
b.  no concern for Madeleine expressed 
FB: Of course, because they are now 12, they are at an age where social media becomes increasingly important?

Madeleine would be 13, but this has not entered the language of the interviewer, who is aligned with the McCanns and uses the same defense of calling those who disagree immoral.  
GM: I don't want to dwell on the negative aspects too long, but I think in this era of "fake news" it is extremely topical and I think people just need to think twice before what they write and the effects it has. Certainly I know ourselves with our own experience, both in the mainstream media and also on the internet, we just say I am not going to believe that until I see evidence of it. 

He is not going to believe until he sees evidence of it. 
Please note the use of the word "evidence" in his language. 
Now, see where else in his statement he has used the word "evidence."

"Evidence" is on his mind.  
He does not say he was not involved in Madeleine's disappearance; he says that several sources say there is no evidence. 
He does not say that it is not true about Madeleine being dead; he says several say there is no evidence to prove it.  
This is an example of 'leakage' where something is so important and so difficult to get away from, that it re-enters the language.  


I'm sure it is a very small minority of people who spend their time doing it, but it has totally inhibited what we do

they "honestly" don't go there, and only "hear" about it, but the impact is described as "totally inhibited what we do."

This is why the UK public is so outraged.  

McCann holds them in contempt.  

We continue to wait to hear about Madeleine; linguistic concern for the victim.  

Personally, we don't use social media, although we have used it in Madeleine's campaign. But for our twins who are growing up in an era where mobile technology is used all the time, we don't want them not to be able to use it in the same way that their peers do.
FB: How do you protect them?
GM: We had some excellent advice early on. 

Consider "excellent advice" received early on.  This would have led me to ask about why they did not take to the microphone, immediately, and plead with the kidnapper, and why they would not follow police advice (which is not necessary to innocent) to do the same.  Police do not need to encourage parents of kidnapped children to plead with the kidnapper, but they do help frame the language to personalize the situation creating a "relationship" between themselves and the kidnapper, while appealing to very specific details for Madeleine's care.  

Parents who refused to do this have a reason to refuse. 

See analysis on Baby Ayla and Isabel Celis.  In both cases, the parents (father of Ayla) refused to speak to media as they did not feel "ready."  In Justin DiPietro's case, he said he was not "emotionally capable", as a man and biological father, of calling out to his child and plead to the kidnaper for her return. 

The Celis parents had to be pushed by police into it.  

In both cases, deception indicated was not a challenging conclusion to reach.  


We have been as open with them as we can. We have told them about things and that people are writing things that are simply just untrue and they need to be aware of that. They're not really at the age where they are on the internet and other sites, but they're coming to that stage. They're in closed groups with their friends etc and that's important.
KM: I think we've tried to educate them a little bit as well because obviously it's not just us that has fallen victim to the downside of social media.
FB: Does it shock you? Because it has shocked me, certainly a little, the things that people say.

What is the interviewer referring to?  That the UK public does not believe Madeleine was kidnapped?  

Note the weak assertion.  For a mother still trying to get her daughter back, there should be no allowance for anything.  This is how her embedded confession was discerned in the Richard Hall interview. 
KM: I think it has been shocking... that aspect of human nature that I hadn't really encountered before. Because I think it's so far from how you would behave or people that you know would behave. 

"I think" is a weak assertion.  Consider this when you follow her pronouns.  She does not say "...I think it's so far from how I would behave..."  This is distancing language from the original weakness of "I think", which is also introduced with the weak, "I think."

This is an example of a false defense.  

It's been striking and quite hard really to get your head round. Because why would somebody write that? Why would somebody add to someone's upset - why would someone in a position of ignorance do something like that?
GM: I think we've seen the worst and the best of human nature. And our personal experience, rather than on the internet, has been overwhelmingly seeing the better side of human nature. And I think we need to remember that actually. We've had fantastic support over the last 10 years. And because there's a lot of media attention now around the 10th anniversary, we are starting to see that again as well.
KM: I think that's true. I think because things like social media, or Amaral or whatever, because it's so awful and upsetting, it does kind of sometimes stand out more, it becomes more of a talking point. Whereas actually the main thing that we have experienced is the goodness of people and the support that we have had over 10 years, which hasn't wavered in all that time.
FB: How different is your life now? When you have a child, you consciously or subconsciously imagine your future and the future of that child. How different is your life now to that what you must have imagined all those years ago?
GM: I think before Madeleine was taken, we felt we had managed to achieve our little perfect nuclear family of five

Here we see the need to portray in glowing terms as a hedge of protection, the family.  No family is perfect and this may have been prompted not only by motive but also by the early video tapes where they were on vacation and stressed.  
The need to portray perfection is often an indication of the contrary. 


And we had that for a short period and I suppose, almost the same way as if your child becomes ill or seriously ill, or has died, like many other families have suffered... then your vision is altered and you have to adapt. And I think that's a theme that speaking to other people who have gone through terribly traumatic processes with children and other loved ones, that is something that gradually happens, and you adapt and you have a new normality. And unfortunately for us a new normality is a family-of-four. 

This is the language of acceptance in the death grieving process.  It is expected after 10 years of knowledge of her death.  The lack of uncertainty has been evident in their language from the beginning. 

But we have adapted and that's important. The last five years in particular has allowed us to really properly devote time to looking after the twins and ourselves and of course carrying on with our work. At some point you've got to realise that time is not frozen and I think both of us realise that we owed it to the twins to make sure that their life is as fulfilling as they deserve, and we have certainly tried our best to achieve that.
FB: On the face of it, you appear to have stayed so strong as a family unit. I just wonder how you have managed to do that? It's so easy to blame each other when a cataclysm befalls a family. That's such as easy trap to fall into.

Expected:  Innocent parents blame themselves and each other.  They cannot help it.  They articulate "what if I..." strategies forever.  One father of a missing and later found murdered daughter told me he even went as far as "if I had not moved many years ago for a new job, she would..."  It was heartbreaking but it was expected.  He, as  a doctor also, knew the absurdity or illogic of such, but he was honest about his murdered daughter. 
KM: I don't think there has ever been any blame, fortunately. What people do say is that you don't realise how strong you are until you have no option. And I think that's very true. Obviously massive events like this cause a lot of reaction, a lot of trauma and upset. But ultimately you have to keep going - and especially when you have got other children involved. Some of that is subconscious I think - your mind and body just take over to a certain extent. But if you can't change something immediately, you have to go with it and do the best that you can. And I think that's what we have tried to do. As Gerry said, one of our goals - obviously ultimately finding Madeleine - was to ensure that Sean and Amelie have a very normal, happy and fulfilling life and we'll do everything that we can to ensure that.
FB: On the face of it, you appear to have stayed so strong as a family unit. I just wonder how you have managed to do that? It's so easy to blame each other when a cataclysm befalls a family. That's such as easy trap to fall into.


This is an accurate observation.  Innocent parents blame each other and it often ends in divorce.  However, consider the "co-combatent" status of self preservation when united by deception.  Consider why they use the word "fight." 
KM: I don't think there has ever been any blame, fortunately. What people do say is that you don't realise how strong you are until you have no option. And I think that's very true. Obviously massive events like this cause a lot of reaction, a lot of trauma and upset. But ultimately you have to keep going - and especially when you have got other children involved. Some of that is subconscious I think - your mind and body just take over to a certain extent. But if you can't change something immediately, you have to go with it and do the best that you can. And I think that's what we have tried to do. As Gerry said, one of our goals - obviously ultimately finding Madeleine - was to ensure that Sean and Amelie have a very normal, happy and fulfilling life and we'll do everything that we can to ensure that.
When one uses the word "obviously", the subject wants us to accept what is said without question. However, in Statement Analysis, we do not accept anything; it must be said.  "Finding Madeleine" is not "obvious" since the first interviews. 

Also please note that this sentence is unnecessary unless...they feel it is unnecessary.  That it is qualified by "ultimately" shows the increase in sensitivity:

1.  the use of obvious
2.  the unnecessary usage
3.  the qualification 

This is because from the beginning they did not want Madeleine found as it would have led to charges.  




GM: I mean she's always still part of our life, there's photographs all round the house, this time of year, then we can't even have conversations that doesn't involve it, kids know we're doing the interview today, the anniversary is coming up, so she is still part of it.

This is the language of nostalgia and acceptance; consistent for ten years, of her death.

Next: 
Here the biological mother speaks of her connection to Madeleine.  Expected is first person language. 
KM: I think every kind of event that we do, whether it be a birthday or a family occasion or even an achievement or something that is kind of when you really feel her absence. It's slightly different to how it was in the early days, when everything we were doing was to find Madeleine, whereas now we are having to get on and live a life as well, but its not like any day she's not there, if you know what I mean.

                        Analysis Conclusion

The McCanns continue to uphold a deceptive narrative.  This interview, even after ten years, affirms the analysis of the interviews over the years.  They do not believe their own words.  

This is seen in the distancing language. 

Priority also emerges:  the priority is not finding Madeleine, but self preservation.  The interest in their life is the foundation and maintaining their public relations stance. 

The McCanns have guilty knowledge of the death of their daughter, Madeleine, from ten years ago.  

The lack of words ascribed to what Madeleine would be going through, as a teenager living with kidnappers, is consistent from the beginning.  This was never a concern of theirs; not now and not ten years ago.  

This is in the language of parents who are beyond helping, protecting and providing for a child.  It is the language of death. 
The McCanns are not sociopaths.  They loved Madeleine and are guilty of gross neglect.  Whereas some parents give their children cough syrup to get them to sleep (not advised, but it happens) they may, in other regards, not be abusive.  

That they are not sociopaths, therefore, the lack of any linguistic concern is due to acceptance of her death.  Their powerful parental capacities for protection and concern, for example, are muted within their language.  This mimics sociopathic language but only if you accept the premise that Madeleine was alive. 

The McCanns do not believe Madeleine is alive, and they are consistent in their language of processing and in the negation of parental instinct.  

The analysis indicates the death was likely unintentional as a result of acute negligence due to selfishness and overconfidence in sedating Madeleine. The language indicates that this sedation went wrong whereas other uses were fine, and that Kate McCann gives an embedded confession on this negligence and upon their hiding of Madeleine's remains. 

Ten years has, however, impacted them as expected when one maintains deception.  

They show the difference between passivity ("the car would not start") and passive voice:  an element in speech going beyond a single reference, but including depersonalization and distancing language while referring to something (kidnapping) they could not assert directly. 

Passivity (and the larger passive voice) is used to conceal responsibility and/or identity.  Deceptive people will use the language of passive voice including others' assertions, to avoid a direct assertion that they know is a lie.  

The McCanns give us a good teaching example of this.  

Let's say I was negligent and cannot find missing money at the bank, so I allow the idea that the bank was robbed to be floated.  I know the bank was not robbed, but I also know I am responsible for the missing money.  Instead of saying, "my bank was robbed", which I know is a lie and will cause internal stress (as I can be seen as a liar if proven otherwise) I refer to the "when the bank was robbed" and "police are investigating the bank robbery."

It is a signal of both deception and intelligence, as intellect and experience in deception are evident.  

This has an impact on the UK public.  

Their contempt for the public at large has increased with the success of avoiding prosecution.   This is why he uses the inflammatory "it looks like" she has not been successfully found.  This enters the language due to the weakness of inconsistency and finding Madeleine would have personal consequences for them that could include prison and a very hostile public.  

We can expect this to continue unless evidence emerges from Portugal of which acceptance on the part of British authorities (political leaders) is contingent.  

If you listen to their words believing that Madeleine was kidnapped and alive, you see a consistent incongruence of language, as if the McCanns are sociopathic with no concern for their child. 
This is not so. 

If you listen to their words believing that Madeleine was a victim of neglect where she was sedated, awoke, had an accident (unintended death) and the parents panicked and concealed the remains, the language makes sense. 

In fact, with this premise, go through interview after interview and the "awkward" (incongruence) of language disappears. 

This is a basic technique of deception detection. 

Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones both used the "no evidence" diversion in their defenses rather than deny.   See analysis and videos of both as they make excellent teaching samples.  



If you wish for formal training, we provide a Complete Statement Analysis Course with 12 months of e support. 

Enrollment in the course allows the new analyst to enroll in live, monthly training, putting their new knowledge to work, sharpening skills, embracing correction, and moving on beyond deception detection to content analysis.  Successful completion of the course and a minimum of 60 hours can lead to certification.  

Go to Hyatt Analysis Services for training info.  

73 comments:

Peter Hyatt said...

To answer someone's question:

If the McCanns were going to a therapist/counselor, either together or individually, for any length of time, the counselor is not likely to confront them with the truth. The longer the relationship, the more embedded the lie becomes.

Even when, for the sake of one's mental health, the truth is essential, the therapist can say to himself or herself, "well, I know they need to know the truth, but if I tell them, they are just going to leave. So instead I will go little by little."

The regular income becomes the stalwart against truth.

The analysis here is not in-depth.

I believe the McCanns are suffering from the poison of maintaining this lie, even as they appear bolder and more on the offensive than ever before.

They do not believe their own words; not only about Madeleine, but about the public. Even the emphasis of family: family has doubts, but I would not be surprised if a family member knows and will remain silent because, in their logic,

"Why destroy the family when they did not mean to cause her death?"

We can justify almost anything within human nature's capacity for deception.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Peter:

"GM: I think the short answer is we have to because the last judgment I think is terrible.

This may be to invoke Deity or, in this sense, Divine judgment. Is McCann concerned about the eternal soul of the detective?"

Here Gerry is referring to the libel case they had against Mr Amaral, which the McCanns lost. Twice.

Anonymous said...

ThANKS

Certainly a worthy read. I have never understood the McCanns linguistic conundrums!

Sometimes, in interviews you think the interview has a set a questions and the McCanns a set of answers, but in the wrong order.

GA has acknowledged, that the original interview techniques with the Tapas group were, with hindsight wrong. They should have been given a blank piece of paper and in their own words written their statements. .......... of course if only...

Instead, everything went through a translation process and the speed, continuity, unconscious moments & behaviours were missed. The Rogatory interviews, carried out in English - may be of some value, to someone like yourself. The Video tapes..... would certainly be very interesting, rather than the transcripts.

Although, from my understanding all the original interviews in Portugal would taped & recordings sealed & under lockdown. Those would be interesting.

John mcgowan said...

GM: I don't want to dwell on the negative aspects too long, but I think in this era of "fake news" it is extremely topical and I think people just need to think twice before what they write and the effects it has.

It works both ways. The misinformation and misdirection they (and Mitchell) have fed the media and public in ten years is second to none, in missing person cases.

This is not the language of the interviewer. It was gm who introduced these words.

Anonymous said...

I still find it baffling that Gerry repeats "have said there's no evidence that Madeleine is dead "

There IS evidence of a death in the apartment. Both the cadaver dog and blood detection dog alerted in the apartment, as well as the car they hired 3 weeks after her reported disappearance. Oddly 15 of 19 DNA markers on recovered body fluids / DNA samples collected from the apartment and car matched those of Madeleine, yet this is "no evidence..."

Anonymous said...

Wow! Great work Peter. There is no evidence to suggest that I am not impressed by this piece of work.....

Hey Jude said...

'Obviously massive events like this cause a lot of reaction, a lot of trauma and upset.'

If a child is abducted, it is a situation of ongoing torment as to what might be happening to him or her, rather than an 'event' - which is a more fitting description of a sudden death. So often they have spoken the language of death it is hard to see how they still can have many supporters.

---

Thanks for the analysis, Peter - I blogged about the McCanns in the very early days, weeks, months after Madeleine went missing. I believed from the beginning that Madeleine had died due to an accident in the apartment, and they disposed of her body. It was not well received by the type of people who still believe and support the McCanns, because they are doctors, and they are unwilling to believe doctors would consider doing that. I was sure I was right, yet at times also troubled that I might be wrong, and it would have been a terrible mistake to have made. I don't think I only got lucky - it was as you say, if you read or listen to them from the point of view that they know Madeleine is dead, their words and reactions become comprehensible. I am so grateful for your analysis - so must many others be, it's good to have a hunch vindicated.

I do know I need to learn how to do SA properly - I think my McCann blogging days were before I knew about SA as a science. I have always analysed, or tried to analyse, what some people say, in my own hit-or-miss way, I like how you articulate why precisely, certain things they say and have said, set off the alarm bells.




Guitarisms said...

Very good analysis. The parents know way more than they have ever told the world. Effectively, they have gotten away with child neglect at it's worst possible level. They are smart too. They back each other up with everything they say as they both feel they are equally responsible which again, would be consistent with possible double dosing the child with calpol thus causing an accidental overdose.You have to remember, if they had accidentally caused the death of a child like this, they would of lost everything.The other children would of been taken off them, they would of both been struck off from their medical careers..and they would of both gone to Prison. It's a story they concocted then....and it's a story now.

Peter Hyatt said...

Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones used the "no evidence" claim, too.

Anonymous said...

Leakage?
Ingredients
Strike
Head
Hard
Lodged
Launched
Channel

Unknown said...

Yes but dont you know "those types" of dogs have found to have been incredibly unreliable?! 😊

Anonymous said...

I know this is statement analysis and not assessing body language but when Gerry said
"GM: I think before Madeleine was taken, we felt we had managed to achieve our little perfect nuclear family of five."
He coughed nervously before the statement and then coughed again after the word 'Madeliene'. It was if he was going to say one word and then corrected him self. It sounds like he was going to say 'before Madeleine died'. Are coughs that sound like nervous coughs or covering up a mistake taken into account in statement analysis along side the language?
Then there is the bit where Kate says ''I don't know if it's just our personalities but maybe our life is TOO frenetic'' Gerry looks extremely uncomfortable and looks away as if she has revealed too much about their personalities.
When Kate is asked if she still buys presents, she says yes and that she has to make sure they are still appropriate for Madelienes age 'whenever she is found'. When she says that phrase she adopts a sarcastic tone of voice and rolls her eyes.

elaine henshaw said...

I find the use of the word 'perfect' in the McCanns' language very strange.

I would have said 'a family of five'. It reminded me of Kate describing Madeleine at birth as 'almost perfect'. I've had four children and I thought they were all perfect at birth. I can't understand why Kate would qualify her praise. Then of course there is her excruciating description of what she says Madeleine may be experiencing with her abductors.''..her perfect little genitals torn apart..'' I don't understand why the word 'perfect' is used here. It really bothers me but I don't understand why.

Anonymous said...

I would just like to thankyou for this analysis which is totally independent and gives the British public hope that Madeleine will recieve justice and assurance that we as the British public have been doing the right thing for 10 years to help get that justice and not been evil trolls for questioning the British establishment and the Mccanns abduction theory.
Thankyou. GW.

Loz said...

I really enjoy your analyses peter, I've read the transcript before your analysis, and the information you can pull out fascinates me! Thankyou

Lars Bak said...

"...after the initial Portuguese investigation closed, essentially, no-one, no-one else was actually doing anything pro-actively to try and find Madeleine."

True Gerry, absolutely true.

Anonymous said...

IMO it's interesting that his sister is now divorced. IIRC she stated in the Portuguese court her name, she was divorced and is a nurse. It's the sister who was married to the guy who explained in his statement about why the car was smelling. If you're analysing his statement IMO that's an important piece of information to take into account.

tania cadogan said...

Hi Peter Thanks for this analysis, you make their deception so obvious.

I thought you might like a browse through the Portuguese Supreme Court Judgement.
It makes interesting and damning for the mccanns reading.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm

In particular BBM

Page 19
Both claimants (here appellants) lodged an appeal for reviewing that acórdão (note : to avoid confusion, this word always designates the decision of the Appeal Court).

Provided allegations and gathered the legal visas, it's up to deciding.

2 – Fundamental principles

1.2. In the appealed acórdão the following facts are considered proven :

1. The applicants Gerald McCann and Kate (sic) are married to each other.

2. The applicant Madeleine McCann was born on 12.5.2003 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.

3. The applicant Sean McCann was born on 1/2/2005, son of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann.

4. The applicant Amelie McCann was born on 1/2/2005 , daughter of Kate McCann and Gerald McCann. (11)

5. The applicant Madeleine McCann has been missing since 3/5/2007 , resulting in the criminal investigation n° 201/07.0 GALGS, opened by the prosecutor of Portimão.

6. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club.

7. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the vehicle rented by the applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after Madeleine's disappearance.

8. The applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann were constituted (by lawyer) assisted witnesses (arguidos) in the criminal investigation.

9. On 10/9/2007 (pp. 2587-2602 of the criminal investigation), Chief-Inspector Tavares de Almeida wrote a report and particularly the following :

tania cadogan said...

cont.

"Given what we could establish, the facts point towards the death of Madeleine McCann during the evening of May 3 2007, in the apartment 5A of Praia da Luz Ocean Club resort, occupied by the McCann couple and their three children (p. 2599) (... )

Taking into account all that was presented in the autos, it results that :

A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz in the evening of May 3, 2007 ;

B) A simulation of abduction took place ;


Page 20
C) In order to make possible the death of the minor before 22h, a story about checking on the McCann children, as they slept, was invented ;

D) Kate and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the body of their daughter MMC;

E) On this date it seems there is no solid evidence that the death of the minor was not due to a tragic accident;

F) Given what has been confirmed so far, everything indicates that the couple McCann, as self-defence, does not want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the body, existing a high probability that the same was removed from the place where it was originally disposed of. This situation is likely to raise questions about the circumstances in which occurred the death of the minor.


Thus we suggest that minutes be delivered to the prosecutor of Lagos aiming :

G) A possible new interrogation of assisted witnesses Kate McCann and Gerald McCann ;

H) Evaluating the adequate measure of constraint to be applied in the case (folio 2601 of the minutes)" (al.AT).

10. On 10/9/2007 (p. 2680 of the criminal investigation), the prosecutor in charge of the investigation issued an order which in particular says this:

"During the investigation which goes on regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the proceedings being therefore open either to confirm or to deny that the occurrence of the disappearance is related to the crimes of kidnapping, homicide, exposure or abandonment and concealment of corpse, and in accordance with the established plan, the need was felt to gather information on the actual time of the disappearance, verify the location of each stakeholder – from the McCann couple to the group of friends with whom they were on holiday in tourist apartments in the Praia da Luz Ocean Club, i.e Michelle Jane Tanner, Russell James O'Brien, David Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Jean Mampilly David Anthony Payne, Fiona Elaine Payne and Diana Webster – when the events occurred and in the moments that followed, and determine the movements of the assisted witnesses, Gerald McCann and Kate Healy, during their stay in Portugal, while also establishing connections between all stakeholders and third parties.

In this sense, and because the following requested inquiries are essential for the discovery of the truth, especially the analysis of the information contained in the telephone exchanges' ...

tania cadogan said...

cont.
Page 22

5) The immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence offers obvious and well known advantages to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing child's parents.

To achieve this according to the standards and conventions in force, legal procedures were instituted and the presence of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to participate, also appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.

Page 23
...the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, witnesses chose not to attend, which made the reconstitution impractical.

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos (14) : their innocence in relation to the fateful event. The investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remained without clarification (...).

This (15) shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to protect those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner (...)

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown reasons, after the many doubts that they raised about...

tania cadogan said...

cont.

Page 56
... and we disagree with the decision so decided on the basis of the arguments which we shall adduce next.


Before, however, the relevant facts to be taken into account in deciding the question referred to above shall be listed below :

5. The claimant Madeleine McCann has been missing since 3/5/2007, and the office of the Republic Prosecutor for the Portimão district has opened a criminal investigation

6. The dogs of the British police 'Eddie and Keela' have detected human blood and body odours in the Ocean Club apartment 5-A.

7. The dogs Eddie and Keela, from the British police, have detected human blood and cadaver scent in the vehicle rented by the applicants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann after Madeleine's disappearance.

8. The claimants Kate McCann and Gerald McCann were constituted arguidos (formal suspects) in the criminal investigation.


9. In folios 2587-2602 of the criminal investigation, the 10/9/2007, Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida wrote a report and in particular the following : Given what we could establish, the facts point towards the death of Madeleine McCann during the evening of 3 May 2007, in the apartment 5A of Praia da Luz Ocean Club resort, occupied by the McCann couple and their three children (p. 2599) (...)

Taking into account all that was presented in the minutes, it results that :

A) The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz in the evening of May 3, 2007 ;

B) A simulation of abduction took place ;

C) In order to make possible the death of the minor before 22h, a story about checking on the McCann children, as they slept, was invented ;

D) Kate and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the body of their daughter Madeleine McCann ;

E) On this date it seems there is no solid evidence that the death of the minor was not due to a tragic accident;

F) Given what has been confirmed so far, everything indicates that the McCann couple, as self-defence, does not want to deliver immediately and voluntarily the body, existing a high probability...


Anonymous said...

GM: I think some of that criticism is really quite unfair actually, because I know it's a single missing child....

Madeline has now become an "it". It's not a "single missing child case" or "single missing child investigation", etc. "It" is the "single missing child" herself.

She's no longer Madeline in any form for these people. She's dead and they've processed that fact very quickly and completely. "It" divests any and all emotional, physical, or psychological connection. They're still (apparently) loyal to one another. If this had been actual kidnapping case, I feel there would be unresolved resentment and anger between them that would have shown up in their language and even in interviews. One blaming the other for being negligent, or not checking in on her, or not locking the doors, or overlooking a suspicious person hanging around, or being too dismissive or the need to check up on her, you name it. A missing or dead child tears couples apart. It's a rare marriage that survives something like this in real life. Just like Ramsays for that matter.

But they're in this together and have been from the night it happened. Not because they're unified to find their daughter alive or dead. They're unified in their efforts to not be prosecuted for negligent manslaughter for overdosing their daughter and then failing to act when they discovered what they'd done.

This is a horrible and sad case. They need to be interrogated separately to determine which one is the weak link in the chain, then work the weak link against the other. They need to confess what they did. That's the only way they'll be able to show anyone they actually had affection for Madeline, or regret and sadness for what happened. Respect her enough to tell the truth!

tania cadogan said...

cont.
page 58

15. The archiving dispatch concerning the criminal investigation, issued le 21/7/2008 by the prosecutor, says in particular this (...)

20. The (then) defendant Gonçalo Amaral is the author of the book Maddie - A Verdade da Mentira, published by the (then) defendant Guerra & Paz Editores SA.

23. Is part of Maddie – A Verdade da Mentira particularly the following prologue: (…)

24. The defendant Gonçalo Amaral concluded his book Maddie - A Verdade da Mentira as follows :

For me and for the inspectors who worked on this case until October 2007, the investigation findings include

1) The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of Vila da Luz’s Ocean Club, on the evening of 3 May 2007;

2) There has been a simulation of kidnapping ;

3) Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in the concealment of their daughter's body;

4) Death could have occurred as a result of a tragic accident.

5) There are clues of neglect in the protection and safety of children (pp.220-221).


Page 70
...(cf. Jónatas Machado, Freedom of Expression - Constitutional Dimensions, op. cit. pp. 566-7)

And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

In fact, that dispatch was not proclaimed by virtue of the Public Ministry having gained the conviction that the appellants had not committed any crime (cf. art. 277° of the CPP).

The filing, in this case, was decided because it was not possible for Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants (cf. the cited art. 277°-2)

There is, therefore, a remarkable difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the filing order.

Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.

Anonymous said...

Peter, Excellent analysis!

It was insightful that you described this statement from Gerry as cold and sociopathic
when he said

"I think the situation is that we tried everything in our power to not have a long protracted missing person case like this."

I feel like you are right he has distanced himself so coldly and, if I might add, also seems to be entering the language of law enforcement, like he is a detective not even personally connected to the case! Stunning.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if this is leakage which could relate to where they put Madeleine's body but I notice Gerry said "hard marker" which could be a rock or something marking a gravesite and I also notice he said "key".

Lars Bak said...

Lars Bak said...

"...after the initial Portuguese investigation closed, essentially, no-one, no-one else was actually doing anything pro-actively to try and find Madeleine."

True Gerry, absolutely true.

May 1, 2017 at 3:42 PM

There is an error in the transcript - he says "...essentially,no one other than us...

- but he sticks to "try"

Anonymous said...

THERE SO F**KING GOOD they KILLED MADDY THAT NIGHT THERE Was 3 involved in her murder the DAD & THE MUM & A Close Family Member They had her murder planed long before they went out to that house & how many People know what is in her Shroud they made of her bedroom & what was her fav pet and what bit her when she was two yrs old what was her fav toy they gave maddy a very strong painkiller between 5/6pm that fateful night and between 9/10PM they then went into her room and injected her with a substance that you get before you go and have a Operation that knocks you out from felling the surgery work has been carried out and your probably asking your self CALL THE POLICE By hell I did phone them up and emailed them as well its just as well I keept my e-mails too them all OPERATION GRANGE With every detail of maddy emmmmmmmmm the next one was the HOME OFFICE T MAYS Was home office leader & 2 prime ministers D CAMORON AND T MAYS The Prime minister Leicester Police Station & the Lord Mayer of London & your asking too were maddy is she is in the DAM 9 MILES AWAY

Peter Hyatt said...

Premeditation is a powerful thought/emotion commitment.

It would have been in their language.

It is not in their language, nor even hinted at anywhere.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Lars Bak said...
Lars Bak said...

"...after the initial Portuguese investigation closed, essentially, no-one, no-one else was actually doing anything pro-actively to try and find Madeleine."

True Gerry, absolutely true.

May 1, 2017 at 3:42 PM

There is an error in the transcript - he says "...essentially,no one other than us...

- but he sticks to "try"



Agreed. This is where police scratch their heads at the public believing a "kidnapping."
Police had their info and knew that the child was deceased and the parents were deceptive.

If "your child" (anyone) was kidnapped and police stopped looking, you'd gone ballistic. I would. Any parent would.

Unless, of course, the stop of searching is in your best interest.

Peter

Anonymous said...

For the sake of clarity, good order and knowing most people know only some the facts.

Mrs McCann's refused to co-operate with the Police, by not answering 48 questions
The T7 (friends) refused to take part in the 'true' re-enactment, not to be confused with a t.v. Crimewatch version with actors. But one in the true situation with the people present. As they all refused, it was never carried out. The McCanns therefore were never on record as saying they would or wouldn't, by law, as arguidos they would have been expected to.

When the case was shelved\archived in Portugal, there was a period of six weeks when the McCanns could have appealed the decision. THEY NEVER DID. I believe it would have required to give new evidence, that would have been the 48 questions answered, the re-enactment or another piece of evidence.

They, therefore and only they were responsible for that line of inquiry, being drawn to a close & then the official file published.

Finally, remember that when GA handed the case over, there was a FULL REVIEW by the PJ. And again, in the procedural requirement to archive.

Anonymous said...

Why did everything revolve around the parents? A long questioning of the others involved would surely have caused someone to crack and reveal the truth. The staff in the complex said their version of events and timings were wrong. This was not followed up. Crazy.

Rosalind Thorpe said...

Hi Peter

I found it very hard to read your very incisive analysis. This is an existential crisis for them and to a point I feel sorry for them. What would you advise doing in this situation? Come clean and face an avalanche of hatred, carry on digging yourself deeper into the hole or end it by suicide. Thier even doesn't seem to be an easy way out. And that is the problem.

elaine henshaw said...

'Anonymous' who talked about 'hard marker' and 'key'. Gerry uses the metaphor(?) KEY
over and over again. Are we to read anything in to this? And 'no stone unturned'? The tunnel which got wider instead of narrower? Is this leakage?

Rosalind Thorpe said...

A sedated person can easily choke on vomit. It happened to Jimmy Hendrix. That is an accident but it has a cause.. Sedation. If this is the case, the truth will come out in the end when her brother and sister are old enough to ask the right questions. You'd think if it were the case, the parents would try to preempt that so maybe they are telling the truth. It's a scenario we have to consider even if there are no facts to support it.

Anonymous said...

"GM: I think the short answer is we have to because the last judgment I think is terrible.

This may be to invoke Deity or, in this sense, Divine judgment. Is McCann concerned about the eternal soul of the detective?"

Or perhaps Gerry was simply referring to the latest judgment passed by the Portuguese appeal court which went against them. "... because the last judgment I think was terrible"?

lynda said...

OT..
This is a local case for me. A 7 month old baby was dead due to brain and optic nerve injuries. Babysitter had just taken possession of the baby from his mother that morning. (babysitter is bio dads girlfriend) They have arrested the babysitter, she called 911.

My problem is with the mom being interviewed..

The mother of the baby, being interviewed,stated the following

“It’s very hard. I can barely cope,” Miss Ashley said. “I just wish it never happened. I don’t know what went wrong.” (Is this embedded confession?)

“I always wanted to have a boy, because I have a girl and I wanted to have a boy,” Miss Ashley said. “I was relieved and excited.”

Miss Ashley said Levi and his sister, Leighana, 4,

"were good to each other, even though the baby began displaying a strong personality and began picking on his sister."
(A 7 month old baby is "picking on" his 4 year old sister?? A 7 mo. old can neither walk or talk...how can he pick on a 4 year old??)

Miss Ashley said she didn’t have a favorite moment with her son because the entire six months have been enjoyable, she said. Her son recently learned to roll and smiled frequently.

What do you all think?

Polo said...

Peter - 1) You might throw in John and Patsy Rams** as an example of similar speech patterns. 2) Kate responds to the blame question, "Obviously massive events like this cause a lot of reaction, a lot of trauma and upset." This is extreme distancing language in my opinion. Not truly experienced. At the very, very least they would acknowledged some type of blame issues and how they worked through them. 3) Please continue to write your opinions on political and world affairs. I find those interesting and supportive.

Peter Hyatt said...

Rosalind Thorpe said...
A sedated person can easily choke on vomit. It happened to Jimmy Hendrix. That is an accident but it has a cause.. Sedation. If this is the case, the truth will come out in the end when her brother and sister are old enough to ask the right questions. You'd think if it were the case, the parents would try to preempt that so maybe they are telling the truth. It's a scenario we have to consider even if there are no facts to support it.
May 2, 2017 at 4:19 PM

This would also account for possible blood. It does not have to be a fall.

This is a very astute comment.

Consider this: when Kate was talking about "the last time" with Madeleine, what did she go to?

She went to a form of ingesting something (snack).

This put her memory association with something going in Madeleine's mouth during a critically heightened memory.

Nic said...

IMO, this is a very loaded response:

GM: I think the situation is that we tried everything in our power to not have a long protracted missing person case like this.

GM is presenting a controlled situation (in our power) whereas a kidnapping is 100% out of anyone’s control.

Protracted:
Lasting for a long time or longer than expected or usual.

long, protracted
very, very

"missing person” doesn’t have a name.


Wow.

Nic said...

GM: I think the situation is that we tried everything in our power to not have a long protracted missing person case like this

Long, protected missing person case with no identity "like this", to me, means that this is not about their, "kidnapped" daughter, Madeleine.

In the context GM is speaking "this" impersonal case, is so close given it's protracted length of time given what they "tried" (past tense/at the beginning) "not to have".

So based on what GM is saying here, IMO, they planned, given what power was at their disposal, not to have a protracted "active" missing person case.

What was their point of this anniversary interview? Were they paid?

Nic said...

o/t
It's May and with this month Amanda Blackburn's alleged murderers come to trial. At least last I heard, it's when they're suppose to come to trial.

By chance I came across this today and I thought it explained so clearly what is happening in the "planting church" arena that the Blackburn's got caught up in. If you don't have time for the 30 minutes, start at 8:30. If you have the time, listen to the whole thing. David Wilkerson describes exactly the methodology these new church organizations use to plant a church.

David Wilkerson - Last Days Deception
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPdTxSNcC5Y

And if [you're] at all interested in/wondering what the heck is going on "with everyone" these days, ie., BLM, and every other "cult like" SJW funded organization, listen to this:

ex-KGB, Yuri Bezmenov: Deception Was My Job (Ideological Subversion)
Start at 1:07:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

Anonymous said...

Imo, Maddie was accidentally overdosed or aspirated after a narcotic or sedative was given to her by her physician parents to force her to sleep. (Kate had quit or been fired from an anesthesiology residency program.) The same thing may have also happened with Becky Celis (RN) and her husband Sergio (a dental surgery tech whose job it was to draw up anesthetics for the surgeons he assisted). Isabel had been kept awake to attend her brother's baseball game. When she returned home at 11 pm, she had to have her hair braided and then immediately go to sleep to be able to arise early the next morning (and not be horribly cranky) for her own baseball game.

tania cadogan said...

GM: I think the situation is that we tried everything in our power to not have a long protracted missing person case like this.

Could this be taken as they tried everything in their power to have themselves cleared and Maddie to become just another missing child case?
Missing Maddie is shelved by the PJ and only reopened if new evidence comes to light.
Missing Maddie is reviewed by the Met and nothing else is done, no investigation is opened and the parents are declared innocent.

The mccanns then go about their happy wee lives, getting donations into the fund, the begging bowl coming out on special occasions such as birthday, anniversary of Maddie 'disappearing' and christmas.
They are safe in the knowledge they won;t be investigated for involvement, they carry on suing Dr. Goncalo Amaral and winning millions, they release books portraying THEIR story, how much they are suffering, their hopes and dreams, the twins, being wined and dined and feted by clebas and media and adored by their supporters.

Every few years or so a brief cold case review and life continues, perhaps with the odd possible sighting wheeled out at appropriate times or someone makes a pro mccann witness statement about something they remember seeing or how they made a statement and were ignored.not followed up etc.

I think they are gutted that after 10 years despite all their efforts and money being spent, they are revealed as not having been cleared of involvement, they have lost repeatedly their legal suits against Dr. Amaral and others, the public aren't buying their version of events, their wealthy backers have buggered off into the sunset clutching the pursestrings tightly shut, they are viewed by the media albeit with a slightly biased eye as concealing evidence and information (something unheard of before they Supreme Court ruling,their few remaining supporters are eyerolling trolls with a nice line in mutual back patting and idiocy and possibly facing future legal action.
Kate claims she is working in medicine but does not say doing what so Dr./GP/ nurse is out since she would need to do years of retraining, leaving perhaps nursing assistant/care assistant/receptionist/working at a pharmacy counter handing over filled prescriptions from the trained pharmacist/some kind of technician/lab assistant?
If it was anything decent she would probablty have announced it with great fanfare saying the twins are now older and she wanted to do something for the community.

The good life they perhaps envisioned after Maddie's death never arrived.
Kate was positively glowing, as if a weight had been lifted off her shoulders and life was looking good.
10 years down the line she looks a haggard wreck.
She looks now like she should have done when Maddie 'vanished'
The guilt has taken its toll anbd will continue to do so.
10 years of worrying who will talk?
10 years of changed and lost friendships.
Their best friends today becoming their worst enemy tomorrow.
The death of a child even if accidental, lied about, hiding of the body and the ensuing years of deception will take their toll.

Had they admitted the truth from the get go they would likely have been out by now and making a fresh start.
10 years of living in a mental prison of their own making and then still facing arrest, prosecution and serious jail time in the future.
It is no life, no bella vita, it is a prison, a tiny cell fraught with fear and worry and then the questions from the twins and wondering what they saw and remember.

It cannot continue, the times are changing as we have seen with the media, who will crack first?

Anonymous said...

The whole situation is hard to swallow for me I was on holiday with a friend when maddy was reported missing it was on all the tv stations We were sat drinking coffee when we noticed quite a few police officers running all over the place boats coming in on the beach with officers in them as we were in the spot where they thought the "kidnappers" could have brought maddy too that day will stay with me for the rest of my life We like many felt so sorry for the parents and prayed she would be found safe and sound But over the yrs have felt something wasn't right with the parents story can someone tell is it true that they refused to allow blood to be taken from the twins until 3 weeks had passed if so why couldn't the police take blood without there permission? also how was the blood found in there room and car explained away?

Habundia said...

GM: I think the situation is that we tried everything in our power to not have a long protracted missing person case like this.

The situation is.....that they tried to not have a long protracted missing case........no the situation is that your child is still missing and not yet found! That is the situation!
Is there any case "like this" out there? I dont know of any other case that has gotten that much media attention "like this case" and is comparable with this case.

What i read in those words is him saying they did everything in their power in trying to get rid of the blame for themselves. They never worry about Madeleine, they only worry they have is still not being able to get rid of the suspicion of guilt.....although they tried.

Shouldnt a medicine practicizer know that medication used when not needed can be lethal? If they both were "doctors" and Madeleine didnt need the medicine that has been assumed given to her, wouldnt that be more then accidental alone?
To me accidental death because of medicine is when you dont know what you are doing or did, that you werent aware of the consequences of your action.
I dont find this accidental when doctors giving (not needed) medicine to 2 year old children......they should be aware of consequences even if they dont know exactly what can happen they should know it can and so i dont call a death like this accidental.

Peter you say they loved Madeleine, though i dont see the words that make me believe they loved her. They talk about how they moved on, about their other kids, but not once they say things like how much they miss her and how much they wish she was still with them...i see non of these things in their words.....not once they said they love Madeleine and want her back.....and isnt it so that if they cant say it.....we can not say it for them.......so how come you say they did (do)?

Habundia said...

Btw.....that picture of them isnt the picture of two parents desperate for 10 years to find their missing child......they seem very cheerfull......not the faces of desperate parents

Anonymous said...

How are they not sociopaths? They have conned money out of thousands of sympathetic people, taken the spotlight off genuine missing people cases, and other important issues, lived off public donations, had millions of tax payers´ money spent on a wild goosechase, flagrantly libelled the Portuguese police and gone to any lengths to bankrupt and destroy Amaral for doing his job. I´m not convinced it was an accident, there seemed to be some fairly cold blooded, cool headed thinking right from the beginning (like bringing all their friends to the appartment to destroy evidence)

Where in their language do they show love for Madeleine? Right from the very beginning media campaig and marketing language was in their speech, as was laughter, jogging and being able to sleep through the night. Read the diary Peter. It reveals Kate´s ´premonitions´ about Portugal and all kinds of odd leakage and staging, as well as huge arrogance, ager and an amazing sense of entitlement. I think they may have planned to lose Madeleine in Portugal.It´s hard to credit anyone keeping up the campaign for 10 years (we project our own inability to do so, as even hardened criminals crack), that´s why I consider them sociopathic. The only time Kate has ever appeared truly distressed is when she was made a suspect and questioned by the police. At that point they hotfooted it back to the UK and refused to cooperate further - with the help of the primer Minister Gordon Brown.

tania cadogan said...

Anonymous
...can someone tell is it true that they refused to allow blood to be taken from the twins until 3 weeks had passed if so why couldn't the police take blood without there permission? also how was the blood found in there room and car explained away?

Yes it is true regarding testing the twins.
The expected, even from trained doctors, would have been have the twins rushed to hospital to be tested for any drugs since they didn't waken or react with all the noise and people running around, to have the twins examined for any signs of injury or abuse given that their sister was allegedly abducted by a paedophile abductor.
Instead, we have kate checking only their breathing and even that was not done to medical standards and moving them to a different apartment.
They did finally allow the twins hair to be tested months down the line but that was by a private company chosen by the mccanns so we do not know what the hair was tested for or the results apart from the mccanns saying no thing was found.
This was after they initially denied the twins had been sedated at all and when public comments made it clear they weren't believed, gerry mentioned in his mockumentary about them wondering if the twins had been sedated.
Had the twins been subject to long term sedation the haircuts would have removed a fair bit of evidence, and if it had been short term, only a couple of days or so then it wouldn't have shown in their hair.
Kate also made much of the haircuts claiming chunks had been removed leaving their hair a mess.
Only a few strands are required!

From kate's book

Kate goes on to say ' I asked for samples of my own hair to be taken as well simply because I was fed up with the constant insinuations that I took tranquillizers, sleeping pills or any medication, for that matter.'

Kate adds 'The process seemed to take ages and we all lost loads of hair. I couldn’t believe they had to take so much. The scientist cut chunks of it from Sean and Amelie’s heads while they were sleeping. I cried as I heard the scissors in their baby-blond hair. I felt angry that the children had to go through this further insult. As for me, I looked as if I had alopecia. Though I cursed the abductor and the PJ, I had bigger things to worry about

tania cadogan said...

cont.
Now.

Regarding the blood in the apartment and hire car.
Blood and cadaver dogs Keela and Eddie are trained to react only to human blood or cadaverine.
Eddie, the cadaver dog, reacted behind the sofa, the cupboard in the parents bedroom, to kate's pants, a child's red t shirt and cuddle cat. He also reacted to the hire car the mccanns used.
Keela, the blood dog, reacted behind the sofa and also to the hire car.

The mccanns claimed the dogs were unreliable, with gerry citing the eugene zapata case as an example of the dogs being wrong when his wife disappeared and they reacted to areas of his property.
30 years down the linem, he finally confessed to killing his wife and the dogs had in fact been correct.
Cue silence from gerry on that point.

Kate in her interview refused to answer 48 questions whilst answering the 49th

43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html


tania cadogan said...

cont.

Gerry in his interview had no comment to make about blood in the apartment then asked to be asked about the blood reaction whereupon he said Maddie had nosebleeds.

"When asked if on any occasion Madeleine was injured, he (Gerry Mccann) says that he has no comments. When questioned, he said that he is the usual driver of the car. In addition to the deponent, the car was also driven by his wife Kate, his sister in law Sandy, and a cousin of Kate’s by the name of Michael."
"When asked if he has anything to add, he said that he has not seen any proof that his daughter Madeleine is dead, and therefore he will continue to search for her in the hope she is alive. He knows nothing more than what has been said."
"The defense lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he (Gerry Mccann) saidit was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds.He says that he doesn’t know if infact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter
disappeared."


Further regarding the dogs and the hire car it was claimed that the dogs were reacting to the material left behind from rotting meat and fish, dirty diapers and sweaty sandals.

It was also mentioned by gerry that Sean had developed a taste for seabass.
Seabass which can produce cadaverine under some circumstances, perhaps this was yet another excuse for why the dogs reacted where they did.

A bad smell was also mentioned by one of their friends regarding the car
Michael Wright, relative of McCanns "I noted some disagreeable smells on a number of occasions which I judged to have come from the twins’ nappies. I have no knowledge of anything spilling from any article nor of any cleaning of the car after such a hypothetical spill."

It was also reported by neighbors that the trunk of the car was left open at nights.
Gonçalo Amaral "I am brought the witness statement of a neighbour, according to whom, the McCanns left their car boot open all the time. For Gerry's brother-in-law, the bad smell was explained by the fact that the McCanns transported their bins in it. As for the blood, it had been left by a piece of meat fallen out of a shopping bag. Kate's cousin explained that the unpleasant smells were due to the little ones' dirty nappies."

Eddie reacted to the parents wardrobe where a blue bag lay, a blue bag which subsequently disappeared and whose existence was denied by clarence mitchell, the mccann spokesman.
samples of body fluids were obtained from the apartment under the tiles behind the sofa and also from the hire car.
The hire car samples were a 15/19 match to Maddie with the remaining 4 markers too degradedto be indentified as belonging to Maddie.
IN Portugal it has to be a 19/19 match to be used as positive id, in the UK they would have been arrested and charged.

tania cadogan said...

cont.

Their excuse for the fluids and DNA were diarty diapers and sweaty sandals, Items of Maddie's and various members of the mccann extended family and friends contaminating the car which could result in mixing of DNA resulting in the 15/19 match.

However, in the Leveson inquiry:

Kate now talks about how "desperate" they were to find Madeleine and they had to endure headlines about a "corpse" in the car and "body fluids" in the car.

There were no body fluids in the car, but this was repeated so often, she said, it became fact.

"We were trying to find our daughter," she said and the press was compromising her choice of finding her.


This despite the previous explanations for the dogs reactions to the car and also the excuse given by a family member regarding kate's pants, that she had come into contact with multiple corpses just prior to the vacation and that she had taken cuddlecat (maddies alleged favorite toy) to work with her.
No excuse was given that i recall for the child's t shirt.

I hope this is of some help to you anonymous.

Nic said...

Tania said,
Kate claims she is working in medicine but does not say doing what


Policy? (Bureaucrat, office oriented/away from patients/pencil pusher.)

lynda said...

It is common knowledge in medical circles (at least in the US) that the directions on dosage on say, Benadryl, are lower than necessary. This is regulated by the FDA and they err on the side of caution. Physicians routinely use the "double the dose" of what's on the package and you are still in the safe range.

I'm wondering if the McCanns were unaware that the other already gave Maddie her dose for the night.

Say Gerry gave it to her (doubled the dose) and then for some reason, Kate, not knowing that Gerry had already given it to her, gave her a double dose also. That might do it then..become an overdose leading to death.
JMO

Sweepyface said...

They are guilty of murder.IF "accused/asked""did you kill Madeline?"the expected reaction would be ANGER...not a smirking/smiling cheerfull denial.

Nic said...

I felt angry that the children had to go through this further insult.

She felt anger. So she didn't quite achieve anger.

How much ego does a baby have that they would be "further" insulted about providing hair samples?

So two feelings she reports are not fully angered and insulted, albeit she does not assign "insult" to the babies per se. Insult is very far away from Kate, though. "I" is literally the first word of the sentence and "insult" is literally the last word of the statement. That's a lot of distance. Of all the emotions a parent could feel about their kidnapped daughter, IMO, "insulted" would be at the bottom of the barrel.


Nic said...

I looked as if I had alopecia. Though I cursed the abductor and the PJ, I had bigger things to worry about

Hyperbole.

Alopecia is a disease wherein the sufferer literally loses all of their hair. Not just on their head, but their eyebrows, eyelashes and body hair.

Taking hair samples and what the results would "bare" (!) was very sensitive to Kate.

What "bigger things" (plural) did she ("I") have to worry about? Was she not worried for Madeleine and what she was going through? Why curse the very person and team dedicated to finding her daughter?

Why is abductor a title and not a person? Why is it singular?

What would have happened if the results would have revealed the babies had been sedated? What "things" would happen if tests revealed they were sedated? Or, what would happen if tests revealed that Dr. Kate took drugs? Would it affect her ability to practice medicine? Would it mean losing her kids for a period of time while she was forced into rehab? Would [they] suspend her license?

That certainly would be a lot of "things" to worry about.

jmo

Nic said...

Though I cursed the abductor and the PJ

abductor, not abductors, not people or "they", or whoever has Madeleine.

cursed
I realize this book was written in hindsight, but "cursed" is past tense and beside the abductor and in context of being forced for provide hair samples. She doesn't curse the abductor for victimizing her daughter and not allowing her daughter to come back home. Instead, she curses "someone" to begin with like as if someone didn't do their job properly.

jmo

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

"When asked if he has anything to add, he said that he has not seen any proof that his daughter Madeleine is dead, and therefore he will continue to search for her in the hope she is alive. He knows nothing more than what has been said."
"The defense lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he (Gerry Mccann) saidit was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds.He says that he doesn’t know if infact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter
disappeared."


This is third-party (translated?)
So he wants LE to "prove" it (that Madeleine is dead).
"hope" she is alive.

It's too bad that this is third-party, because on one hand GM is saying he wants LE to prove to him she is dead (had not been shown any proof) on the other hand he is "hoping" (uncertainty) that she is alive. Again this is a translation, so it's hard to say definitely that this is what he "said".
_________

.He says that he doesn’t know if infact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press

He was Madeleine's dad and arguably the primary caretaker/provider, along with KM of all three kids (father). A father giving statement that his missing daughter had a nosebleeds and also suffered a nosebleed while on vacation isn't incriminating unless it's a lie.

jmo

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

He knows nothing more than what has been said.


Again, this is third-party translations, but this phrase comes up repeatedly. It's in the same vein as "I can't say anything else." Except the translator isn't saying he can't "say" anything more, (limited either by lack of knowledge or circumstance/nondisclosure). The translator is saying GM is saying he "knows" nothing more.

GM reports in the negative making what is reported in the negative sensitive, and in the context of "what has been said" (distancing/dropped pronoun). Is this in context of GM not knowing more than what GM, himself, has provided during the interview, or is what's translated in context of GM referring to not just himself, but what others would have said. How would he know what was said and that his knowledge was nothing more than that, unless it was decided what would be said ahead of time; or, if he had an opportunity to speak to the others before he was to given the opportunity to provide his statement of that night, then that would be/come across as collusion. jmo

Were the interviews ever recorded? They would be interesting to watch.

Tiffany Gerik said...

Well thank goodness the last 5 years haven't been so hard on these negligent parents. I feel so bad for their twins. At least, for the most part, unlike with the Ramsey's, the majority of the world seems to believe the Mccann's did negligently kill their daughter.

Tiffany Gerik said...

OT - Reddit Confession Allegedly by Agar Hasan, [now] Wanted for Murder

A person claiming to be Agar Hasan, the man charged with second-degree murder of his ex-girlfriend Melinda Vasilije in Canada, has posted what appears to be a confession on Reddit.

Police found Vasilije dead in her home on April 28. She had been stabbed to death.

"I did it," said the person who claimed to be Hasan, 24. Waterloo Regional Police are investigating the authenticity of the post, which was taken down by 12:30 PM on Tuesday.

The post read:

"Out of shock and fear I grab one (a knife). I hit her with it, almost blindly. A few times. I didn't know what happened. I was confused, shocked, and scared. I had no intentions of that happening. When I left I honestly thought she just passed out. Then I looked at the blood, and started freaking out and just ran. We were each other's best friends. The amount of regret and sadness is without words."

"Almost out of nowhere she grabs a knife by the sink," the post said. "She comes at me in full force, aiming towards my face. I tell her to stop. She doesn't." .... "I'm sorry, to everyone. Especially Melinda's family. I hope you forgive me in the afterlife."


He's currently at large and wanted by police for her murder.

Anonymous said...

A couple of questions for Peter:

I watched with great interest your interview with Richard Hall. During that interview he repeatedly asked you if it was possible to glean from the McCann's language whether Madeleine had died at a different time than they claim. Having watched all his related videos I know that Richard believes she died most likely on Sunday 29th April, and personally I agree with his analysis that there is zero evidence she was actually alive after that point. At one point you confirmed that there is at least the possibility that Richard is correct in this belief.

My first question is, does their language in this interview still contain similar (possible) indications of temporal shifting?

In that same Richard Hall interview you also said there was a possibility of sexual abuse being somehow involved. After watching Richard's "Film 8 - Why The Cover-Up?" I was personally left with the impression that sex may also somehow be directly related to her death. The photo of Madeleine with make-up on, which Richard believes was taken on Sunday 29th April in either the afternoon or evening, coupled with the immediate response of the very highest-level people in UK and the subsequent disinformation campaign (which is clearly still ongoing) leaves me with a very nasty feeling in the pit of my stomach and I just cannot expunge from my mind the spectre of some violent and sadistic yet highly-placed and "important" personage abusing her with the full knowledge of her parents. In truth, after seeing the "make-up" photo and the other 2 released at the same time showing a coquettish and sexualised Madeleine, and given Richard's analysis and his own thoughts on the subject (and my own predilection for seeing the very worst aspects of human behaviour everywhere I look), I cannot completely shake off the (hopefully entirely erroneous!) feeling that these pictures were taken after she had been prepared by her parents for a "big night" with this "someone."

Second question: Is there any hint of anything like this inherent in the McCanns' language, either now or in the past?

Many thanks,
Steve

Anonymous said...

...I forgot to say that the Gaspar's statement about David Payne and the gestures he made to Gerry McCann on more than one occasion also reinforces the supposition of abuse (of which even some of the McCanns' friends were aware) in my mind.

Steve

Peter Hyatt said...

Steve,

Good questions.

You could see that I skirted around the questions and here is why:

I must be strict to the interview before me. I can only say what the analysis of that particular interview said. It is a discipline analysts use and it is why we can run at or very close to 100% accuracy. Regarding the timing issue, to give a definitive answer, I would have needed statements to examine. In terms of a doctored photograph, this is not my area of expertise. If Richard had some statements made ABOUT the photograph, I could analyze them.

Re: sexual abuse.

Yes, there were a few things that warranted exploration but to explain why to an untrained audience would have been very lengthy and my conclusion would have been the same: I need more statements.

I do have strong opinions on the case, but I keep them to myself because the audience is expecting analysis which means I must prove what I assert.

It would be as if I gave opinion "A", definitely saying, this is deceptive, and then "B" with "this is truthful" and then "C" with "this is deceptive."

Then, with point "D", which is speculative, the potential to betray the audience, having trusted my authoritative conclusion, is not fair to them.

I tried to walk this tight rope in the Amanda Blackburn murder. I concluded that the husband was deceptive but it could be homosexuality and /or it could be guilty knowledge of the murder.

I added that every investigator I spoke with concluded murder, and that I could find none to the contrary but the opinion blurred. I felt that I should have stayed to the language.

Subjectively speaking, (only!) parents who are willing to sedate a child and leave such young children unattended are alarming enough, but then to carry on this deception for ten years, TAKING the offensive, compounds this concern.

Add in some linguistic indicators of possible sexual abuse and it is not a stretch to see how bizarre and unnatural they can be.

This does not make them sociopaths (which angers people) but as a former child protective worker, the odds of sexual abuse are up there.

People cross a line and once crossed, it is difficult to tell where they will stop.

Thanks,

Peter

Anonymous said...

Many thanks Peter.

Of course I understand your position and that you can only analyse the language in statements themselves. I was actually quite hoping that you could dispel this particular fear from the close analysis that you have done.

Just to clarify one point, actually I wasn't suggesting that those particular images (the so-called Floorboard, Ice Lolly and Make-Up photos) were faked or doctored in any way. My point about those is more that I find them, as I'm sure many do, disturbing in the extreme given the again very real possibility that they were actually taken on the day of her death, perhaps only very shortly beforehand. The evidence I have seen very much seems to point toward at least the timing on this point.

Thanks again,
Steve

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter,
How do you counter for Colloquialisms?

Derek

Anonymous said...

Exactly! Some very good points here!

Anonymous said...

An excellent analysis as always Peter, spot on and thank you so much for all your hard work on the McCann case .
For anyone who wants to find out the TRUE facts of the Madeleine McCann case and to read the Official Portuguese Police files where the conclusion was ..... that Madeleine died in apartment 5A. .....Her parents were complicit in hiding her body and they fabricated an abduction........ Please join us here .......
https://www.facebook.com/groups/294438490999838/

alxlr8 said...

Gerry McCann refers to "a child" that's missing, rather than Madeleine. Could it be that he refers to her thus because there are two Madeleines - the real Madeleine, who has disappeared and is likely now passed on, and a Madeleine that has been constructed in the media, out of the Find Madeleine campaign, and crucially in their minds, so that they have a granule of something left behind in their psyche to talk about when asked about the real Madeleine's "kidnapping"? It's a form of substitution out of necessity; since the "case" isn't going away, it becomes a synonym for a living Madeleine.

Sunshine said...

What was their 'reason'?

Jan Taljaard said...

Thank you for this excellent analysis.A lot of experts agree that the mccanns are deceptive.