When we speak, there is an intention of being understood. This is the presuppositional position within analysis:
The person who is using words holds to an intention that his words will be understood. This makes all communication subject to analysis. I have interviewed and analyzed in 2nd languages, and have interviewed non verbal adults with developmental disabilities. If the subject holds to the intention of communication, analysis can be done.
Free Editing Process
The Free Editing Process is where one is freely choosing his own words, rather than use the language of another. The element of time is critical within the Free Editing Process.
With an average personal dictionary in excess of 20,000 words within a person's brain, consider what process takes place when one is asked to "Tell me what happened."
Everyone must self-edit to tell "what happened" in every and all answers.
The subject (speaker) must now go into his or her personal dictionary and choose:
1. Which words to use
2. Which verb tenses to use
3. Where to place each word next to another in order to fulfill intention of communication
4. Decide which information to use and which to leave out. No one can ever tell us everything that happened because it would never end. This is only natural that the choice will reveal the subject's priority.
5. Which pronouns to use (for example, "we" when there is more than one person in mind)
The subject is not telling us reality, but his or her own perception of reality.
This process of choosing the words, syntax and editing is extremely rapid. The person's brain has processed this information in less than a microsecond of time. In less time than it takes you to blink your eye, the brain has processed what happened when Gerry and Kate McCann were asked by police,
We use a system of "the expected versus the unexpected" within analysis. Although it may begin with, "What would I say if I came home and my child was missing?" but moves to a data base of cases known and documented, as well as studies of reduction where what people said has been studied. In this "data base" collected for many decades and more studies than I can even begin to compile, we establish:
"The Expected Versus The Unexpected."
Rather than rely upon one individual's hypothetical "what would I do?" answer, the reference point is how innocent parents communicate compared to how parents with guilty knowledge of their child's disappearance/murder communicate.
There are two basic objections:
1. Objection: "You don't know how you'd react in that situation!"
Answer: "Yes, we do. We have a large body of research to show exactly how truthful people sound in this situation and how those who have been found guilty sound in this situation.
This is a common excuse to dismiss guilt. Cindy Anthony, mother of killer Casey Anthony said. "Just because someone tells a few mistruths doesn't make them a murderer." Indeed. Yet, the outright fabrication of reality, rather than deceiving by withholding information, is rare (10%) and is the language of sociopathic elements within murderers who hold no true human empathy for anyone but self.
When one disagrees with analysis, we sometimes find the following in various forms:
"Well, I wouldn't say that if my child disappeared!"
Answer: Principle is build upon general and overwhelming data. There will always be an exception. For the narcissist, the exception is the rule of thumb because it is self-centered.
Several months ago, while working with a team of analysts on an anonymous letter, I came upon a phrase that I put out a question to:
Is this phrase complimentary, or is it, in any way, negative? Most saw it as a subtle insult but it was not until a bit more regional expressions were compared that consensus emerged: in this locale, it is insulting. I went with consensus.
Mothers of Missing Children
When a child goes missing, the parent speaks with the presupposition that the words that come out of her mouth, as a mother, will be understood. Even if the subject intends deception, there is an expectation that the audience will understand her words, with the intention of leading the audience away from the truth.
When an innocent mother speaks, she may be just as emotionally traumatized as the guilty mother (the guilty mother will cry real tears and feel deep fear, remorse, guilt, etc, just as the innocent mother will), and her words will be used by her presupposing that whoever is listening will understand.
Neither mother is likely to choose a local colloquialism that will confuse the audience unless she wants the audience confused.
Truth comes from experiential memory, while those who are actively speaking (freely choosing her own words), speak from chronological order, with a priority on finding the missing child.
Even while great emotional upheaval is present, the message will be clear.
What is the expectation of innocent mothers of missing children?
The innocent mother will go into her personal dictionary and in less than a micro second, will tell us:
1. Her priority is her child
2. Her child is alive
3. Her child must be found
4. She calls out to her child
5. She pleads with the kidnapper
When does this happen?
It happens immediately. It happens in less than a micro second whether or not police advise her to remain silent or what to say. It is a powerful instinct recognized since antiquity that a mother is created with. In this sense, she has no choice but to express this powerful maternal instinct.
The guilty mother will go into her personal dictionary and will have a disruption in the speed of transmission. She has a new pressure (stress) in which she must say "what happened" while editing out any information that will bring suspicion upon her.
Both mothers are emotionally charged and traumatized to some extent.
The guilty mother will show a priority of:
1. Concealing what happened becomes a priority. She must try to slow down the process and even, at times, interrupt it.
2. She will also speak truth. She will emphasize truthful elements because these are stress-reducing words. This will be evident in slowing down the pace of the chronology of what happened, and it often produces additional and unnecessary detail.
Emergency calls make analysis easy.
Remember the case of the missing Florida girl where the babysitter/step mother Misty Croslin called police?
What did her brain produce? In less than a microsecond of time, when she had to tell police what happened, here is what she said:
This is called the Ingratiating Factor, where the subject's guilt causes them to seek some form of acceptance by authority. We find this, if rejected, will turn into oppositional scorn and anger. While initially feigning "full cooperation", the liar often turns and attacks later.
2. "I was asleep..."
Here her brain told her tongue to protect herself by creating her alibi before she tells them what happened. She, herself, is more important (priority) than the "missing" child.
3. "The door was open..."
Here is the delaying of information. It was true: the door had a brick blocking it from closing and she is pleased to give out such information because it is true.
4. "and our daughter is missing..."
She finally gets to the critical information.
Consider the absurdity of the following.
You were grocery shopping with your toddler, and turned to check a price and the toddler was gone.
What would you do?
You'd call her name and look for her.
a. keep shopping?
b. finish your shopping?
c. load your car?
d. drive home?
e. unload groceries at home?
f. eat lunch?
g. Take a nap?
Wake up and now call emergency services to help find your daughter?
This is what Gerry and Kate McCann essentially have done, but add in:
Attack those who disagree
Dedicate lives to self preservation
When a child goes missing, the parent will say:
Madeleine is kidnapped.
The kidnapper will be identified by the parent. It will not be in passive voice.
Objection: Passivity is appropriately used when the subject does not know the identity of the kidnapper, responsible for kidnapping Madeleine.
Answer: The kidnapping of a child from a mother (and bio father) is to enflame the single most powerful instinct within woman. It is even more powerful than breathing or self preservation. History is replete with accounts of women who have sacrificed their own lives, without a moment to even consider, instinctively to save their children' lives. It is not only personal to the mother, but there is nothing more personal to the mother than a stranger putting his hands on the child.
Someone kidnapped Madeleine, not "she has been taken" which de-personalizes and conceals the identity of the person who "has taken" her. Kate did not say, "someone took her" but "has taken" is (in Statement Analysis) an "imperfect" past tense; it is used to emphasize something truthful. It also elongates time (element) in the subject's wording.
It is truthful.
Madeleine has been taken. I believe Kate. Kate also said that she hid her incredibly well. I believe this too.
Two Questions: What and When.
1. What would an innocent Kate McCann sound like?
1. Madeleine is kidnapped.
2. Madeleine is alive.
3. Madeleine must be found.
4. Give me my daughter back.
This can be said through tears, or through stony icy cold resolve. It can be said in hysterics or it can be said in composure, but it is what innocent people say when their child has been kidnapped.
2. When is this said?
This is the point of the Free Editing Process.
When there is a delay to say these things, the subject has not only denied her own maternal instincts, but she is now giving "contaminated words"; that is, words spoken well after the event because of external influence. It could be the cries of the disbelieving public, or the suspicions of the police.
When Kate McCann finally made this speech it is akin to not only the absurdity of going home from the food store and putting away the food, napping and waking up: it is akin to doing this for the next two years before finally deciding, "I guess I better talk to the kidnapper now."
Absurdity creates anger.
When someone is not speaking from experiential memory, but disrupting memory in order to deceive, it often sounds absurd. When people hear this, they become naturally angry. It is the same as fake news.
It insults us.
Liars hold their audiences in some level of contempt and when not believed, this contempt may increase to the point of going on the offensive with threats and suits against those who do not believe their lie.
Gerry and Kate McCann have held the world in contempt for ten years. They have grown in their contempt to the point of attacking others with threats and suits. This is no different than what liars do, such as Lance Armstrong who sought to destroy reputations, businesses and the lives of anyone who dared doubt him. Even his televised mea culpa employed deception.
The McCanns can read a statement here or hear it on the news and call a press conference and say
"We did not cause Madeleine's death. Madeleine was kidnapped and we appeal to you who have her..."
It is no longer the Free Editing Process.
In an Australian newspaper, Gerry McCann did not give weak denial of killing Madeleine, he gave an "unreliable denial."
After ten years, there is nothing he could say to make it "reliable."
OJ Simpson can now stand up and say, "I did not kill Nicole", but it is no longer a reliable denial. This was something we expected to be said in the initial police interview. This would have turned the burden of the interview over to police because no matter where the interview went, if he did not kill her, he is behind the Wall of Truth.
No matter the local expressions, nor the emotions, body language, nor any other factor, it was ten years ago that they were incapable of telling us that their daughter, Madeleine, was kidnapped.
It was not in their language. It is, however, in the language of absurdity of those who have dedicated their lives to defending the McCanns. These defenders must say the words that the McCanns were incapable of saying.
Statement Analysis is non interpretive and allows the subject to be believed.
The same principles applied to the McCanns are applied to known liars. The similarities are not "striking";
The similarities are consistent.
In order to defend the McCanns, one must interpret their words and assign them new meaning, and speak for them.
This absurdity is why McCann supporters use words like "hate" or attack personally, rather than address analysis. This is why they must rely upon personal motive rather than fact.
Portuguese police knew they did not have a kidnapping case, but stonewalling parents.
In every interview, the subject will give you one of two impressions:
Either the subject is working with you to facilitate the flow of information to the same end (finding Madeleine) or
The subject is working against you to hinder the flow of information to conceal guilty knowledge of what happened.
When someone "didn't do it", media interviews are often short and even dropped by media because they are not interesting.
Truthful people issue a reliable denial, immediately, and it becomes a wall of truth of psychological protection. They care about finding their child and show little linguistic concern about anything else. If suspected, they immediately take a polygraph so that investigators can quickly get to the business of finding their child.
How would you react if your child was kidnapped?
You'd be in an emotional state like nothing you've experienced and your instincts would have you:
Call out to your child;
Call out to your child's kidnapper;
and focus everything on finding your child.
Not two years later.
Not at the ten year anniversary.
The language of Gerry and Kate McCann revealed that their daughter was dead and that they needed to conceal what had happened. Please see here for analysis of their words. In it, you are asked to follow the language and believe them as you go along.
You should begin with the presupposition of a kidnapping and see if the McCanns will affirm this, or if their own words will talk you out of this position.
For training in Statement Analysis, beginning with deception detection, visit www.hyattanalysis.com
We offer the Complete Statement Analysis Course in your home, via MP3 lectures and work book, as well as seminars for law enforcement, business, security, insurance, social services, and professions in which communication is key.