Thursday, May 3, 2018

Embedded Admissions: McCann Case

Embedded Admissions or Embedded Confessions are often thrilling to spot, and easy to be mistaken over. 

In the interview by Richard Hall about missing toddler, Madeleine McCann,  the title is listed as such. 

What does this mean?

An embedded admission is where a subject chooses his or her own words to frame guilt. "Admission" is to acknowledge what was done, while "confession" acknowledges what was done but also clarifies the guilt.  For law enforcement purposes, we need only one to admit what they did; we don't need them to tell us it was morally wrong. 

In a recent interview in a break in, the subject said, "I could not afford a lawyer to show if I was innocent or guilty."

He allowed for the possibility of guilt. This is not something we expect from one who's de facto (actual) innocence protects him from an emotional connection with guilt. This is our "psychological wall of truth."  In this case, the subject went on to come very close to embedding an admission or confession as he described the thief as someone who "had to be desperate."  Later in the interview, he spoke of being "desperate" in providing for his growing family.  

With a risky action planned, we thus search for a "trigger"; that is, an event that causes him to cross the line and actually go through with his plans.  

As I let him speak he eventually described "the last straw" as a point where the company did not believe him on something and he was humiliated.  

In his mind, he did not break in and steal; he "balanced the accounts" owed or obtained "redress" for perceived insult of not being believed earlier by a superior.

In the recent "Fake Hate" case where a woman claimed to have been victimized by a dangerous arsonist/racist, an interview with the subject who is currently raising money at Go Fund Me, we are very likely to hear her describe herself, in some way, as a "victim."

Where there is a "victim", there is a "victimizer", or villain and exploiting the public is not "stealing" but in seeking "redress" of perceived "wrongs."

These all can appear as embedded admissions but they are not. 

"You say that I stole the money!"

This is not an embedded admission. 

This is to show that the language, "I stole the money" originates from someone else:  "You say..."

"Everywhere you read that I lied!"

The first may have stolen the money but it is not embedded admission.  In the second, the subject may have lied, but this is not an embedded admission either.  He is ascribing the information to media. 

An embedded admission is the framing of words which confesses or admits the action or guilt, where the origin of the wording is the subject, (speaker), himself. 

In the McCann interview on youtube, you will see an example of this.  

Deceptive people will do this, at times, believing they are using ridicule instead of a denial, which will be entreated by the audience favorably.  It is to say, "if you are as smart as me, you'll laugh at this too!"  

Absent of a denial, it is a concern. 

The key is found in a basic principle of Statement Analysis:  following the language:

What produced it?  
What is the greater context?
What is the lesser context? (sentence/sentences)
What is the quality of the sentences?

An analyst asked about these statements in the McCann case. 

This case captured the imagination of the public because, for the most part, intuition told listeners that something was amiss. 

The claim was that someone broke into the flat and kidnapped young Madeleine while the parents were a short distance away, on holiday, having dinner. 

With a kidnapped child, we have a body of work that tells people exactly what they thought it would:

The parents will tell the public:

1.  my child is kidnapped
2.  my child is in the hands of strangers
3.  my parental instinct is engaged; my priority and my goal is one
4.  Human empathy is with the victim, a child in the hands of stranger.  


In other words, the parents are going to tell us that she is kidnapped and then express the normal empathy that parental instincts naturally do:

What is she going through?
Is she being fed?
Does she have her favorite blankie, toy, etc?
Is she crying at night?
What is she going through looking at a stranger's face?

They will plea for her return and plea for their daughter's treatment. 

With the McCanns early interviews, the only people that claimed she was kidnapped and showed human empathy for the victim were supporters; not the McCanns.  The McCanns concern was self, their sleeping, how they were holding up.  They knew Madeleine was beyond their concerns.  It is interesting that the most emotionally laden language about the child comes from supporters more than even nostalgia from the parents. 

 The supporters are willing to say precisely what the McCanns were not willing or able to say. 

They disagree with the analysis with the claim of "moral supremacy"; that is, "if you were as caring an individual as me, you'd know she was kidnapped."  For some, it has become a life's obsession and purpose. 

Although unpopular, Kate McCann's language does not indicate sociopathy.  

She was a caring mother.  

Why do so many consider her sociopathic? 

Here is what I believe to be the answer: 

She did not express human empathy for the victim, not due to sociopathic disconnect:  she knew Madeleine was beyond her maternal instincts of caring. 

She had processed the death. 

As a mother, she went through something so horrific, literally failed resuscitation and removal and concealment of the body, that it likely traumatized her. 

Therefore, she appears sociopathic as the years go by because of this processing of trauma and the priority of self preservation: She would be in legal jeopardy if she told the truth.  

Objection:  a caring mother would not sedate her own child. 

Answer:  Agreed. 

Not every abusive parent is a sociopath.  

But calloused, uncaring, foolish, selfish may not rise to "sociopath."

Although this is likely, and its condemnation is unnecessary, it does not equal that she was a sociopath.  Her medical training  gave her a false sense of confidence (her language suggests that this was routine) and she would have faced child abuse (endangerment) charges had she admitted this.  As wrong as it was, "sociopath" is not indicative within the language contextually or specifically.  

A better argument about a sociopath can be made on the drugging and murder of Caylee Anthony than here. Casey Anthony's language indicates a disconnect with basic human empathy. 

My opinion on this topic is limited to Kate. The demonization of Kate may arise from her contempt of the audience and how she "takes the fight", not for Madeleine, but her own name, to the offensive. It is to provoke anger, but doesn't indicate sociopathic personality. 

Statements for Analysis

Here are the two statements.  One contains an embedded admission; the other indicates distancing language due to guilty knowledge.  It is consistent with their earliest statements. 





Kate McCann (2011):

I just think Madeleine’s abductor must be sitting there laughing, just thinking “How easy is this”, you know, “I’ve committed this crime and the police don’t seem to be that concerned and I’m still out here”.


The greater context is the number of years of processing information.  The lesser context is within the statement, itself. 

Consider the source of this information is key:

The source of information is for Kate to enter into two things:

a.  Action
b. Thinking
c.  Language

Kate tells us, specifically, what the abductor must be doing, saying and thinking. She is entering into the abductor's thought process, translating the thoughts to words, while giving a specific body posture (action). 

Question:  What is the origin of the wording?

If the origin is someone else, it is not an embedded admission.

Answer:  The original of the wording is the thoughts of the abductor. 

She does not simply say what the abductor said, in a hypothetical, but what the abductor thought as well. 

There is no source, no quote, no relaying of this from someone else. 

In other words:  Kate's own brain produced this. 

I believe her. 

The body posture indicates tension.  She is "sitting", and I would not be surprised to learn that this interview was one in which this statement came while Kate was seated. 

"Laughing" is to hold in derision.  This is something the British public has been infuriated over; the contempt shown for their audience. 

Question:  Where is this "abductor" sitting?

Answer:  "here"

I believe her.  Precisely.  


Linguistic Disposition

Linguistic Disposition is critical in analysis  

Early on, we ask, "What is the subject's linguistic disposition towards the victim?"

Kate talked about how she was not sleeping, but now about what Madeleine was going through. 


Here, what is Kate's linguistic disposition towards police?

She tells us of this contempt. 

She has also a history of mocking police.

Kate is telling the truth. She speaks from experiential memory and the language is clear:  she "gets" the mindset and the language of the "abductor."  

I just think Madeleine’s abductor must be sitting there laughing, just thinking “How easy is this”, you know, “I’ve committed this crime and the police don’t seem to be that concerned and I’m still out here”.

"How easy is this" is not her first time telling us that it was not difficult.  See the original analysis where she boasted of the same. This is now to tell us:

What is her linguistic disposition towards the abductor?

Answer:  the abductor is smarter than police.  Kate has shown contempt for law enforcement before and she has shown contempt for her audience.  This is one of the contributing factors in the British reaction to the McCanns:  no one likes being lied to.  It presupposes we are too stupid to discern. 



Gerry McCann:

It should be very obvious to anybody who has anyone missing that when someone says that you hid your own daughter’s body and faked an abduction, when that child is still missing and we are doing everything in our power to try and find her, I think that would be absolutely shocking to any family.

Gerry and Kate have used very different language.  This is not the norm as husbands and wives, in this unique relationship, further entwined with the crime, does show disconnect:  they do not enter into each others' language as most married people do.  

Here Gerry is showing contempt, not for police, but for the public.  It "should" be "very obvious" but it is not.  
"I think that would be absolutely shocking to any family" is, in a sense, the "normalization" of that which is not universal nor experienced by many. 

How many people have had a stranger kidnap their child or children?

Very few. 

What to make of such a normalization? 

 The universal "you" pronoun suggest, here alone, that the subject is not only acutely aware that he is not believed, but that he did not experience the unique and rare stranger kidnapping. This is why it "should be obvious" and he "thinks" "any" family would know.

"any family" would not know. 

That Madeleine was kidnapped by a stranger is something that the McCanns let their supporters say for them.  In the early interviews, it was not just "not a priority", it was not in the language.  

The public, without training, reacted strongly to this, perhaps not able to articulate why they did not believe them.  

This comes close to an embedded confession but is not.  It is to share a much more common experience (child's death) than the unique and rare stranger abduction.  It is consistent with his other statements which show our Analysis Conclusion

Both parents knew the child was deceased and beyond their parental help and must maintain a facade for their own freedom and to keep their family intact. 

Kate gives us an embedded admission; Gerry does not.  

Both statements show guilty knowledge of the death and both are consistent with prior analysis. 

For training in deception detection, enroll today at:


also visit our new You Tube channel which we hope to update regularly with examples of how to discern deception. 

Katelynn Markham Case:  HERE as a sample of the work. 

Thanks to Lars for the submission of statements. 






26 comments:

Loz said...

Enjoyed this, thankyou

Anonymous said...

And Kate is absolutely delighting in how "easy" it all was...so easy to get away with murder...that probably makes her feel so superior & like such a "hero" to her gross pervo husband.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous, the superiority of Kate is in the language. Remember, she has, in her perception, outwitted police and successfully fooled millions of people. It is almost impossible not to be impacted by this success.

For financial crimes, this is often an inspiration to steal or exploit again.

She likely does not recognize the arrogance. The lack of self awareness is evident from the very beginning.

Peter

Mike Dammann said...

And the strongest argument on Scotland Yard's part for overshadowing the obvious is...?

Niall MacDougall said...

Have you considered analysing the rogatory interviews of the rest of the 'tapas 7'conducted by leictershire police on behalf of the portugese investigation?

I remember when one of them was questioned about a bag visible in earlier photographs, the whereabouts of which cant be explained thereafter.His response was along the lines of ... '' its not the sorta bag that you could *hide* a tennis racket in or anything like that ''!!!

Anonymous said...

I am unsure why my comments were deleted. I spent quite a bit of time reading the interviews between investigators & Dr Paine as well as statements by the parents and I had simply expressed that the language indicates Madeleine was likely sexually assaulted at the tennis courts by Jerry & Dr Paine. I believe they assaulted her with an object & she died from her injuries. It is in Dr Paines language...too gruesome to get iinto any further. The mother knows what happemed.

Anonymous said...

I can not view the behaviours of one McCann without the other. I have never fully understood why people specifically target the mother. Whatever happened, from the start of leaving the children home alone, night after night, THEY WERE IN IT TOGETHER.

I have often wondered about a touch of folie a deux, but I would know who was the puppet and who is\was the puppet master. There is so much control, but all may never be what you think it is.

Their whole behaviour whether verbal or non-verbal is abnormal.

No one has really ever challenged them, and never never SEPARATELY. Why the PJ singled out Mrs McCann in particular, perhaps they thought she was the soft target.

I have really enjoyed your analysis. So why hasn't the MET (or have they) employed many of the experts to review this case. Let us be quite honest, the images & videos of the McCanns over the years have really added to the material available which looks even more peculiar now and not at all favourable.

Thank you again.

Anonymous said...

Anon & 11:25,

The mother is an insecure puppet who knows exactly what happened & doesnt care. All she cares about is her husband Jerry's approval. She revels in the fact she helped them get away with it & succeeded. The case will never be solved unless Dr Paine gets arrested & starts talking.

tania cadogan said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
No one has really ever challenged them, and never never SEPARATELY. Why the PJ singled out Mrs McCann in particular, perhaps they thought she was the soft target.

I have really enjoyed your analysis. So why hasn't the MET (or have they) employed many of the experts to review this case.

Thank you again.


The MET has refused point blank to interview the mccanns and chums for one simple reason.
The MET are only investigating the case as an abduction by a stranger and not any other option invilving the parents and chums.
Their remit is abduction only.

Pretty much anything else that does not fit their remit is ignored.
We were told they would be going right back to square one and investigating this case but clearly they have not.
Common sense would be to investigate those closest to the victim.
Interview the parents first, then the tapas 7, then the staff and guests and working out like that.
Since they are investigating as an abduction they will not and cannot investigate the parents and chums.
We were told that the MET had access to all the PJ files (presumably including alll that were not released to the public)
We were then told by the MET that the mccanns had been cleared by the PJ.
This was proved a lie when it was made public in the legal suits bought by the mccanns agains Dr. Goncalo Amaralthat the Portuguese Supreme Court stated the mccanns had in fact not been legally cleared of involvement in the disappearance (read homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report)and were still considered prime suspect.

it is also notable that over the past 11 years, and since the MET got involved, that although they declare every so often they have a new lead to follow which invariably involves some person unknown, no one has ever said they have found actual physycal evidence of an abduction having taken place.
No mention of prints, fibres, footprints,DNAm hair etc being found that would support the claim of abduction.
The only evidence an abduction supposedly took place is
1) That Maddie vanished sometime before 9:30pmthat thursday when kate allegedly did her check.
2) The claims of the mccanns and the tapas 7 that Maddie was abducted.

There is however physical evidence that at somepoint, a body was in apt. 5a, and at no point prior to Maddie vanishing had a bosy evert been reported in said apartment.
no reports of a death in the apartment nor of a body being found there.
We also have reports of body fluids in the hire care, Maddie's DNA being in the car (15/19 markers which would be proof in the uk of a match with Maddie, whereas in Portugal it has to be 19/19) 4 markers at that time were too degraded to match
There is also the scent of cadaverine in places where their should be none, a child's red t shirt and a smally cuddly toy as well as on the mom's checkered trousers (allegedly from when she came in contact with deceased patients in her role as a GP)
Until the MET inestigate properly and start from scracth allowng for homicide and parental involvement,The investigation will go nowhere.

One also has to ask why so many millions have been spent on this case and no other missing person case?
Why so many millions on this case when it is the Portuguese who have control of the case and will be the ones to prosecute the mccanns and chums for homicide, concealment of a corpse, filing a false police report along with any other crimes relating to the case such as obtaining money and services by deception etc.
The MET however can prosecute the mccanns (and possibly clarrie) for fraud relating to the fund.
I would also hope that any country they appealed for donations from would also prosecute them for fraud and obtaining money and services by deception

corybantick said...

"I'm still out here". I keep looking at their interviews and it is always about them. A three year old girl taken, you'd be thinking about her. What is she going through?

Unfortunately, they know she will never be found, because she was dead before they raised the alarm and the time line is all wrong.

Peter Hyatt said...

Mother speaks more.

We also have maternal instinct as extreme in human nature on display in the language.

A top investigator told me he believes Gerry may be sociopathic. I’m hoping to do some deeper analysus into his language. The investigator is someone I respect and his opinion holds weight. I must cast it aside and try the language alone.

Peter

Habundia Awareness said...

"Since they are investigating as an abduction they will not and cannot investigate the parents and chums."

As if parents aren't able to 'abduct' their child?

Unfortunatly it's happens often cops take a stand on what they 'believe happened', instead of 'finding out what happened' by investigating a case with an open mind (from inside to outside, all options open, untill it's been proven the option isn't a possibility)

There has to be MUCH more to this case then 'only a 3 year old missing girl'.........what is the gain beside getting away with murder, for anyone involved in this case?
As Tania mentioned......why has there been spent so many millions of dollars, while thousands of children get missing each year......no one ever got THAT MUCH attention as this case has had throughout all those years (it's not because Jerry and Kate are searching that hard to find Madeleine and show concern about her were about...........they know 'she's somewhere where she can't be found!)


Charlotte said...

I understand your reasoning for saying that Kate is not a sociopath. However, if a mother is able to process (ie, be done with emotionally) her childs death within hours, then I will object to the assumption that this is a caring mother.

She was not a caring mother, she was a caring wife. Kate's only purpose of existence was, and is, Gerry.

A normal caring mother would not have been physically able to jog, shop, smile in the days after her childs death. Even basic needs, like food and sleep would be overwhelming tasks.

And she most certainly would cling to her remaing children, never leaving them out of her sight. Kate and Gerry left the twins at the creche and with neighbours days after. This is not normal.

The way she describes her daughters genitals is not normal. No mother would go there.

While Gerry is a clear psycopath, I can agree that Kate is not. Neither is she nornal or caring.

Peter Hyatt said...

Kate’s own survival instinct was in play. Don’t underestimate human nature.

Sociopathy can not be indicated in many atrocious cases.

The terms have been over used and weakened.

Charlotte said...

Oh, I agree that sociopath is overused, very much so.

I wasn't underestimating human nature. Kate's concern the following days were also that they were in danger of losing custody of the twins, if they were found out.

However (and this may be because I am pragmatic as a person), some feelings are not possible to hide. A mother, who has lost her little girl, hid her body, and now have to pretend she doesn't know. How is she physically capable of walking around, smiling, jogging? Why isn't she sedated, lying in a bed somewhere, clinging to her remaining children?

I know she has to pretend, in order for the scam to work, but how is she able? How is a caring, loving mother able to walk around like that?

I am genuinly asking, because I wonder if anyone is able to supress such strong emotions. The answer is, that she couldn't have. Which leads me to, why is a caring mother not showing any normal feelings? Not only is her child dead, she is dumped somewhere in a foreign country. No one would be able to hide what is going through her mind.

But... If she doesn't feel anything, but is happy to be rid of Madeleine.. Then why doesn't she pretend? Fake emotions? This case is so bizarre, from the parents to the media cover up.

trustmeigetit said...

This case reminds me of Hillary Clinton. There are deep connections that have protected them.

They know and are arrogant because of this.

I also think like many Madeline was drugged and died accidentally but that the parents were more worried about them than the kids.

I’ll never understand... why even have children. If they mean so little to you..


But people do it everyday.

trustmeigetit said...

My son was missing for a few hours about 2 years back. I was pretty sure he had just gone to a friends house but the fear I experienced was unreal. When he was found and brought home I sat with my arms wrapped around him for a good 2 hours after still inable to stop crying. The next day my eyes were red and swollen. And he was found safe and sound at the friends house.

The idea of him never returning I do not think I could bare.

There is something wrong with both of them.

They showed no true emotions.

Peter Hyatt said...

it is easy for people to assume they are sociopaths. It is not in Kate's language and it would have been evident (1) and would impact analysis. The husband may be a different story needing more in depth analysis.

The emotional reaction of anger builds in the public as time passes. They see how contemptible the McCanns are towards the public and it has impacted their language over the years. This is yet another reason why the earliest interviews are best.

They have become cynical and have long processed the death. They are so removed from it, that they sound sociopathic.

Kate sounds very different today than she did years ago. I get this but it does not mean sociopathy.

Trustmeigetit's account is what people genuinely go through.

Consider how powerfully sobering it must have been for Kate to

1. find Madeline unrepsonsive
2. be incapable of resuscitation
3. come from a pattern of having "sedated" her before, successfully (this is in Kate's words)
4. The sobering impact upon a mother who realizes : If she tells the truth, she will not raise the twins.

This point (4) is key to understanding Kate McCann and how she could justify anything, including processing the information of her daughter's death more rapidly than norm.

She went into survival mode.

She now ridicules (need to dismiss) and in doing so, she literally belies guilt.

Had she been a sociopath, her reaction way back when, would have been different.

Kate did not show concern for Madeleine's well being because Kate knew, processed and accepted, in the name of saving the twins and herself, Madeleine's death.

Gerry?

I have other concerns about his language that I may address.

Peter

Mike Dammann said...

Gerry and his circle of friends need to be looked at more closely, but we also need to examine if the Gaspar statements are correct, what if anything the women knew and why on earth they would allow their men to bathe their children. Here is the essential excerpt:

"One night, when we were on holiday, the adults, in other words, the couples that I mentioned were on a patio outside the house where we were staying. We had been eating and drinking.

I was sitting between Dave and Gerry whom I believe were both talking about Madeleine. I don't remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like ?she?, referring to Madeleine, ?would do this?.

When he mentioned ?this?, Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it in and out of his mouth, whilst with the other hand he circled his nipple, with a circulating movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner there being an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.

I remember that I was shocked at this, and looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to see their reactions. I looked around (page 4) to see ?did anyone else hear this, or was it just me?. There was a nervous silence noted in the conversations of all the others and immediately afterwards everyone began talking again.

I never spoke to anyone about this, but I always felt that it was something very strange and that it wasn't something that should be done or said.

Apart from this, I remember that Dave did the same thing once again. When I refer to this, I want to mention again that it was during a conversation, in which he was talking about an imaginary situation, though I could not say precisely what it was about. I believe that he was talking about his own daughter, L., though I'm not certain. He slid one of his fingers in and out of his mouth, while the other hand drew a circle around his nipple in a provocative and sexual manner. I believe that he was referring to the way that L., would behave or would do it.

I believe that he did this later on, during the holidays, but I cannot be sure. The only time, besides this one, that I was with Dave and Fiona was several weeks after the holidays, when Savio and I met up with Gerry, Kate, Dave and Fiona at a restaurant in Leicester.

I am absolutely certain that he said what he said and that he made the gestures I referred to, but that could have occurred in the restaurant in Leicester, even though (page five) I believe that it was later on, in Majorca. When I heard Dave saying and doing this a second time, I took it more seriously.

I remember thinking whether he looked at the girls in a different way from me or from the others. I imagined that maybe he had visited Internet sites related to small children. In short, I thought that he might be interested in child pornography on the internet.

During our holidays, I was more attentive at the bath times after hearing Dave saying that.

During our holidays in Majorca, it was the fathers who took care of the children baths. I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if it was Dave bathing the children. I remember telling Savio to took care to be there, in case it was Dave helping to bathe the children and, in particular, my daughter E. I was very clear about this, as having heard him say that had disturbed me, and I did not trust him to give bath to E. alone.

When I heard Dave say that a second time, it reinforced what I already thought in relation to his thoughts about girls. During our stay in Majorca, Dave and his wife, Fiona, accompanied by their daughter L., took Madeleine (page 6) with them to spend the day, in order to give Kate and Gerry a bit of rest and time to be with the twins. When I say this, it is not that I was worried about Madeleine's safety, since she was also with Fiona and L., and also with Dave, as far as I know."

Mike Dammann said...

Unfortunately she is vague only "believing" they were talking about Madeleine, so something like that would definitely not likely hold up in any court.

Mike Dammann said...

Peter, your own statement carries a contradiction.
"She was a caring mother."
And then:
"Objection: a caring mother would not sedate her own child.

Answer: Agreed."
The question is not whether or not she "cared".
One would be:
Did she want her child to die?
All indications show she didn't.
Did she protect her child?
No.
And then the follow-up would be "from what?"

We are not just talking sedation, but also possibly knowing about potential pedophilia and not going against it.

Anonymous said...

Peter, I can't believe the things that were suggested by your analysis really could have happened. I even sometimes feel sorry for the parents. They lost a child. That must be more than awful. And then all those years living such a life, I just can not imagine.
Also I read somewhere that Kate never left her other two children at home alone again. I guess that implicates a change of character/behaviour towards her children. And I just wondered: what if Madeleine died, unintentionally, what good could come of a lawsuit, possible conviction of the parents, maybe loosing the twins etc.? What about the lives and the futures of the twins?
I just wonder that.
And I also wonder if you consider these things, when searching for the truth? ( I am not saying that you should not, but I see a dillemma. Do you too?)
Could you please reply on this?

P.s.: English is not my native language, so please reply in simple/basic style?

Greetings,
Emma.

Peter Hyatt said...

Emma, unlike others, I don’t believe they intentionally killed their child.

This was gross negligence and very selfish behavior.

Kate’s language does not indicate sociopathy, though it’s popularly claimed, mostly by emotional response to her deception.

I’d need more work to understand the husband.

We must always seek to put aside our emotions to analyze and investigate.

Anonymous said...

Peter, thank you for your answer.


Greetings,
Emma.

Anonymous said...

Peter, When in future you would want to analyze the language of Gerry Mccann, maybe the following can be interesting for you. It is a copy of a blog/diary, page 1 to 50, Gerry wrote in may 2007. (Later on he removed it) .It starts at day 17. Here is the link: http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/DAYS_1_to_50.htm

Greetings,
Emma.

Anonymous said...

Peter, sorry, one correction on above: there are a lot more pages than just 1 to 50, as you will notice. On top of the blog, on the right side, you will find the button for the amount of days.

Greetings,
Emma.