Wednesday, September 29, 2021

Laundrie Family Attorney Statement

 


When a lawyer speaks for a family, we can often see what the lawyer believes.

Here, the lawyer for the Laundrie family responds to the allegation that they helped their wanted son, Brian get away. This came after it was learned that they took him camping after he returned home in Gabby's van and refused to cooperate with police.  

Expected:  'Chris and Roberta Laundrie did not help Brian..."


Instead, we have the present tense & avoidance of the accusation: 


"Chris and Roberta Laundrie do not know where Brian is. They are concerned about Brian and hope the FBI can locate him."


1.  He avoids issuing a denial on their behalf.

2.  He reports what they do not know, but only presently.  I believe this to be true---at this moment, they do not know where he is.  This is not to say that they do not know what direction he was headed.  Likely, they do not have phone contact with him due to tracing, so that, technically, they do not know where he is, in the moment. 

3. He then tells us that they want the FBI to find him.  This would mean the parents, who did not cooperate with law enforcement are the "good guys."

The portrayal of the "good guys" is often indicative of the contrary.  

From this short statement, it would appear that the attorney has a reason to avoid issuing the simple, "the parents did not help him..."




Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Madeleine McCann: Analysis of Simon Foy by Paul Maillardet


Statement Analysis of Excerpt of Interview with Simon Foy, Former Head of Homicide, Metropolitan Police by Paul Maillardet

 Within the Panorama programme, above, Panorama provided a brief excerpt from an interview with Simon Foy, former head of homicide at the Met Police in the UK who was involved in their investigation of Madeleine’s disappearance. 

 What follows is an analysis of what is said within this short clip using Statement Analysis, a method of taking what is said or written by a subject and applying many different established principles to discern if someone is being truthful, may be guilty or have guilty knowledge through association or neglect. Whilst this brief clip does not require deeper level analysis techniques which may be employed with statements within murder cases, 911/999 calls, and other criminal cases there are some basic analysis principles that are identified here that will be covered here. It should be noted that whenever Statement Analysis is utilized to review any statement that there are some very important considerations that have to be weighed-up prior to and during the analysis. 

 Most importantly, it is very important to know exactly what question has been asked which has prompted the respondent to answer in the way they do. By not knowing the question there can be a possibility of ‘contamination’ where the subject’s language or response could reflect what was used within the question or the nature of their reply eg. 

Annoyance or need to explain, could be driven by the question or questions that may have been asked prior. It is possible a subject could be ‘led’ into a particular response, may parrot or use language from the interviewer, or bring in information within the interviewer’s question which they otherwise may not introduced. With the excerpt here the interviewer’s question, or questions that formed the interview, are unknown. There is also only this 30 second clip of what may have been part of a longer interview where the context of the questions and answers preceding and subsequent to the clip here. 

As such the answers could be very differently, if for example, Simon Hoy was asked on one hand “Could you tell us about the investigation?” and/or “Why haven’t you questioned the McCann’s?”. One facilitates the flow of information, the other puts the subject into a defensive and concentrated narrative. However, the analysis here does raise some interesting questions that come through from his answers which could warrant further questioning. Before going into any statement, the assumption is always that the subject is innocent or being truthful. Only the person’s words can talk them out of this position. It is also important to be aware that with certain professions, consideration always needs to be given to the fact they may need to withhold information as it could be important to do so – for example, a doctor may withhold certain information to a patient until they have conducted a full battery of tests before a diagnosis. This does also include police and other professionals. 

When looking at these situations it differs from a criminal who may lie or withhold information as they wish to deceive and avoid prosecution. With this statement the objective is not to establish if the subject is lying, but are they withholding information? As we run through the interview clip, you will see some of the basic analytical principles that arise and question why. 

 Interview Clip – Starting at 36 Minutes into the Panorama Programme Transcription of the Recorded Statement in the Panorama clip: 

 Simon Foy: “Even on the first glance of what we looked at, ..and when we took the information back and ran it through our own understanding and, you know, verified [deep breath] sightings and accounts, statements and all the rest of it, it was perfectly clear to us that the McCanns themselves had nothing at all to do with the actual disappearance.” 

 Interviewer: “Why?” 

 Simon Foy: “Because, it was just, it was just, it was just obvious, from, you know, that that everything stacked-up that they, you know, they where they where where they were when the child went missing..” 

Analysis: 

 Simon Foy: “Even on the first glance of what we looked at… Although we don’t know the interviewer’s question, Simon Foy’s initial response here is the use of the word ‘even’. Often the simplest answer is the what would be expected, eg. ‘We looked at the information’. 

Where a subject starts their account or their answer can often be important. Although we are unsure exactly what the question was that was asked, he chooses the start his account not after they had investigated the McCanns, but at the start of the investigation. This suggests that his intention is not purely not to relay that they felt after the investigation the McCanns were dismissed, but his priority it to emphasise they knew it from the start. He uses the word ‘even’ to attest the implied obviousness of what is to come, which is the first ‘glance’ of what they looked at. This is termed a Need To Persuade the audience, so the question would be why he has this need to convince us that it was so immediately apparent to them, even at first glance.

 When someone provides an open and honest account, linguistically you will see that the person is conveying their account when they tell us or talk to us. In deceptive accounts or where the subject is withholding information, often you will see that the individual will seek to convince rather than convey what happened. The honest account will simply recount what happened. When someone seeks to convince rather than convey, or openly gives us the reason why they did something, it is flagged as something to explore further. 

 Also, when looking at a statement it is important to weigh the expected response vs the unexpected response. Simon Foy could simply have said ‘We looked at all the evidence and after careful consideration we came to the conclusion that the McCann’s had no involvement’. When reading on bear this in mind, and consider that in these first few words there is a need to persuade the interviewer and the public that it was obvious even at a glance that the McCann’s had no involvement. 

Consider if this were another suspect in this case or another case, and a lead investigator were to tell the parents that it was clear ‘at a glance’ they were not responsible. This would not instil confidence. Here he tells us that (a) at first ‘glance’ they had made-up their mind; (b) it was obvious to them. Interestingly he does not tell us exactly what they initially glanced at. It is very important to bear in mind that if someone wishes to withhold information or be deceptive that they will often leave-out information and allow the audience to make assumptions about what they mean. 

In Statement Analysis unless the subject specifically tells us exactly what they did, or they looked at, we cannot say it for them. In other words, here we do not know if this is evidence or a report from someone within the police or governmental agency or otherwise. Whilst it could have been evidence, he does not tell us. By way of example, imagine if a child comes back from school one day to say that he or she got into a fight at school, but it wasn’t their fault. When you speak to the teacher who saw this happen, they explain that they were being teased and reacted by starting a fight. So, the wider question is what did they initially glance at? Was this evidence? Could it have been a report in or outside of the police or agency whereby the information they read had already provided a conclusion? How could someone glance and know in any case if someone had no involvement? Would a report provide something to glance at? Would such a report polarize our standpoint or starting-point of an investigation? 

 Here we cannot know what was viewed, and this would be something which would be flagged for further questioning as this could very important in the understanding of whether the investigation had influence through such a report, or whether possible prior influence affected the investigators to the point they only felt the need to ‘glance’ at ‘what we looked at’ [undetermined]. Whilst this could be innocuous, we have to follow someone’s words, what they tell us, the information they don’t, and any need to convince rather than convey.

 So, we have what the statement analysis draws-out initially. However, if we consider contamination may be in play as discussed, this needs to be looked at through this filter also. 

 When we look at the work “even” within Statement Analysis, it is used in 3 grammatical reasons: 

 1. It refers to something surprising, unexpected, unusual or extreme -- Did the interviewer ask a question that surprised or otherwise challenge the subject? 

2. It is placed in the mid-sentence adverb position (eg. “I haven’t even started my homework”). We do not know if or what the pre-sentence was or what the initial question was. 

3. It is a comparative word (e.g. “since practicing the piano he has become even better”). Is the response comparing what the subject said previously and/or what the interviewer asked? As the statement may be contaminated, we must consider all the previous points and more by reviewing this again: “..the first”. 

 Here we have a definitive article along with the beginnings of a listed order. 

a) The subject could have said “at first glance” but chose the definitive article “the”. In truthful statements we expect an indefinite article first when introducing objects etc., and then the definite article. For example, when the objects are known ~ ‘a’ gun becomes ‘the’ gun, in chronological statement order. In deceptive statements the subjects will mix their articles up. 

b) As it’s the beginning of a listed order we should look for “the second … the third … etc”. 

c) This could be the contamination – did the interviewer ask about “the first”? “glance of what we looked at” When we consider the greater context has the disappearance of a 3 year old girl, the expected response, especially with the subject being a member of the missing person investigation, would be to use words such as: “investigation”, “inquiries”, examinations, analysis etc. It is unexpected for Simon Foy to use words like: “glance” and “looked” within his interview and in context of such a high-profile investigation. 

In context they are what are known within Statement Analysis as ‘minimizing words’, language which in this case do not suggest that the investigative team did not look properly at the information they were given, and in context of the wider reply, could suggest they did not feel they needed to. What was “looked at”? This is also passive and by SA definition is concealing and so withholding details. Why the need to conceal? This could be appropriate in context for an ongoing investigation, however on the basis the subject’s investigation is leaning to the parents’ innocence then it is inappropriate in context not to give some details to prove the subject’s assertions of innocence. 

 The subject uses the plural “we”. In his opening statement he has not used the personal pronoun yet. He is not wanting to be psychologically alone in the statement. As this statement could be contaminated, we need to consider whether the interviewer used the words, “glance” and “look” which would mean the subject is parroting the words in his response. We also need to consider if the interviewer was asking about the investigation as a whole which would mean that the subject’s use of the plural pronoun is appropriate in context. Let’s move on with the statement… ..and when we took the information back.. The element of time enters Simon Foy’s language, “… and when we…”. Why does it enter the language now? Could there have been a delay in taking the information back, and why would there have been any delay. If we consider the lesser context and there was not a delay: 

 • Could the sensitivity in the language regarding time have been due to pressure placed on him and his team which could support the ‘glance’, look’ and now the ‘took’? 

 • Was there a time limit in starting, concluding or engaging the missing person investigation? 

 • Was there pressure to start the investigation? 

 • Was there pressure to conclude the investigation? 

 In context of a missing person/child, time is important and so this could be considered appropriate, but only in starting/engaging the investigation, not in concluding the investigation. Due to possible contamination, at this point of the statement we do not know what part of the investigation Simon Foy is referring to. His use of “we” once again suggests does not want to be seen, psychologically, alone in his statement. However, remember that there may be possible contamination through the question or other questioning so we must consider the possible appropriateness of this.

 Simon Foy goes on to say they took the ‘information’ back. He does not say what the ‘information’ was, and does not state whether it is the same as ‘what they looked at’. He does not say where the information was taken from and/or who provided that information. With his use of “the information” – we have a definitive article ‘the’. So again, the possible contamination could impact our analysis of this, had the interviewer at any point introduced or discussed information or evidence which he could then have reflected here. 

 In Statement Analysis the words choices are examined carefully. Whilst they may seem random choices, what we say is done in a split-second, we go into our brain and select from our vocabulary of 25,000-35,000 words and select, often without realising, the words and order in which we place them. It is the speed of transmission that allows careful analysis to explore how and why someone uses a word or phrase. So far, the word ‘evidence’ or ‘case file’ is missing from his vocabulary. Simon Foy is an experienced former/policeman. We would therefore expect him to use more formal language when describing the documentary evidence he/they looked at. Instead at this point we have ‘what we looked at’ and ‘information’. 

If he was retired at the point of the interview and his language may not be as tuned as it may have been whilst in service, his word choices are passive so far. In statements and interviews, subjects who wish to minimise their involvement or the crime they have committed will tend to choose words which reduce their implication or the severity of what they have done. Obviously, this is early in his response so we will keep looking at the words he uses, whether they are positive, negative or neutral towards the evidence. This could help understand how the case file examining the McCanns possible involvement was considered by them. At this point ‘information’ is linguistically neutral towards documents they were asked to review to assess the McCann’s involvement. ‘and when’ could suggest there may have been time elapsed between when they took the first glance and when they took ‘information’ back, it could be that their initial ‘glance’ and when they took back the information may not be the same day or after a period of time. This is something that would be flagged to question the subject.

 Sometimes there are valid explanations, it may be the case here. However, it is important to flag anything which could suggest skipping-over time and ask why. Skipping over time is often employed by people who want to avoid talking or being questioned about a particular time or day. This can often be a point of focus in questioning. Here, this would be flagged to ask him the question if there was a delay, and why. If an assumption of the McCann’s innocence had been made at a glance, then would there be an urgency on their part to look at the ‘information’? Whilst this is speculative, it is something to explore. ..and ran it through our own understanding… His choice of ‘ran’ it through here could speak again to speed, which would support the earlier ‘glance’. 

So far there is nothing in his language to support careful consideration at this point of his statement. His choice of the word ‘ran’, whilst in context here, is very interesting given that the previously we have identified time as a sensitive element. The word “ran” increases the sensitivity of time to this subject. ‘through our own understanding’ – if we consider how we try to convey what we have done, the simplest explanation is something which can be understood and digested easily. Here, we are not told, for example, they ‘examined it’. Instead, they ‘ran it through their own understanding’. 

Simon Foy does not explain what their own ‘understanding’ was. Neither does he provide context as how and when they arrived at their understanding. This would be flagged for the interviewer to ask him to explain what their understanding was? 

 It is here we may have a reason for the potential sensitivity of taking the information ‘back’. This location is where they “ran it through our own understanding”. Could this suggest they may have had scepticism or doubt about what they were given? And was the information already pre-screened with a conclusion? ‘..our understanding..’ is an odd choice of language, especially for a televised interview. For example he does not say our ‘knowledge’ and this suggests a weakened, pre-defined standpoint. Therefore, running information through a weakened pre-defined standpoint will not provide objective, unbiased and timely results. This is unexpected. 

 In the same way we talk about the possibility of contamination by an interviewer here, we now have to consider that Simon Foy’s team may have ‘glanced’ and ‘looked at’ information through the lens of the same contamination if it already had a ‘steer’ or ‘conclusion’ already which could have impaired their objectivity. This is why in Statement Analysis the analyst will always 

(a) presume the subject is innocent and let their words talk them out of that position, and 

(b) need to have awareness of potential contamination. 

 He also confirms that the understanding was a collective one, by his use of ‘our’, signalling that whatever their understanding was, this was something that everyone involved in the investigation under his control had agreement on. Rather than telling us they ‘reviewed’ the evidence or information, instead his words could suggest that the information was not looked at objectively, but was instead ‘ran though’ an ‘understanding’ – rather than working towards a conclusion, his language points to there being an agreed position with which the information would be looked at. The question would be how an ‘understanding’ can be reached at glance at this point, from which standpoint the evidence could be reviewed. ..and, you know, verified [deep breath] sightings and accounts, statements and all the rest of it.. The words ‘you know’ indicate an awareness of the subject’s audience, a sensitivity around what they are saying or about to say. 

 Notice also a lack of pronouns here. The use omission of pronouns by someone gives insight as to their commitment to an event, or lack thereof. With a missing pronoun before ‘verified’ we cannot say for sure who performed the ‘verifications’, as he has not told us. This potentially weakens whether they did indeed verify the information. Simon Foy has not used the personal pronoun “I” as yet, but he has used “we” so far and the contamination must be considered. However, the pronouns are dropped altogether here at the point of verification, so we would ask the question: 

Why? 

 Considering the time-element discussed earlier, is it possible the verifications were performed quickly? Perhaps too quickly? Could this be why he not only doesn’t want to be alone within the statement - to this point - but for the first time the collective ‘we’ is missing in direct association with verification of the information. By this omission, he distances himself and his team from the verification. Again, the question would be: 

Why? 

 He tells us the verified a lot of different things and is more specific. With this said, the Law of Economy tells us that the simplest answer is the best. He could have said ‘all the evidence’. Instead we are told of ‘sightings and accounts, statements…..’. This could be a need to convince that they reviewed a lot of evidence. Again, there is a need to persuade they have done so by the extra and arguably irrelevant detail. His order speaks to his priority.

 The verification elements are noted as; 

 • ‘Sightings and accounts’ 
• ‘Statements’ 
• ‘All the rest of it’ Simon Foy’s passive language reappears in the third element, “all the rest of it”. 

Passivity can relate to concealment and may be appropriate considering an ongoing investigation into a missing person/girl so withholding details can be expected. He has a need to list out elements in this way could be a would could be a need to persuade the audience as to the number and amount of verifications he says they performed. 

We do not know who verified these elements if they did, as he has not told us. He previously stated that they ‘ran it through our understanding’ but now he uses the word ‘verified’. A distinction should be made. ‘Understanding’ can be personal interpretation, comprehension, discernment ‘verified’ is checking against a baseline to verify or otherwise. It should be asked how was this was all verified, and what was the baseline they use to verify it against. Interestingly, the list of documents he says they verified include ‘all the rest of it’. Aside from not providing detail of what ‘all the rest of it’ is, outside of his list, his lack of specificity given this is allegedly a missing child could be considered as quite blasé. This may also speak to weariness regarding the case, question(s), or any challenge to their understanding. 

 In the context of ‘rest of it’ being potentially blasé, consider that this could be a subtle derogatory remark about evidence which they feel did not support their understanding. Recall that earlier he points to ‘even at the first glance’ of information, now they verified ‘the rest of it’. Whilst they may well have verified information, his need to explain all of the other information he describes and the rest of it, psychologically his words appear to convey that they had already formed an understanding but then we are told they had to go through everything anyway. ..it was perfectly clear to us that the McCanns themselves.. Instead of telling us ‘it was clear’ to them, he has a need to qualify just how clear they were – it was ‘perfectly’ clear. This underpins his previous assertions of obviousness, combined with the need to confirm absolute clarity of their position. ‘..it was perfectly clear…’ - again contamination could impact here, but it should also be noted the past tense ‘was’. 

Bear in mind this interview is some time after his investigation, but consider whether it ‘is’ still ‘perfectly clear’? This could/have been an interesting question to ask. ‘..to us’ – whilst in context of their group decision, the inclusion of ‘to us’ is unnecessary. As such, this could open the possibility that their decision may not have been clear to others, either people who read their report, or concern should others have reviewed they may not have reached the same conclusion. ‘the McCanns themselves’ – the use of ‘themselves’ is unnecessary and therefore could be important. This would be flagged for questioning about what is meant about ‘themselves’. 

For instance, if they felt the McCanns themselves were not only responsible, did they consider or possibly have information or suspicion that they may have been aided by others? had nothing at all to do with the actual disappearance.” When we consider the greater context is that a 3 year old girl was reported missing after her parents left their children unattended in their villa, it is interesting what he says here, and what he does not say. ‘..the McCanns themselves had nothing at all to do with the actual disappearance’ – with what he says here, Simon Foy does not say they were not ‘responsible’ for her disappearance’. It could raise the possibility that he may believe they were responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance by leaving the children alone, but only says that they were not responsible for her ‘actual’ disappearance. 

 The unnecessary qualifiers ’themselves’ and ‘at all’ are indicative of Simon Foy’s need to persuade that the McCanns had nothing to do with the ‘actual’ disappearance. Only Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’ is cited, could there have been other offences that may have been considered, or that he may personally consider? “the actual disappearance” – as described earlier there is no mention of ‘her’ or ‘Madeline’s’ disappearance. He does not use Madeleine’s name which is unexpected in itself. Her disappearance is qualified with “actual”. It could be expected to use adjective qualifiers such as ‘terrible’, ‘horrible’ or ‘devastating’, but instead he chooses ‘actual’. This again steers towards a need to persuade us this happens. 

 This is someone who is choosing his words carefully, yet what he is saying and what he is not saying should be something we listen to and absorb. 

 He does not say Madeleine was ‘abducted’. 

 He does not say the McCanns had nothing to do with her disappearance. 

However, by carefully adding the unnecessary word ‘themselves’ we need to examine why he would do this. If the McCanns themselves (Gerry and Kate) didn’t, does this open-up the possibility they knew or suspected, or perhaps he may believe now, that the McCanns may have had help in her disappearance? His use of ‘at all’ is his need to place emphasis that this is/was without question that the McCann’s involvement. 

Again, it is important to understand that without knowing what question(s) have been asked, we cannot definitively conclude that his use here of ‘at all’ and ‘disappearance’ could have been used at some point by the interviewer. If so, his more passive use of ‘disappearance’ rather than abduction could suggest he is not willing to assert an abduction theory. Simon Foy left the police in 2012 so this may be his personal opinion, rather than the ‘official line’ had he still been working for the police. 

Note that Simon Foy distances himself from Madeleine through his words by not mentioning her name, nor giving her a gender by citing ‘the’ actual disappearance rather than ‘her’ or ‘Madeleine’s’. Consider also that he refers to Gerry and Kate not by the first names but as the ‘McCanns’. Of course, this could have been used by the interviewer, but the psychological distance from both parents and especially Madeleine – who remains a missing child at the time of the interview and at the point of this analysis – is unexpected within the remit of a television interview on arguably one of the most high-profile cases in the world, then and now. 

 Interviewer: “Why?” 

 Simon Foy: “Because, it was just, it was just, it was just obvious…

 Usually we would flag the word ‘because’ in statement analysis as it is when a subject tells us the ‘reason why’, and is often seen in deceptive responses. Here the interviewer has asked ‘why’. The question becomes whether Simon Foy was being honest with his last response and did not feel the need to qualify it, or was he deliberate holding this back and hoping for the question not to be asked. Up until this point of his statement he has carefully chosen his words. Prior to completing an analysis, an analyst will prefer to have as little information outside of the statement. Having completed the analysis prior to writing this, it is interesting to note that he graduated with a law degree before joining the police. 

So, whilst it is important to balance the possibility of contamination from the interviewer, the subject here is a very intelligent individual whose choice of language could be significant to us. As we have dissected what he has said, this is likely not someone who would not be very aware of exactly what he is saying, and may be balancing his stance then as the Head of Homicide with his personal opinions as a civilian now, obviously caveated that he will still be under obligation not to disclose certain information he was privy to. So, responding to a very direct question from the interviewer, which we hear this time, he now shows extreme sensitivity when his standpoint he has just told us unequivocally is challenged, with the stuttering over ‘it was just’ three times. Stuttering is often an indicator of sensitivity within any interview and can also be employed to buy time to think of a response to a difficult question for them to answer. 

 Rather than citing information to support his standpoint, which would support his argument, instead he reverts to telling his audience that it was ‘just obvious’. Here, Simon Foy is likely withholding information. For a senior policeman, or indeed any policeman, their job is primarily about providing evidence to support a case against a criminal. They would not be in a witness box at trial, open their notes, and say “Well it was obvious”. If he was prepared to go on UK television’s most prestigious current affairs show, it seems odd that he would not have expected or prepared a response to this question. This could mean that he is unable to answer this as his ‘hands are tied’ somehow and cannot provide the information. 

Alternatively, it may give us insight into his personality, or the mindset of the collective investigating the case. Was there a ‘high-mindedness’ by him, his team, or through his leadership in the approach to the case? In it being ‘obvious’ to him/them the McCanns were not involved it may have been they did not properly ‘clear the ground’ (eliminate the close family and relatives) through careful consideration, which could explain his sensitivity here, when up to now he has been considered and eloquent in what he has said. 

It is possible that he considers the interviewer or the questioning of his/their abilities to be insulting and this again may feed into the personality traits or the mindset of the group investigating the case. …from, you know, that that everything stacked-up He checks himself here using ‘you know’ which in statement analysis shows an awareness of the audience of what is about to be said, and again sensitivity with the repetition of ‘that’ twice. The use of the word ‘everything’ in relation to ‘stacked-up’ is another absolute from him and demonstration of his need to persuade their investigation was thorough and should not be questioned. Whist his use of ‘stacked-up’ is in context here, any choice of language can provide deeper insight. 

Consider in relationship with his earlier comments about ‘sightings and accounts, statements and all the rest of it..’ that he may be mentally recalling all the files stacked-up and potentially the sheer amount of work that they had to go through back then. We do not know if they fully investigated the McCanns or not, but this could take us into his and their mindset when first receiving all the case files he lists out for us, perhaps not just to convince us about what they say they reviewed, but also the sheer scale of what they had to look at every day when they went into work. 

 Even as seasoned investigators, were they prepared for this? As a result did they prioritise their time on other suspects ahead of the reviewing the McCanns? Were they pressured, or told, to do this?

 These are questions we may never know, but his sensitivity as to why in their opinion it was obvious is unexpected, especially in a world where evidence that may well be in the public domain and to some may be information they would be familiar about and could relate to, could have also been cited. that they, you know, they where they where where they were when the child went missing..” 

Again he shows awareness of the audience about what he is about to say with the repetition in short succession of ‘you know’, which did not appear earlier before this short question. He stumbles and repeats they ‘where’ instead of ‘were’ three times indication again extreme sensitivity relating to their checks of the McCann’s location. 

 Note again that he does not use Madeleine’s name. Also, he does not refer to her as ‘their’ child, but ‘the’ child. On one hand, detectives in such investigations may distance themselves psychologically from what they see and witness. However, unless the interviewer introduced this language, it seems unusual that he would not use her name in a televised interview that he has agreed to. It is equally possibly that the decision to use this clip may have been influenced by this and his reaction to the question. 

However, the fact remains that he has not used her name. It would be interesting to have more insight into his personality, is it possible he may have considered the interview because of the profile it would give him personally, but his language could suggest someone who is weary of the case and being scrutinised about his handling of it. His need to list out all of the documentation would serve in this instance to assure how methodical they were looking at the McCanns, but could also point to someone who found it, or now in retrospect finds, the whole subject something he’s fed-up with being associated with. This short 30 second clip has provided a wealth of information. 

 Analysis Conclusion

The statement could be contaminated by the interviewer’s language or previous question(s), so no definitive analysis conclusion can be made without this. 

• Simon Foy is likely withholding information relating to the McCanns, but is unable to disclose the information. 

• He has a need to convince, rather than convey by his need to persuade within his language. This appears within the language of deceptive people. It must be considered that his need to do this may be for reasons outside of his control. 

• He shows extreme sensitivity when challenged about why it was so obvious the McCanns were not involved. This is unexpected from someone with a law qualification and who has been in law enforcement. We would question why this sensitivity exists.

 • At no point in this short clip does he use Madeleine’s name, and she is gender-neutral. 

• At no point here does he state the McCanns weren’t involved. This is an intelligent, educated man who headed one of the most high-profile investigations. It is very likely to be true when he states the McCann’s themselves (Kate & Gerry) had nothing to do with ‘the disappearance’.  

• He does not tell us that they may not have had help in the disappearance. It may be possible this careful choice of words may be indicating a belief or knowledge that the McCanns has help in Madeleine’s disappearance. 

• He does not tell us that Madeleine was abducted. 

• The passivity from a lead investigator in such a high-profile case may indicate knowledge of belief that Madeleine was not abducted, as asserted by the McCanns. 

• This opens the possibility that she had an accident in their apartment.

Saturday, September 18, 2021

Missing Long Island Woman

https://nypost.com/2021/09/17/gabby-petito-boyfriend-brian-laundrie-is-now-also-missing/