Friday, December 9, 2016

Interview Analysis: Kate McCann

Here is an interview from 2007 with Kate McCann, the biological mother of Madeleine McCann.  At this point, the other analysis is part of the overall portrait that has emerged.  It is very difficult to dismiss prior analysis and in a conclusion, it is not necessary.  Therefore, you will read of references to the other analysis concluded.  This allows for this particular interview to either affirm or contradict the prior analysis.  In this sense, I address some speculation about what happened to Madeleine.  

The analysis thus far has shown:

1.  Madeleine is dead; not kidnapped
2.  The parents are deceptive 
3.  The parents concealed the body
4.  The parents did not intend the death.

Kate McCann:  By Herself

As a biological mother, we have the victim's mother speaking for herself, being interviewed alone.  A missing child is the most extreme event a mother can experience; considered more than death due to the unknown; the inability to process. 

Therefore, it is expected that the mother will speak for herself, with the pronoun "I."  If the mother uses the plural pronoun, the analyst should be on alert for guilt.  

Even when standing next to a spouse, a mother will often quickly move back to the pronoun "I" due to the intense, instinctive mother-child relationship.  

Our expectation for a "taken" child remains the same:
*concern for what the child is experiencing
*begging the kidnapper to care for Madeleine
*begging the kidnapper to return her.  

BBC "Women's Hour"  Jenny Murray interviews Kate McCann   9/8/2007

Jenni Murray : This morning's papers, yet again, are full again of the McCann's, the parents whose daughter Madeleine disappeared from their holiday apartment in Portugal nearly a hundred days ago. There has been a flurry of activity this week with forensic investigation of the only named suspect's garden; a detailed examination of the apartment and the discovery, there, of what may be blood. The McCanns have themselves would appear to be under suspicion as their car was searched and some of today's headlines carry their denial that they had anything to do with Madeleine's abduction. Well Kate McCann has never before spoken alone in a broadcast interview. I asked her how she's coping with the current developments in the investigation. 

Kate McCann : Well obviously I can't talk too much about the investigation. Erm we're just trying to get through one day at a time to be honest Jenny. Erm.. some of the stuff we are not sure about anyway, and we don't know if it's true or not so erm we're just coping day by day really. We've got lots of support, erm, very close family and friends and, as you're aware we've had a huge support from the general public erm and we are just trying to have.... (inhales audibly again and next bit inaudible and said within a kind of suppressed laugh) obviously with as normal a life as possible for the twins you know.

We first take note that the mother refuses to speak for herself, quelling the maternal instinct. 

Next we note that there is no expressed concern for Madeleine;
There is no pleading with the kidnapper (s).

We see that there is a difference in care levels:

"lots of support" from family and friends, but

"huge support" from the general public. 

With no concern expressed for the victim, we have not only concern expressed for self, but a priority of being seen in a positive light with the public. 

The lack of commenting on the case comes via 'restriction' in that she "obviously can't talk too much" suggesting inability.  This may be due to police not sharing much information as they are suspicious of the McCann's kidnapping story. 

In each statement analyzed thus far, the McCanns have never expressed any concern for what Madeleine was currently experiencing, affirming for analysis what they confessed later to, via the embedded confession:

Madeleine died in their apartment and they hid the body incredibly well.  

As the British public carefully followed this case, citizens, without any formal training, felt 'uneasy' at the focus of the McCanns upon self and not upon the victim.  This 'uneasy' or questioning feeling increases suspicion.  

As the public felt lied to, the natural sting of insult came into play, only to increase each time the McCanns took to the public forum to express concern for themselves, and not for the actual victim.  Intuitively, this is upsetting for parents to hear, as they wondered what it would be like to be in the McCann's "shoes."  This is a natural outworking of human empathy.  

Even when a parent is asked, "How are you coping?" there is an expectation that the parent will answer with the theme of "but" followed by expression of concern for the victim. No matter what the parent is suffering, the parental instincts demand more empathy, concentration and emphasis upon the victim.  This is the common theme of parents willing to sacrifice their own lives for their children.  It is something the British public, as well as the western world, expects to hear in such a case.  
JM : 'There has been a lot of speculation as well though that the police have treated you and your husband as suspects. How do you handle that kind of very personal speculation? 

This is precisely where we expect to hear a denial of the allegations, plainly and without qualification.  
KMC : 'I mean, I think you just gotta think to yourself...1 I mean, you need the investigation to be thorough and, errm, you know, we'd welcome that really, errm,  you know... you know, we've got a very good working relationship with the Portuguese police and, errr, we've come a long way since the beginning of the investigation. 
 And I mean, the police were very open at the beginning saying everybody is a suspect and I think that's often the case in, in many crimes as well.

"you know" is a figure of speech; a habit.  As with all such, we look at what questions and topics cause its inclusion and which ones do not.  The phrase, "you know" shows an acute awareness of the interviewer's (subsequent audience') presence. 

Note the need to tell the public that which should have no necessity of address:  "we've got a very good working relationship with the Portuguese Police..." 

What parents of a kidnapped child would have anything less?

This is a linguistic signal that there is a very strained relationship with the Portuguese Police, and likely that they have one or two officers of whom they feel bonded, not discerning that this is a tactic by police to gain information.  

We are not given a denial of the allegations. 

JM : And yet of course, now it seems that the detailed forensic examination is only beginning to happen now and you know things like details of blood in the apartment are just coming to light now and are all over the British press at the moment.

Why do you suppose that sort of forensic examination is coming so late – 3 months after Madeleine disappeared? 

KMC :  I'm sorry Jenny, I can't, I can't really talk too much about the investigation. 

Erm obviously with judicial secrecy and we are witnesses to a crime so.. I don't want to do anything that might jeopardise the investigation and so jeopardise Madeleine so er it would probably be best if we can veer away a little bit from the investigation. 

In Statement Analysis, we flag the words "I'm sorry" in every statement, no matter the context.  These are words that often work their way into the language of guilty parties.  Recall when Casey Anthony was abruptly put on the phone with the 911 operator and said, "I'm sorry", as if to say "excuse me."  

It is to be flagged only.  It is not a conclusion.  Yet, when we have analysis that shows deception and guilt, we find its entry  in such guilty statements.  

She, again, says she "can't" ("really" talk "too much") with qualifiers.  This is another signal that the police are concealing information from the McCanns in their attempt to prove the McCanns have committed a crime.  

JM : How do you deal though with the discovery of new forensic details; stories of, you know, children being spotted in various different parts of Europe; people taking DNA evidence from glasses in case it was Madeleine. How are you dealing with that on a day-to-day basis? 

KMC :  If I'm honest, we don't read the papers very often erm.. and that's largely because at the beginning erm anything we did read or anything we watched on the television, there's so much speculation  and speculation is upsetting and it doesn't help us. You know so we try and veer away really. Erm, the good thing that I'd say about the sightings, I mean we don't hear about them all Jenny, but the good thing is it just, it says to us that people are still looking and that's really important, so we'd encourage that. 

This habit of speech tells us that the subject recognizes her own dishonesty and now, by employing this phrase, "really wants to be believed." 

Note the present tense denial about reading is unreliable.  This is combined with "if" she is honest:  this is a strong signal that they are very well read about their own case.  This is confirmed by her unnecessary need to explain "why" they don't read.  This is a point of deception. 

It is interesting to read what is a "good" thing:  "people are still looking", without telling us who people are still looking for. 

This is an example of avoidance of a direct lie; which causes a spike in internal stress for the subject.  

Deception indicated. 

JM : What do you remember Kate of the last day that you spent together as a family? 

KMC :  I mean we'd had a brilliant holiday, we'd had a really good time. The kids had had a fantastic time, Madeleine herself had had a ball.  Erm again I can't go into specifics about the actual day but erm you know Madeleine was very happy, we hadn't done anything out of the norm of that week. Erm.. you know, she was just very happy really. You know my last memory of her is of her being very happy. 

a.  brilliant holiday is clarified as
b.  really good time

The kids, however, had a "fantastic" time, with emphasis upon Madeleine. 

Prior analysis suggests that something went wrong that was unexpected by the anesthesiologist Kate.  

Note "I can't go into specifics" again speaks to restriction.  
In statement analysis, "the normal effect" speaks to something that took place out of the norm that she does not want to address.

Speculating from other analysis:  we should consider the children were given sedation to allow for "quiet" for the McCanns.  Consider the possibility of one exception to this successful quieting of the children as addressed in earlier analysis.  

"Happy" continues the theme of 'normal' and shows the need to persuade. 

JM : We've read that she told you what a wonderful time she'd had that day. How important is it for you to hold onto? 

Importance is going to be:
a.  what Madeleine is going through while with her captor; and
b.  bringing Madeleine safely home

Not for Kate:  

KMC : Well that's, that's really important. I mean, I mean it was obvious to me that she'd had a really good week anyway. Erm.. it just so happened that on the Thursday she said that it was the best day of the week she'd had. Erm and you know she was quite tired but she was happy and tired. And er.. that's how I remember Madeleine. 

Kate uses the habit of speech "I mean" when she feels a need for emphasis.  Here this need is compounded.  

She then goes on to describe what could be a drugged or sedated Madeleine, which is consistent with the wording and prior analysis.  

Note that "tired" is the word she choses when she could describe anything about her daughter.  It is a word so important that she assigns it:

a.  To the very last day seeing her daughter alive
b.  Repeats it.  

JM : 'Was she sleeping when you left her?

KMC :  'Errm, yes, she was, yeah'. 

This is a small but significant point.  She is asked a "yes or no" question which reduces the stress for the subject to lie:

a.  It begins with a pause.  This means the yes or no question is sensitive to the subject. 
b.  After the pause to think, she gives the answer "yes", which is appropriate by itself but she brings in "the reinforcements" of "she was"
c.  For further emphasis, she wants to add in the word "yes" but it is reduced to "yeah."

Deception indicated

This simple "yes or no" question produced a sensitive reaction, weakness, and a need to persuade.  Taken together, we have deception.  

Regarding the change from "yes" (strong) to "yeah", (weakness), there is a comical example of this in network television. 

The show "The Office" was a spinoff from the UK program.  The lead character, when lying, would begin his answer of "yes" but change it due to the sensitivity of lying to "yesh", a signal from the writer that the question is 'causing problems' to the character of "Michael Scott."  

This is an example that highlights a writer's understanding of deception.  

JM : Lots of people will have asked you this question; you will have gone over this question in your mind over and over again, but why did you think that night that three such young children would be safe, alone in the apartment, whilst you went out? 

This is the allegation of neglect to be answered.  It produces a lengthy response, which often indicates an increase of emotion.  

The first thing to note after 2 sensitivity indicators (pause, and the habit of speech with "I mean") is that this question, posed to the mother, produced the pronoun "I" in a subject that relies mostly upon the need to share guilt, employing the pronoun "we" or "us."

This means the question is very personal to Kate.  

Question:  Does this help understand premeditation?

Answer:   Yes.  There have been no verbal indications that this death was intended and here we see a mother's instinct provoked.  The context is the decision to leave the children alone while going to dinner.  Defensive posture is natural.  

In an overall analysis where this particular subject refuses to take repsonsilibyt, this is a departure from the standard and strongly suggests that this death was not intentional or premeditated.  

Although there are verbal indictors, including the embedded confession, that Madeleine died as a result of neglect, the neglect is likely to be "criminal neglect" if any form of sedation was used.  

The "incredibly well" cover up is an attendant crime, after the fact. 

From all the analysis thus far, I believe that Madeleine died as a result of a fall, after awakening unexpectedly, disorientated ("very tired") from some form of medicinal sedation. I have investigated a number of cases where parents were deliberately sedating children, including NyQuil, cough syrup, and even the cases sited where a pediatrician lost his license due to prescribing cough syrup to abusive parents in his attempt to save the child abuse from disturbing parents. 

That Kate McCann is an anesthesiologist is something that only affirms the analysis; the analysis without this knowledge would stand on its own merit.  

While talking of the last days of Maddie's life, a parent could choose any words out of an internal dictionary of more than 30,000 words. 

Repeatedly and consistently she has chosen such words as 

"tired" and "quiet" as recurrent themes.  

We have the victim repeatedly referred to as "very tired" and parents who repeatedly address the need for "quiet."   

Describing the last hour of her daughter's life, the mother speaks of things ingested by her daughter, first in a generic way, but then, showing a need for both clarification and detail, specific foods. 

This question produced a long, emotional response.  The use of "I" is now conflicted with self defense of neglect.  

Consider that most parents of missing or kidnapped children blame themselves thoroughly beyond reason.  One doctor I interviewed about his murdered daughter blamed himself for moving his family to the state where she was murdered, though it was many years before the murder.  This is the typical thought pattern of innocent parents:  self accusatory. 

The McCanns consistently have focused upon their own well being.  In each statement and interview analyzed to date,  neither McCann has used a single word to describe what Madeleine must be going through in the hands of the kidnapper.  This is akin to "overcoming" parental instinct, which would mean sociopathic parents, something not indicated in the language.  If they are not sociopaths, there is one other choice:

The child is beyond parental care because she is dead.

This is what has signaled, along with past tense references, that the "missing" child was known, by the guilty parent, to be deceased.  It is a standard point for analyzing the statements around missing persons.  

KMC : (pause)  I mean, it's a good question Jenny and it's not like I don't keep going over that in my head, but I think the fact that I went for dinner ..erm and obviously we were checking on them very regularly erm says to me I obviously felt it was incredibly safe. If I'd have had to think for one second whether that was okay, it wouldn't have happened. Erm now why did I feel it was that safe, I can only assume, I mean I don't know if you've been out to Praia da Luz, it's a very happy erm.. calm.. erm.. place, and it actually feels incredibly safe. I mean I've never been to Portugal before but a lot of my friends and family have and they go because it's a family-friendly place and I can only assume that, possibly I was lulled into a false sense of security, I don't know, but you know everybody knows, we.. we were dining very closely to where they were, we were checking them very regularly, and the reason that we were  checking them regularly Jenny was just in case somebody woke up, which they don't usually do, I mean I never thought for one minute – and who would you know, think for one minute that something as awful as this would happen. 

In this singular answer, there is too much sample to thoroughly analyze here; it is enough for an entire article by itself.  
The color coding is training specific that those in formal training recognize. 

We view the many weak assertions and we view something critical in the case:

Innocent parents not only blame themselves, they excessively blame themselves.  
Parents with guilty knowledge of their child's "disappearance" will seek to justify their actions.  

This is a very plain point of demarcation between the two.  

When Billie Jean Dunn went on the Nancy Grace Show to highlight her 13 year old daughter's disappearance, in the first moments of the show she not only revealed her daughter's status as dead, but showed a need to defend herself, to the point of alibi building.  

She had a desperate need to persuade the audience that she was a great mother. 

Now consider context:  

She had a desperate need to announce to the entire television audience that while her daughter is "missing", they need to know how great of a mother she is.  

In intake screenings at substance abuse centers, when a mother writes about what a great mother she is, there is a strong correlation or connect to child protective services intervention.  

The context is key:  

An innocent parent is going to take all the blame and responsibility because the decision made led to the kidnapping.  

Instead, we have the highest levels of sensitivity in language, along with weak assertions and a need to persuade that all point to the priority of her answer:

The need, not to find Madeleine, but to justify self.  

This answer, by itself, is an entire lesson in Statement Analysis, broken down word by word.  In S/A not only does every word matter, but every letter can be examined.  

We look at her use of words to better understand her personal subjective dictionary, such as "incredible" and the habitual "I mean."

We look at what topics cause stuttering, from a non-stutterer. 

We note the word "normal", in any form. 

We note "obvious", which, in Statement Analysis, we do not accept.  It means one wishes us to accept something without question but unless the subject tells us something, we have nothing to accept.  It is part of "non interpretation" and not being led into accepting deception by accepting something "without question" where the subject refuses to state something.  If she cannot say "Madeleine was kidnapped", we shall not say it for her.  (A mistake made by the IR).  

Madeleine, instead, according to the internal dictionary of the mother, "disappeared" where she 'cannot be seen.'  

If she "disappeared", rather than "kidnapped", there is no reason to give a physical description to help the public spot her; after all, she is 'invisible' which fits the language of having hid the body "incredibly well." 

This lengthy answer is a good sample for study.  Within it are indicators of sedation, as well as self preservation and it speaks to Madeleine, again, as being beyond maternal concerns.  Madeleine is "safe" as if 'in heaven', which is why there is never a need to be upset (linguistically) over what Madeleine may be experiencing.  

JM : How did you discover that she wasn't there? 

KMC :  Again, I can't go  into too many details, but obviously when I went back to check on them, erm.. she wasn't there. And I knew..."

She is restricted and in culmination of analysis, the restriction is self preservation and the consequences for "going into too many details" which would implicate her and her husband.  She "can't" due to consequence.  This is a statement based upon conclusion of 4 complete statements' conclusion.  

JM : What was your first thought, what did you think immediately had happened?

KMC :  Well, obviously I kind of looked and double looked 

a.  "well" means that she needs a pause to think of her answer.  Due to the hormonal response of an emergency situation, her clarity would be stark (something she later admitted in an interview).  This precludes the need to pause to consider what to say. 

b.  "obviously"  It is not "obvious" unless she tells us what she did. We do not accept anything that is "obvious" unless the person reliably tells us. 

c.  "kind of" is not to look but only to "kind of", which belies in inconsistency the word "obviously"    "I looked" is strong.  "I kind of looked" is to refuse to commit to an action that should be "obvious" and need to pause to consider. 

d.  "double looked" is betrayed (incongruent) by "kind of" 

This is a strong indication that she is not speaking from experiential memory, but from scripted language.  

Scripted language is more difficult to follow because there is no hormonal attachment as there is in experiential memory.  

and, errm, you know, obviously, 

a.  "errm" is the pause
b.  "you know" is the habit of speech that shows acute awareness of the presence of the interviewer (and audience) at this specific point of the statement 
c.  it slows down the pace
d.  "obviously" means to accept without being told.  We do not.  

there was twenty seconds of, you know, she must be there. Errm, but there was no doubt in my mind within  probably thirty seconds, errm, that Madeleine had been taken from that room. I can't go into the reasons why I thought that but it was... no doubt whatsoever. And Madeleine wouldn't have walked out herself. I know that

The very moment where her maternal instincts are inflamed by hormonal increase of an emergency situation is precisely where she is vague.  

Note she continues to avoid "kidnapped" but uses "had been taken" which should then continue in her language.  She asserts, as mother, that she knew, not that Madeleine was missing, but "had been taken."

This is now front and center of all things:  Madeleine has been taken, meaning that someone has her, she is alive, and she must be returned.  

The language should not change to accept anything less than this notion of abduction or kidnapping.  

Yet, the language changes and Madeleine is no longer "taken", from which should could be recovered, but Madeleine has experienced a "disappearance", in which she cannot be recovered, therefore, no description necessary.  

This is why there is no appeal to the kidnappers.  

Portugal Police, as seen through the language of the McCanns, did not believe Madeleine was kidnapped.  

JM : We've read repeatedly that you are someone who really does hate being in the public eye – you're a very private sort of person – why then did you and your husband launch  such a high profile publicity campaign after Madeleine disappeared

The Interviewer has displayed her own belief system and has focused attention upon the McCanns and not upon the victim revealing the IR's own doubts.  

An extreme point of sensitivity has been touched upon:  Scrutiny.  

Publicity is a priority of the parents of a missing or kidnapped child.  Innocent parents seek it out and will complain when it is reduced. 

From the earliest moments of this case, the McCanns have verbally asked for the opposite:  they want "privacy" instead of publicity to help return the kidnapped, or "taken" victim.  

KMC : I mean.. what, what, what you said about me, Jenny, is absolutely true. I mean I don't like – you know when you say "public eye" I mean I don't particularly like having my photograph taken; 

Here we see lots of sensitivity indicators about the topic of publicity for Kate, herself.  One should question:

Does she like her picture being taken?

I don't like doing interviews; 

This is a strong statement.  About pictures, she can make no such strong statement, but interviews require answers.  She does not like doing them.  Note the strong pronoun "I" and no need to persuade via additional language.  She may like having her picture taken and she make like making statements, but she does not like "interviews."

I don't like doing presentations but  it's not about me. 

Since Madeleine is the victim, this is an unnecessary statement.  

  Do you know what I mean?  

Questions within statements are always important; they are made because the subject is seeking information.  

It's not about me, it's not about Gerry, it's about Madeleine and we will do absolutely anything and everything 

Here is an interesting point for new readers of statement analysis: 

We have what appears to be a strong statement that they will do anything and everything to get Madeleine back. 

Is this true?

First note that we have been told three times that which is unnecessary:  being about them.  This is done in the negative, increasing its import.  Repetition and Negative sentences make it very sensitive.  How sensitive?

This indicates motive: 

for the subject (Kate), it is about her and it is about Gerry.  It is not about Madeleine.  Madeleine is beyond help.  Kate and Gerry are in need of help.  

Next, will they do "anything and everything" to locate Madeleine?

Let's listen to their words:

1.  "...we will do absolutely anything and everything " uses the additional and unnecessary word "absolutely" in a place where no such persuasion should be necessary by parents. This point of sensitivity now raises a question:

Since the biological mother of a kidnapped child feels the need to tell us that she is willing to do anything and everything, unnecessarily, to find the victim, will she put any conditions upon this willingness to find Madeleine?

By using the word "absolutely", she is telling us that there are no conditions upon her and Gerry's willingness to recover Madeleine from the kidnapper. 

This is unnecessary to say suggesting to the analyst that the subject has conditions she will place upon her and her husband's willingness.  Therefore, the analyst should be "on alert" for "less than absolute" willingness to do anything and everything to find Madeleine.  

She does not make us wait long: 

which we think might help find Madeleine 

"anything and everything" is now immediately reduced to things that only she and Gerry, together, "think" will help find Madeleine. Therefore, if experts, or police "think" something contrary to what they jointly think, it will not be done. 

yet, she is not finished there.  She did not say

 "which we think will help find Madeleine" but said

"which we think might help find Madeleine"

This takes a biological mother's willingness to do anything and everything and reduces it first to only what she and her husband think, and then reduces it further with unnatural pessimism which is contrary to the natural denial of parents.  

Note the dating of this is only 3 months into the kidnapping.  

Kyron Horman was reported missing.  Search on this case here at the blog and read the statements of his mother, Desire Young, to see what natural denial looks like.  Step mother Terri Horman was deceptive about what happened to Kyron and indicates guilty knowledge of his death. 

Desire knows this, yet cannot accept the Kyron is dead, even years later.  

Kate is not doing anything and everything to find Madeleine, but qualifies it carefully to decisions only made by she and her husband jointly, excluding police, and here the assertion is weakened further by the help only 'might' help find Madeleine.  

This affirms the analysis that Madeleine is beyond help and it affirms this:

Kate and Gerry do not want Madeleine.   found.  They worked "incredibly" to hide her body.  

Had her remains been found early in the investigation, toxicology reports would have been able to be complete.  

help find Madeleine  and, you know, we don't know if we've done the right thing we've just done what we felt was the right thing to do and that was to publicise Madeleine's disappearance and try and get as many people looking as possible. And if that means I have to put myself in the public eye then I have to get over that and do it. 

Note that it is not "taken", or "kidnapped" or "abducted" but the safer "disappearance" from which she will not be found.  Hence, the lack of confidence in her own words.  

She reverses the law of economy to qualify her own willingness.  Hence, "absolutely", as sensitive, is explained, not by us, but by her own qualification that she placed upon their willingness.  

JM : But how much do you worry, as some people have suggested that it may be counter-productive, that it could motivate her abductors to hide her away? 

Here the IR makes a critical mistake in Analytical Interviewing.  In AI, we do not introduce words the subject has not used, whenever possible.  In this case, it is a point of extreme sensitivity.  Kate and Gerry do not assert kidnapping nor abduction.  By doing this, she has made parroting language possible, reducing the stress of direct lying.  

Since parroting is a smooth and seamless transition in language, we should note if this is 'overcome' or 'overruled' by the subject using different language.  With "abducted", if this word is not used, after being introduced, it would, again, weaken the notion of kidnapping; that is, the deliberate taking of the victim, in the language of the subject.  

KMC : I mean we always knew, ermm, there was a slight risk of that, and to be honest Jenny, I mean, everything we've done since Madeleine was taken has a slight risk, and I mean, that's, that's a horrible situation to be in, to be having to take risks and to think that something you, you do could possibly jeopardise her, but, you know we had to make a decision and.. . we couldn't sit and do nothing and we honestly felt that it's the best thing to do. And what, what, what we have heard recently from NICMEC, the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, in Washington, was they totally backed what we've done, they've said 100% you have done the right thing. An.. and their experienced. 

I believe her.  I believe that everything they've done here has risk.  This is why they were kept from telling the truth; the consequences and even the risk of trial would destroy their careers, and risk not only imprisonment, but also risk loss of custody of the twins.  

Note the change of language from "us" and "we" to "you" at a sensitive point:  "you, you" with the universal use of the 2nd person.  This is appropriate for commonalities that people experience. 

The kidnapping of a child is not common nor universal.  It is extreme and it is very personal.  

This use of "you" is to distance herself from the sentence.  

The entrance of "honest" indicates the lack of honesty within the overall interview.  

The need to justify "why", even after the fact, is used here with the specific name of the organization and its location.  

We now have more detail about this organization than 4 statements (including 2 interviews) revealed about Madeleine, herself.  

The use of the organizaiton's name and location is a form of "ingratiating"; that is, to appear as part of 'professionals' and 'officials."

This is particularly set up against "absolutely anything and everything" being reduced to only what she and Gerry think is appropriate; not Portugal Police.  

this appeal to "legitimacy" is not lost on the IR:  

JM : Why do you they think it, why do they think it's the right thing? 

KMC : Ermm, well, just, just, for an example, I mean obviously NICMEC see, ermm, you know, the good stories as well as the bad, and, you know, they're involved in children that are actually retrieved, and one in six of those children that are retrieved is because somebody's recognised the poster of that child. You know NICMEC have been, you know, been going for twenty four years now, and there's a huge number of err, abductions, it's very sad there's a huge number of abductions in, in America, so they have got a great deal of experience. 

Which is not to state an abduction took place in Portugal.  This too, perhaps intuitively, is picked up by the IR:  

JM : Why did you choose to stay in Portugal? 

Please consider that they have shown knowledge of a de facto status of being suspected in this case, by Portugal Police.  Note the word "obviously" when connected to the Portugal Police:  

KMC :  For me, err, And I know there may be possibly no logic attached to it I just feel a bit closer to Madeleine here, ermm, and obviously we're closer to the investigation here. Ermmm, I know some of that might sound a little bit bizarre, I don't know, but ermm, you know, because we, we don't know where Madeleine is 

The mother of a 'kidnapped' child feels the need to tell us, in the negative, about not knowing where Madeleine is. 

This is unnecessary.  

This is in the negative. 

This is an indication of knowledge of Madeleine's location.  

Next, she gives another pessimistic response: 

She could be anywhere, 

Therefore, she isn't likely to be found.  

This is similar to when guilty parents say that they will "search forever" with no end date in sight.  OJ Simpson said he would search for the "real killer" for "the rest of my life."

These are verbal indications of guilt.  Here, we have the natural denial of a biological mother over ruled with specified vagueness:  "she could be anywhere."

This is to verbally discourage search efforts with a pessimistic statement.  

This is consistent with the other analysis:  they do not want Madeleine found.  

ermm, and there's no reason to say that she's closer to me here in Portugal than if I was in the UK. Ermm, I mean, I'm also aware that there's things that practically, err, might be easier err, at home, but, if, er er.. it's just a gut feeling really, and at the moment this is the right thing for us to do. I don't know how we'll feel.. 

JM : you.. 

KMC : a month's time or you know later. 

JM : What about the twins though? I wondered how worried you might be that your focus is so much on Madeleine and perhaps not quite enough on the younger children. 

Here we see further linguistic indicators of guilt from the other statements where the mother of a kidnapped child has a need to portray herself as a good mother:  

KMC :  I mean, Sean and Amelie you know, but we're very aware of their needs and you know the first four or five days, you know, it was, it was very difficult to us, to erm, to function, ermm,  and obviously we were very reliant on family, family then, to, to, to help us with the twins as well. Err, I mean, the huge emotional and physical impact, that sort of acute grief reaction had, is, you know, indescribable really. Ermm, but now we.. we spend a huge amount of time with the twins, I mean, they, you know, they certainly wouldn't get to spend this amount of time with Gerry if we were at home and he was working.  Ermm, you know, they, they go to the kids' club in the morning for a couple of hours, which is a little bit like the nursery at home and they get to do lots of creative things as well as sort of swimming and things like that

She spends "huge amount of time with the twins" but when they are at kids' club, she gives a specific description of what they do there, including "creative things", and "swimming."

This is another signal of guilt.  Consider the context of this statement:  

Madeleine is in the hands of a stranger who kidnapped her.  

We get no words about what Madeleine is going through but details on what the twins are going through.  

The twins are not the victim.  

"Huge amount of time" is now "the whole afternoon": 

This is a mother who does not thrive on close time with her children and should be considered in light of the need for "quiet" and the possible sedation used.  

Just as Kate had the need to persuade her audience how "happy" Madeleine was, she continues:  

 We tend to spend the whole afternoon with them and the evening until they go to bed. So any work or meetings that we have, get done in the morning or late in the evening. Ermm, but they.. they're very, very happy, they've always been surrounded by a loving, protective family and friends if we're not there. And we've taken professional advice as well, just to check that everything we're doing for them is, is thought to be correct. 

Here the audience is now reminded, while a child is missing, how loving and protective a family they are.  

JM : How have you explained to them what might have happened to Madeleine? 

KMC :  We haven't had to to be honest, I mean, they.. they've only just turned two and a half, ermm, ermm, you know, and they.. they don't have any concept of time. 

At two and a half, the mother acknowledges that the children's development does not include, at this point, a concept of time. 

This is accurate. 

Please consider this in light of the actual quote attributed to Madeleine in the first analysis.  The mother knows what child development looks like.  The quote was "incongruent" and was scripted.  

Here, we have 2 1/2 hear olds "commenting", which further suggests scripting by the parents: 

I mean they're very aware that Madeleine isn't there. Ermmm, and they, they, they have commented that they miss her, errmm, and obviously the... there's photographs of Madeleine, you know, around the accommodation. We talk about Madeleine a lot, err, they refer to Madeleine's things, you know, sort of Madeleine's bag, Madeleine's Cuddle Cat, and they include her in their play. 

Since their day consists of so many things, we should consider that in her vast vocabulary, she could choose to tell us about anything. 

Next, consider from previous analysis that Madeleine is deceased, they are lying and there are indications of sedation.  

In context of this, consider the choice of words and activity that the mother of the victim uses here:  

You know, they'll say a biscuit for Sean, a biscuit for Amelie, a biscuit for Madeleine. 

Of an endless choice, she chooses this.  

Please refer to the original analysis where "ingestion" is examined. By itself, it appears innocuous, but when it is viewed in context, it takes on importance.  The original analysis is here.  

Ermm, but we haven't at this stage had to go into any details and, to be fair Jenny, we haven't actually got  a story we can tell them at the moment, because we don't know what's happened to Madeleine. All that I've said to them is that we're, you know, we.. we're looking very hard for Madeleine, but even things like that, that, you know, it's a split second thing and then they're off playing with Noddy or you know, whoever. You know, they don't, they don't dwell on it, they're actually very happy and don't appear distressed at all. 

The repeated need to state what should not be stated indicates deception: 

"we don't know where she is"
"we don't know what happened to Madeleine" is the unnecessary repetition that indicates deception.  

This is to repeatedly deny having guilty knowledge without being accused.  

JM : How hard is it for you though when they seemed to be reacting as if Madeleine in any way is still there? 

Here is another example of the language of nostalgia which indicates the processing of information regarding death: 

KMC :  I mean sometimes it does catch me, obviously, ermm, you know, if it's sort of unexpected and they suddenly start talking about her, ermm, ermm, but I, but I'm pleased they're talking about her, I don't want them to forget Madeleine I want them to, you know, for Madeleine to remain very much in their memory, so ermm, yeah, occasionally it catches me, but it's good that they're talking about her I think. 

No hope of reunification noted. 

JM : It seemed to those of us looking on, as if it it's been an incredibly hectic time for you when some people might think you.. you know.. I might have just wanted to retreat home. You've been travelling the world, how helpful is the activity? 

KMC : I mean I think it does help. I mean there's, you know, we discovered from the minute that we realised that Madeleine had gone, how awful, helplessness feels. Ermm so we've basically just tried to stay focused and positive and think of, and take advice, but think of anything that we feel might benefit,  ermm, you know, of, of us finding Madeleine really. Errmm and obviously by keeping active by publicising her disappearance ermm we've felt we've done that, certainly for Gerry ermm.. he's been, he's coped much better when he's been doing something, when he's been focused. 

Note "disappearance" and the continued focus (priority) on the well being of the parents; not the victim.  

This tells us more than just Madeleine being beyond help; it indicates that the subject remains aware, and it is a priority, that they, themselves, are in need of help.  

JM : And what effect has it had on your relationship with your husband? I mean especially if he's the one especially whose benefiting from going, rushing around the World and you're at home with the children? 

KMC : Yeah, I mean, to be honest I haven't been on many trips Jenny when we've been separated. I mean I know he went to Washington, but that was only a few days, and obviously at home Gerry has to go to conferences and stuff, so there isn't, there's nothing out the normal here from that point of view. Err we're lucky that we've got a very strong relationship, we've always had a strong relationship, and ermm I mean communication's always been important for us and we're well aware that it's vital at the moment. Ermm you know, we've got strengths and weaknesses you know, we reach different points at different times I guess, but we're managing to keep together and pull each other through when we need to. 

With the priority upon themselves, we note among guilty parents of falsely reported missing children a need to portray themselves in a positive light while still 'confessing' something wrong.  Sometimes it is in the unnecessary, "we are humans" or "we are only humans" but it is something which unnecessarily acknowledges fault in some way. 

Often, it is subtle. 

Here, she feels the need to say their "strengths and weaknesses.

It is a natural and normal thing for any couple to say.  

Question:  Why, then,  highlight it?

Answer:  Because of context.  It comes in the midst of a kidnapped child in which the priority remains the well being of the subject, herself, and not the victim.  It is similar, in analysis, to the emergence of the words, "I'm sorry" no matter the form in which they are presented.  It is something we consider in advanced analysis in the form of "leakage" and psycho-linguistic profile.  It further shows and affirms (when coupled with other analysis) that this was not an intended death but one of negligence.  

JM :And how do those strengths and weaknesses balance themselves out? I mean, what, what strengths and weaknesses does Gerry have and what strengths and weaknesses do you have? 

KMC : Ermm, I mean, you know, as I've mentioned before, sort of Gerry's strengths, 

this is a phrase signaling that the subject is not working from experiential memory, but memory of what was said earlier.  

he's used to speaking in public, ermm and he handles that very well, ermm.  Mine? I don't really like talking about my strengths too much but, ermm you know, I mean I'm happy kind of doing you know, some.. some of the ... kind of perhaps the domestic stuff, as well, you know, the cooking. Ermm I mean the important thing really is whatever we've done we tend to.. to pair up as a team. Ermm you know when Gerry went to Washington we felt it was better that one person went rather than both of us. Ermm but it was vital for us to kind of ... keep in, ermm, contact regularly throughout that time. So often, we were on the phone three or four times a day just so I could be aware of, you know, who Gerry was meeting, what was getting discussed, or if there was anything that between us we needed to decide we could.  And I think we're a very good and equal partnership really. 

JM : How do you get through the time between the frantic activity, the quiet times and the nights? 

Still no question about "What do you think Madeleine is going through right now?
How does Madeleine interact with strangers?
What do you wish to tell the kidnapper about her care?
Does she need specific medications?
Does she like her cereal a certain way?"

These are natural questions that any parent would consider.  Why are they absent from the McCanns?
Due to deception. 
But why are they absent from the Interviewer's questions?
Likely due to disbelief.  If the interviewer was given the impression that Madeleine was, indeed, in the care of another, this would be a dominant theme:  what she is going through and how do we get her back.  

KMC :Yeah, ermm, they often are as I say, very much with, with err.. with Sean and Amelie. So, you know, we're usually playing with them, sort of role play or reading stories or you know we're go for a walk, or they'll go for a swim or something, so, I mean that's, you know, very much as normal as we're going to get at the moment. Ermm evenings usually you.., you know, they're going to bed a little bit... the twins are going to bed a little bit later than would be normal at home. Ermm, so, often we just kind of, ermm we have the usual night-time stories and then as I say once.. once they've gone to bed, we'll usually get on and do a little bit more work really. 

At the beginning, police would be "very open" in giving the McCanns the obvious opportunity to tell the truth.  

There is a level of contempt within all liars. 

The liar holds his or her audience in contempt, believing them to be 'not smart enough' to discern the lies.  This begins very early in life and for habitual liars, it grows to include most all of society.  The more success a liar has in childhood, the greater the contempt.  

JM : Do you sleep at night? 

KMC : We tend to, we tend to have.. Yeah  .. dinner together, certainly still lunchtimes and evening meals are spent together as a family. And I describe those as very normal. (Ermm sleeping through the night? Yes, I do actually. I mean, the first four or five days was ermm.  I didn't sleep really, ermm as I mentioned earlier it was very hard to.. to function at all. Ermm but now I'm fine actually, I don't.. I'm usually quite tired to be honest by the time we get to bed. But I haven't had any problems sleeping.

JM : How much hope do you still have that you will find Madeleine alive?

She has not expressed any hope, but pessimism.  

KMC : (long pause) I do still have hope Jenny, in fact I probably have more hope now than I did right at the beginning. Ermm it's also very important to hang on to that hope really. I mean it's so important to stay focused and positive and  you know, we haven't had any news to the contrary that Madeleine isn't alive, you know, and that.. and that's very important  and there have been many cases of children that have been found, ermm much later than this, so again that's reassuring. So the hope's still there. 

Note repetition, as well as passivity.  Note the use of the IR's name at various points in the interview.  

Regarding hope, it is here where innocent parents assert that they "know" their child is alive, they can "feel it" instinctively.  Even parents who have been told their child is deceased will often speak in the present tense due to natural denial.  Mothers will speak in the present tense even years after learning of their child's death.  

It is here, in particular, that we expect to hear not only optimism, but an appeal to the kidnapper to give Madeleine x brand cereal, and this type of medication and this color blanket and so on, followed by the begging for her return.  

For innocent parents, this is not only the priority of all interviews and statements, it is the dominant theme:  what the victim is going through and getting the victim home.  

JM :And at what point do you think you and Gerry will have to accept that it's time to come home and pick up the pieces? 

KMC : Again I don't know, I mean that's very much a day by day, week by week thing really. And I can only (intake of breath) think that when the time is right, I'll know. Certainly, at the moment it feels right to be here. But, as I say, things might change and suddenly it'll be right to be at home. It's very, very.. a very difficult one to predict really. 

JM : 'And how will you deal with the guilt that will probably stay with you forever of having left Madeleine alone?

The interviewer presumes guilt that the mother had denied.  

KMC : I have actually come to terms a little bit with... with that, Jenny, I mean, you know  .. I know the, errm, I know the situation that we were in that night and uh, I've said all along, I didn't feel I was taking a risk. Errm, yeah, I... I do feel desperately sorry I wasn't with Madeleine at that minute when she was taken. Errm, 

Note the stuttering pronoun "I" as the tension increases.  Since the focus is upon Madeleine, what will she now tell us about Madeleine?

I'd also like to mention I've had so much support from so many people. 

I've had so many letters and comments sent me.. sent to me from other families, and particularly other mums saying, you know, we have done what you have done a hundred times over, do not blame yourself. Ermm (clicking noise) and certainly, when I'm in my car and have rational moments Jenny, I know how much I love my children, and I'm I know how responsible I am, and that's what I have to hang on hang on to really. 

Nothing; it is about alleviating her guilt.  This is a specific element within analysis: 
Innocent people embrace more guilt than deserved; 
Guilty people seek to reduce guilt and responsibility using the pronoun "we", changing the topic, denying, etc.  

JM : And what.. when you look at the sort of work that Gerry's done, particularly in America, and there's sort of people you've been in contact with who have real expertise in these matters, what sort of lessons can be learned from what's happened to you? 

This moves the topic away from a kidnapped child waiting to be rescued, thousands of miles away. 

This is not something an innocent parent will accept.  Instead, it is embraced as welcome relief:  

KMC : I mean, I think it, it's important that the general public are informed really, as the scale of the problem you know. I'd like to think I'm a fairly well-read person and, ermm I was horrified really of, you know, the things that I've learnt about since this happened. Ermm, .... 

JM :  What sort of things are you horrified by? 

Might Kate be horrified that her daughter is being held by a stranger?  This is what is expected in the language of an innocent parent.  

Note the volume of words dedicated to other children and organizations.  Count the words. 

Then, count the words used to talk about Maddie, herself. 

Next, count the number of words the parents have used that show concern for what Madeleine is experiencing under abduction.  

There are none.  

This is a "welcomed" tangent; that is, by the lengthy sentences and volume of words, there is an increase in emotion that is specifically compared to the lack of words regarding the victim:  

KMC : The scale of the problem, err. the number of children that are abducted, ermm you know the for example, just I mean I think the problem that we have a little bit in Europe is there's just the statistics aren't all there basically. Ermm but I, I had some statistics passed on to me from PACT, which is err Parents and Abducted Children Together, and in England and Wales alone, and that's just England and Wales, ermm sort of the 2002/2003 year, there were a thousand, ermm attempted stranger abductions Now, a hundred of those just under 10% of those, ermm, were= actual abductions. I don't like to use the word successful even though I think that's probably the word that's used, but a hundred children were taken by strangers. (pause – gathers herself then carries on in a matter of fact manner/way to fishish the sentence) And as I say, a thousand were attempted. I mean, I, I think that's huge just for England and Wales. And we don't know what the scale of the problem is in Europe. Ermm.I think it's really important that people, parents, know these kind of things and just to take extra care. I mean, hopefully, what you know.. we'll be able to do things that might change some of these things. That might improve things, make the world a little bit safer for children, but in the meantime I think parents should be aware really and just take extra care. 

JM : And what sort of lessons do you think authorities need to learn from the way, what happened to you was handled? 

The kidnapping of a child from a biological mother is to sever the most powerful of human relationships.  

In context, Madeleine is "alive" and in the hands of a stranger.  

yet, we find the mother willing to move quickly away from this most personal of relationships  on to "Europe" and the United States. 

As a mother trying to convince her daughter's captor to release her, and care well for her until, this is not appropriate, nor expected in any circumstance other than long term acceptance of death.  

KMC : Ermm I think they need to be (exasperated sharp sigh) err, have systems in place across Europe, really, for a, a quick response to a child that's gone missing, and particularly a child that's been abducted. Ermm and it probably needs to be a Europe-wide response. Ermm there's other things as well. I think all Countries in Europe should have a Sex Offenders Register, and probably, ermm CRB checks should be in place throughout Europe. I mean a lot of what I've learned to make compari... comparisons with are obviously, err the information that's come from the States. And, err they do seem to be a little bit ahead, quite a bit ahead rather, ermm with reacting to situations like this. 

JM : What's next for you now, Kate? Er I mean, I know you don't want to go into any details of how the current investigation is all forensic discoveries, but immediately now, where do you go from here? 

KMC :  Well you know, I just hope Jenny.... you know, every day I'm hoping that we don't get to the next one. And, I mean it's true when I say we really just try and deal with it one day, ermm and then the next ermm and take it as it comes really. I mean, you know, I don't feel I can go through anything worse than this in my life, you know, so, I feel I can probably handle most things now. 

JM : Whenever we see you in a picture, you're you're carrying Madeleine's toy with you. How important is that that you keep that close? 

KMC : You know Cuddle Cat. Cuddle Cat's with me now actually  at the moment. I mean, Cud.. Cuddle Cat was.. is very special to Madeleine, and, ermm she took it to bed every night and she tended to have it if she was feeling tired or if she was feeling unwell. And because it was special to Madeleine, it's special to me. And, ermm you know, it does provide me with a little bit of comfort. 

Question:  Any description of Madeleine in comfort while with her abductors?

Answer:  No 

Please note the close proximity here of "tired" (a repeated theme) and now illness (feeling "unwell") in the language of the anesthesiologist mother.  

JM : I was talking to Kate McCann.

Analysis Conclusion:

The conclusion remains the same. 

Madeleine died in the apartment and her body was hidden by her parents.  There are more linguistic indicators of sedation.  


MG said...

I have noticed several cases with deception use the word "taken", most recently Papini. Can you expand on why this wording? Would an innocent person use "taken"? Is there any significance to this word?

Mimsie said...

Peter, I am in awe of your analysis of Kate McCann. This case has bothered me since Day 1. Many other people have had that gut instinct too, that "something's rotten in Denmark", so to speak. I keep wondering whether the guilt will ever get to Gerry and Kate and that they will confess. Keep the pressure on them! I would bet a nickel they have seen your interview with Richard Hall and/or have read your analyses. Thank you very much for all you do.

Anonymous said...


Did you notice when Kate said, "Erm obviously with judicial secrecy and we are witnesses to a crime so.. " ?

I find it odd that she stated so plainly "we are witnesses to a crime" and not "we are CONSIDERED TO BE witnesses to a crime" or "we are CLASSIFIED as witnesses to a crime" or something similar.

Does that make a difference?


Tania Cadogan said...

Cuddle Cat was.. is very special to Madeleine

Oops spot the self editing changing from past tense to present tense

I think the fact that I went for dinner ..erm and obviously we were checking on them very regularly

I Think
I Went
We Checked.

Is this important in that here although she is on her own, that she doesn't say We went to dinner?

Anonymous said...

´´witnesses to a crime´´ ´´Madeleine isn´t alive´´ Long impersonal recital of statistic that ´´horrified´´ her but she does´t connect Madeleine to that at all. Soooooo guilty. It´s amazing to me, knowing what we know, that she didn´t even bury Madeleine with cuddle cat but kept her for herself.

Tania Cadogan said...

Original Source: Express 12 May 2007 [Now removed from internet]
Saturday May 12,2007

The father of missing Madeleine McCann has described a "tidal wave" of devastation wreaked by her abduction.

At a special Mass held in Portugal on Saturday - Madeleine's fourth birthday - Gerry McCann told villagers that he and his wife Kate had drawn "strength, hope and courage" from the support they had received in Praia da Luz, across Europe and around the world.

Speaking with emotion but determination, he told the packed church: "We are looking forward to the day when Madeleine returns to us as a joyous one."

It is the first time he has spoken at length about the tortuous days he and his wife have suffered as they wait for news. He told the congregation at the tiny 16th century church of Nossa Senhora da Luz: "Today we should be celebrating the fourth birthday of our daughter Madeleine. Instead we have had to remember what a normal, beautiful, vivacious, funny, courageous and loving little girl that we are missing today.

"I like to think about the effects of Madeleine's abduction from us nine days ago like a tidal wave. The devastation - which was tremendous - was greatest for Kate and I."

The couple were showered with kisses, hugs and flowers as members of the congregation queued to greet them at the end of the service. His wife, who in recent days has appeared increasingly drawn, smiled as scores of villagers lined up to kiss her on each cheek. Among the presents which had been left at the front of the church before the service were a yellow fluffy duck, a multi-coloured striped handbag and a fluffy pink flower with a yellow smiling face.

The McCanns had spent much of the anniversary in private and away from the ill-fated Algarve complex from where their daughter vanished nine days ago. Meanwhile, as messages of support continued to flood in, a reward of £1.5 million was offered for information leading to Madeleine's safe return.

Pics of the church service can be found at

What stands out is his description of Maddie, particularly6 the word normal

Also when he says this "I like to think about the effects of Madeleine's abduction from us nine days ago like a tidal wave. The devastation - which was tremendous - was greatest for Kate and I."

Not that the devastation of being abducted and abused was tremendous for Maddie, who would have been going through untold horrors as well and the pain of being separated from her parents.

The devastation was greatest for kate and gerry.

Me, me, us, us right from the get go.

Maddie never had a chance from the moment the twins were born, if not earlier.

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

A missing child case that rocked Hawaii to its core 19 years ago now may be solved.

An adorable 6-year-old boy named Peter Kema Jr. – known better by his nicknames “Peter Boy” and “Pepe” – vanished without a trace in 1997 after having been sent to live, his parents claimed, with a friend.

But in state court on Dec. 1, Peter Boy’s mother, Jaylin Kema, pleaded guilty to manslaughter, admitting, "I failed to protect my son."

“And what you did recklessly caused his death?” the judge asked.

“Yes,” she answered.

Jaylin and her husband, Peter Kema Sr., let an infected wound in the child’s arm go without medical treatment, she told the court. Prosecutors believe that, after enduring years of suffering from severe neglect and horrific mental and physical abuse, Peter Boy ultimately died of septic shock.

“Pepe’s siblings would testify that Pepe had a hole in his arm the size of a quarter that was so deep that you could put your finger in it,” Deputy Prosecutor Ricky Roy Damerville told the court. “The arm was swollen and red to the point he could not effectively use the arm and his fingers.”

Hawaii County Prosecutor Mitch Roth formed a team to go back over cold cases, and officially reopened the Peter Boy case in 2014. On April 28, 2016, a grand jury on the big island of Hilo indicted the Kemas on charges of murder by omission.

“For so long, we had the community asking the question, ‘What happened to Peter Boy? How could this have happened? Why was nothing done?” Roth told “We cannot give up on these cold cases, especially ones that involve children.”

The Kemas initially pleaded not guilty to charges of murdering the child. But now, through a deal with prosecutors, Jaylin has agreed to plead guilty to manslaughter and testify against her husband.

Under the terms of the agreement, she would spend up to a year in prison and 10 years on probation.

“This case is very important to the people of Hawaii,” Roth said. “People want to know what happened.”

Some 2,000 records from Child Protective Services, made public in 2005, show the Kemas were under investigation for years before their son’s disappearance.

The abuse was first documented when 3-month-old Peter Boy was brought into Hilo Hospital with new and old fractures.

Peter Boy had three siblings, and all of them were abused, but he took the worst of the punishments.

He was frequently beaten and was rarely fed; he slept tied to the bed, on the bathroom or closet floor or outside without bedding; and he was often left handcuffed or tied up with rope.

During family outings Peter Boy was forced to stay in their car trunk covered with a blanket in extremely hot weather.

“It was just absolutely horrifying the torture this child was subjected to,” said Meaghan Good, founder and editor of The Charley Project, a website that is tracking 9,500 unsolved murder cases, including that of Peter Boy.

At one point State Child Protective Service intervened, placing the Kema children with Jaylin’s parents, where they began to thrive. But the agency and courts later returned the kids to their parents.

And then, in January of 1998, the Kemas filed a missing person report for Peter Boy, stating that they had taken him the previous summer to Oahu to stay with a friend named “Auntie” Rose Makuakane, who lived near Aala Park in Honolulu, while he looked for work.

Police were unable to confirm Makuakane’s existence, nor was there any plane ticket or other record of either Kema taking Peter Boy to Oahu. Right away, authorities suspected that the Kemas had murdered their son, but they lacked physical evidence.

The Kemas, meantime, stuck to the disappearance story, asking the public for help in locating Peter Boy and Auntie Rose.

Tania Cadogan said...


Peter Boy’s younger sister, Lina Acol, who was 4 when he died, now remembers her mother calling out for her father while trying to perform what she now believes was CPR on her brother.

Later she saw her brother lying lifeless in a box, and she remembers her father burying a box.

In an exclusive interview at the time of Peter Boy’s disappearance, KHON2, which at the time was a Fox affiliate, asked the boy’s father, “Are you responsible for your son being missing, or did you kill your son?”

“Umm, I did not kill my son. As far as I know, no, I did not kill him,” Peter Sr. replied.

“If there is a core to Hawaii, the core is family,” said radio talk show host Rick Hamada, who covered the case for two decades on KHVH News Radio. “So when the parents came on TV tearfully holding a picture of their son and claimed to have given him to a mysterious aunt in Aala Park, no one believed it for a minute. The community wondered, ‘Are these people going to get away with killing their child?’”

Popular radio personality Michael W. Perry of KSSK said people called the station frequently to express their feelings of anger and frustration about the story.

“The absurdly casual parental agreement with the fictional ‘Auntie Rose Makuakane’ was infuriating, as was the lack of solid evidence,” Perry said. “Nothing will bring back Peter Boy but getting closure for this high-profile case is satisfying.”

The child’s parents failed to post bail, which was set at $500,000 for Peter Sr. and $150,000 for Jaylin.

Without the plea deal, Jaylin, who pleaded guilty in a separate welfare fraud case, could face two decades in prison on the manslaughter charge and another 5 years for welfare fraud.

Peter Sr. also faces illegal weapons and drug possession charges, over items that were discovered during a Nov. 15 search of their home.

His trial is scheduled for January, but prosecutors have asked for it to be postponed until April.

Jaylin could be released from prison as early as April 27, a few days before May 1,which would have been Peter Boy’s 26th birthday.

Anonymous said...

Spot on, Tania x

Anonymous said...


Your analysis reveals what is in plain sight. It's a pity you, or someone with similar SA skills, did not highlight the deception at the time those interviews were given.

What you highlight supports the gut feeling that I had when I watched them on the news. Back then, I did not realise the abundance of evidence that was there but not visible to the untrained eye.

I don't know what further analysis you plan to present but I, and most likely many others, would look forward to reading your analysis of the interview they gave to Sky on 25 May 2007 (3 weeks after the "event"), which can be watched here:

It is described as their first interview. I do not know if a transcript exists but if it does then hopefully someone could post it.

I think you will have a field day. I only came across your work/ skills less than 1 week ago and from what I have learnt in that time, even I could spot the sensitivity and deception time and time again throughout the interview.

Some of what is said (particularly by Gerry) beggars belief. For example, he says they have already grieved (past tense) and he wierdly likens their feelings to those they had when they reached their overdraft limit whilst at university ("nothing left in the tank")! There are loads more like this.
If (as they wish everyone to believe) that their daughter was abducted whilst unattended then where is their guilt for this? They would be 99.99% (if not more) to blame. If they had not been, selfishly, out (abandoning their 3 young kids in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country in a place they had never been before) their daughter could not have "been taken". No ifs, buts or maybes. They should be overwhelmed with guilt. Instead they have rationalised what has happened as having odds in the order of 100,000,000:1 as if that makes it okay!

Less than 1 minute into the interview they are asked why they left 3 young children alone. Gerry starts his response with "Mate", then after likening it to having dinner in his own garden, whilst (unconvincingly) admitting they had guilt, says "irrespective if we'd been in the other bedroom or not". Why on earth would he have cause to refer to them being in the other bedroom when this was not mentioned in the question. The alleged abduction happened between 9 and 10pm, which is before the parents normal bedtime so the more likely location for them would be the lounge (not the other bedroom).

Is it possible that the accident happened when they were in the other bedroom?

What I also have difficulty in believing is that Gerry describes the holiday as one of the best they had ever had with their kids "up to that point". The twins were only 2 so there cannot be many holidays they were all on before to draw such a comparison worth emphasising. Also, their kids slept for 12 hours at night and were in kids club (away from their parents) all morning and afternoon every day. What kind of family holiday is that? If he describes it as the best then they clearly appear to enjoy not being with their kids more than being with their kids.

Yet Kate wants you to believe how good parents they are! Their kids appear to be just a hindrance to them enjoying themselves as a couple / with adult friends.

John Mc Gowan said...

still no concern for what Maddy maybe going through. And, if indeed this is their first interview, then their concerns should be through the roof.

They set the theme very early on that it's not about Maddy, but, about them!

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic a case we covered a while back

A northern Michigan man convicted of second-degree murder in the disappearance of his four-month-old daughter is not an 'an evil person,' a judge said Friday in sentencing him to 19 to 45 years in prison.

A jury deliberated two-and-a-half days in October before finding Sean Phillips guilty of killing Katherine Phillips, known as 'Baby Kate'.

The girl disappeared five years ago in the Ludington area about 80 miles northwest of Grand Rapids, but her body has never been found.

'The one thing I did find and do believe about you, Mr. Phillips, is that you're not an evil person,' Judge Peter Wadel said Friday.

'I didn't find anything in your history that shows you're an aggressive person, a predatory person.'

Wadel said he did not believe Phillips and Kate's mother, Ariel Courtland, were fit to be parents, but while Courtland stepped up to the responsibility, Phillips did not.

Wadel also said he could not imagine Phillips intended to kill Kate the day she disappeared.

'I see a young man of great immaturity ... that was the state you were in at the time,' Wadel said.

Prosecutors said Phillips had a turbulent relationship with Courtland and didn't want the baby.

Assistant Attorney General Donna Pendergast had asked Wadel for a sentence of 40 to 75 years.

'He made the decision to eliminate the life of a human being ... a baby who couldn't stand up or fight back,' Pendergast said.

Neither Phillips not Courtland made statements at the sentencing hearing.

Phillips also did not testify during his 15-day trial.

His lawyer has said that there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Kate was killed.

The sentence will run concurrent with the 10- to 15-year sentence the 27-year-old Phillips already was serving for unlawful imprisonment in Kate's disappearance.

Anonymous said...


It is very interesting to read in very specific terms, exactly what you have FELT about the case but really unable to 'extract' it.

The one worthy mention of all things McCanns, is particularly all their media interviews, they are PLANNED and it is thought that questions are pre-vetted! So there are never any surprises. Some outtakes that have been available have shown and support this.

The very strange ''YOU KNOW'' phrase seem to be littered throughout this saga, particularly in the Rogatory Police interviews held in the UK, in English, with the T7 (other couples) who shared the holiday. To the extent that it makes them laughable & peculiar coming from such well educated, who yet again were only answering questions that had to be previously agreed., and seemingly allowed to read their previous statements & in some cases each others!

This is what actually keeps the interest in the case, the linguistic & behaviour shenanigans of intelligent, professional, MATURE people.

John Mc Gowan said...


Racial Harassment.

Yasmin Seweid

3 December at 01:30 ·

I initially was not planning on making a post about what happened yesterday, but you will probably be seeing stories about it on the news & in the newspaper tomorrow. I take the train every single day going to & coming from class, but yesterday, something happened that I never thought would happen to me. I was harassed on the subway last night and it was just so dehumanizing I can't speak about it without getting emotional. Three white racists ripped the straps off my bag & attempted to yank my hijab off my head. They yelled such disgusting slurs at me, I was so helpless and felt defenseless. "Look it's a fucking terrorist", "go back to your country", "take that rag off your head", and so many more. Trump's name was repeatedly said & it finally clicked in my head. No matter how "cultured" or "Americanized" I am, these people don't see me as an American. It breaks my heart that so many individuals chose to be bystanders while watching me get harassed verbally and physically by these disgusting pigs. Trump America is real and I witnessed it first hand last night! What a traumatizing night. Please stay safe everyone & never let anyone take your rights away. Just thought I should share that with you all tonight.

Anonymous said...

What could be HRCs motive for recent speech about fake news? Is she blame deflecting from her campaign toward others to placate her big donors/investors? News report says 1.2 Billion raised and wasted due to her defeat. She's no longer relevant but still in the news. Does she really believe the election was hacked or is this a ruse to deflect responsibility and perhaps placate angry donors?

Marliese said...

I've just watched your entire interview with Richard Hall. It was fascinating.

One of your comments stood out to me. You commented on people stuttering on the word I. I notice Pres. Obama tends to stutter on that word and I've always wondered why. Do you have an answer for me?

Anonymous said...

And, Mike Moores announced plan to protest disrupt the inauguration IF PEOTUS shows up. Is this sedition?

Anonymous said...

Reported today by Rtnews.

In 2011 FBI sent planeload of agents to frame Assange in Iceland, got snubbed by minister.

Tania Cadogan said...

Gerry quotes

“Yes, yes, I know,” Gerry says bitterly. “Kate killed her in a frenzy, Madeleine was sedated by us, she fell down the stairs—in which case you would have thought they’d have found her body. I’ve heard all that! There have been a huge number of theories in the media. But what I want to know is—who told them all that?”

"Sometimes people do things for reasons that even they cannot understand."
"An act of madness, an accident or sudden impulse can lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended."
"Faced with such a situation we believe any human soul will ultimately suffer torment and feelings of guilt and fear."

Kate McCann confessing to her mother on the ‘phone, soon after Madeleine disappeared: ‘It was an accident, Mum, it was an accident’

From her book, page 242:

If, as the PJ alleged, Madeleine’s blood was in the boot of our car, which we had not rented until 27 May, how on earth had it got there?

Did this mean someone had planted it?
I could see no other explanation.

The police theory, it seemed, was that we had hidden Madeleine’s body, then moved it later, in the car, and buried it elsewhere.”

Daily Star (link now whooshed)
19 October 2007

Tormented Kate McCann told last night how she is visited in the night by the spirit of her missing daughter Madeleine.
The anguished GP says she is regularly woken up by visions of the four-year-old in her bedroom. Kate, 39, revealed the visions to her mum, Susan Healy, who was worried about her daughter’s lack of sleep
Susan had assumed Kate and husband Gerry were being kept awake by her two-year old twins, Sean and Amelie.
She was stunned when Kate revealed it was missing Madeleine who was haunting her.
Susan, said: "She told me she has difficulty sleeping and wakes during the night. I asked:
'Do the twins come and wake you up?'
Kate said:
"No, it's Madeleine. She comes in."

Tania Cadogan said...


"Anybody with young children will understand that children cry; they wake up at night.
During that week there was one night, errr… and we can't give too much detail because it's part of the investigation file but there was one night where Madeleine came through and one of the other, errr… twins were crying, so, you know, and when she did mention to it… it to us and we asked her about it and she just dropped… she was completely fine and we thought, "Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired".
Of course, with hindsight, in the… in the context of what had happened; of Madeleine being abducted, it's put in a very different light and it's put in a very different light to us and, of course, we emphasized that to the police."

Dermot Murhaghan interview with the mccanns, 01 May 2008 Sky News

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter,

I know water references have been made and indicate abuse.

But do you think the mccanns or one of their friends tossed Maddie in the ocean?

I read somewhere the McCann's did there own thing during the day on their Portugal vaca, because they didn't like the water. But clearly their kids like swimming as Kate has said.

I thought it odd that an entire family would avoid the water (ocean?) on vacation. I wondered if they were creating distance by claiming this.

And Kate refers many times to the hiding-her-incredibly-well scenario, along with having no idea where maddie is. These comments would be true since her body would be carried and moved by the waves, plus sharks, erosion, etc.

Then theres gerrys "tidal wave" comment.

The ocean would be an obvious place for anyone to quickly and easily dump a body anyway.

Now I don't recall the details, but if Maddie's DNA was in the trunk of the car (yes?), would they have needed to drive a car to get to the boat rentals area?

AnneGuedes said...

There's an absurd sentence in this interview, Peter, and I wonder why you kept silent about it.
I... I do feel desperately sorry I wasn't with Madeleine at that minute when she was taken.
Had KMC been with MMC at that fateful minute, the abductor-to-be would have either run away, or, more likely, not popped up at all.
But KMC, who has a sense of logic, states this without correcting herself, as if it had a meaning for her.
Actually this sentence has a meaning only if who took Madeleine was the Grim Reaper.

Anonymous said...

Is anyone looking at comments under most recent blog post prior to this one? Re: Sherri Papini.

Anonymous said...

Could Someone post where the current SP photo is located?

Tania Cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tania Cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tania Cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tania Cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

Disgraced comedian Bill Cosby is seeking a plea deal to avoid prison time for his alleged sex crimes, it has been reported.

Cosby, 79, has been accused of drugging and raping more than 50 women, and faces a criminal trial in June on three counts of felony aggravated indecent assault of a Temple University student.

But he is now said to be avoiding a jury trial since a Pennsylvania judge ruled last week that a decade-old testimony Cosby gave during an accuser's lawsuit may be used in his criminal trial.

The testimony includes damaging admissions of giving young women drugs and alcohol before sex.

'He and his family, including his wife, Camille, are adamant that Bill won’t be able to convince a jury to let him off,' a source close the family told the New York Post.

'Cosby and his family believe he’ll be eligible for a sentence of just probation — and remove the threat of him dying in prison,' the source told the newspaper.

The source added: 'They are hoping that the district attorney will feel as though he’s won with a plea deal and they’re thinking that the DA will consider Cosby’s age, his medical condition, the fact that he’s paid the victim on the case millions, and the fact that his career is over.'

The Montgomery County District Attorney's Office declined to comment on a plea deal, the Post reported.

Cosby's defense team had insisted that he only testified in the old case after being promised he wouldn't be charged over his 2004 encounter with accuser Andrea Constand, a former Temple University student.

But his lawyers at the time never had an immunity agreement or put anything in writing.

'This court concludes that there was neither an agreement nor a promise not to prosecute, only an exercise of prosecutorial discretion,' Montgomery County Judge Steven O'Neill wrote in his ruling.

After the ruling, Cosby said: 'It’s fixed — I have no chance,' the Post reported.

Cosby, 79, acknowledged in the 2006 deposition that he had a string of extramarital relationships with young women. He called them consensual, but many of the women say they were drugged and molested.

He also described getting seven prescriptions for quaaludes in the 1970s, which he said he kept on hand to give women he hoped to seduce, 'the same as a person would say, "Have a drink."'

The release of the deposition testimony last year prompted prosecutors to reopen Constand's 2005 criminal complaint.

Cosby, asked about the 2004 encounter at his home with Constand, described being on his couch and putting his hand down her pants.

'I don't hear her say anything. And I don't feel her say anything. And so I continue and I go into the area that is somewhere between permission and rejection. I am not stopped,' he testified.

Prosecutors describe Constand as being semiconscious after Cosby gave her three unmarked blue pills for stress.

She said she later woke up with her vaginal area feeling painful and raw, and saw her clothes spread out all over the room. She said Cosby was in his bathrobe, according to

She also said she was in a relationship with a woman at the time of the alleged assault, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The ruling on the deposition is one of two key pretrial issues that will determine the scope of the evidence against Cosby at trial.

The other question is how many other accusers will be allowed to testify in prosecutors' attempt to show a pattern of similar conduct.

Prosecutors hope to call 13 additional women who say they were assaulted by Cosby as far back as the 1960s. Two days of arguments on that issue are set for next week.

The following exchanges between Cosby and Constand lawyer Dolores Troiani took place in 2005 and 2006. They are excerpted for brevity and to delete legal squabbling and repetition.

Tania Cadogan said...


[On Andrea Constand]

Q. When did you first develop a romantic interest in Andrea?

A. Probably the first time I saw her (at Temple's arena).

[On the night in question]

Q: Can you tell me ... what you recall of the night in which you gave the pills to Andrea?

A: Andrea came to the house. I called her. ... We talked about Temple University. We talked about her position. And then I went upstairs and I got three pills. I brought them down. They are the equivalent of one and a half. The reason why I gave them and offered them to Andrea, which she took after examining them, was because she was talking about stress.

[Cosby describes a several-minute sexual encounter that followed.]

Q: So, you're not telling us that you verbally asked her for permission?

A: I didn't say it verbally, I said. The action is my hand on her midriff, which is skin. I'm not lifting any clothing up. This is, I don't remember fully what it is, but it's there and I can feel. I got her skin and it's just above the hand and it's just above where you can go under the pants.

Q: Then what happens?

A: I don't hear her say anything. And I don't feel her say anything. And so I continue and I go into the area that is somewhere between permission and rejection. I am not stopped.

[Troiani asks Cosby about a phone call a year later between Cosby and Constand's mother, Gianni Constand, who told him something was wrong with her daughter, who was also on the line.]

Q: What was the thing that you did not want to talk about?

A: I didn't want to talk about, 'What did you give her?'

Q: Why?

A: Because we're over the telephone and I'm not sending anything [the pill bottle] over the mail and I'm not giving away anything.

Q: Why didn't you simply tell her ... that you had given her daughter an over-the-counter drug called Benadryl?

A: I'm not going to argue with somebody's mother who is accusing me of something. And then when I apologize she says to me, 'That's all I wanted to know, Bill.' ... And I'm apologizing because I'm thinking this is a dirty old man with a young girl. I apologized. I said to the mother it was digital penetration.

Q: When she sat here and cried (Constand, during her deposition), how did you feel?

A: I think Andrea is a liar and I know she's a liar because I was there.

[Cosby testified that he had gotten quaaludes from his doctor in Los Angeles in the 1970s. He said he was given seven prescriptions for the now-banned sedative, ostensibly for a sore back.]

Q: Why didn't you ever take the quaaludes?

A: Because I used them.

Q: For what?

A: The same as a person would say, 'Have a drink.'

Tania Cadogan said...


Q: You gave them to other people?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you believe at that time that it was illegal for you to dispense those drugs?

A: Yes.

Q: How did [the doctor] know that you didn't plan to use [them]?

A: What was happening at that time was that, that was, quaaludes happen to be the drug that kids, young people were using to party with and there were times when I wanted to have them just in case.

Q: When you got the quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?

A. Yes.

[Cosby acknowledges having a sexual relationship with accuser Therese (Picking) Serignese starting around 1976, when she was 19. Serignese, who has gone public with her accusations, has said the first time she met Cosby at a Las Vegas hotel in 1976, he gave her quaaludes and a glass of water before they had sex.]

Q: Did you give her quaaludes?

A: Yes.

Q: What effect did the quaaludes have on her?

A: She became in those days what was called high.

Q: She said that she believes she was not in the position to consent to intercourse after you gave her the drug. Do you believe that is correct?

A: I don't know. ... How many years ago are we talking about? 197(6)? ... I meet Ms. Picking in Las Vegas. She meets me backstage. I give her quaaludes. We then have sex.

Q: Why didn't you ever take them yourself?

A: I get sleepy.

Q: How would you know that if you never took them?

A: Quaaludes happen to be a depressant. I have had surgery and while being given pills that block the nervous system, in particular the areas of muscle, the back, I found that I get sleepy and I want to stay awake.

Q: Is that why you don't drink alcohol?

A: Exactly.

[Cosby says that while he was filming one of his sitcoms, a modeling agency would send 'five or six' models to his studio each week. He says he would give the struggling, young actresses 'a very, very good meal.' He describes a sexual encounter he had with one of them in 2000.]

Q: She says that just days after ... she told you that she did not drink, you told her to come over to [your townhouse] and served her amaretto. Do you recall serving her amaretto?

A: No.

Q: That you told her to sit next to you on the couch and that you put your arm around her and began massaging her shoulder and arms suggestively. Did that occur? ... This occurred sometime after you met her parents.

A: I need clarification on time.

Q: She's 17 and I believe throughout the time she knows you she becomes 18 or 19.

Q: On a later occasion you had her masturbate you with lotion. Did that ever happen?

A: Yes.

Q: (She) used the lotion to rub your penis and make you ejaculate?

A: Bingo.

[Cosby is also asked about a young actress who filed a complaint with New York police that never led to charges. She is named in the deposition but has not gone public with her account and has not returned messages left with family members over the past year. The AP does not identify sexual-assault accusers without their consent]

Q: Do you recall saying that you had threatened to sue the National Enquirer for printing [her] story?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you remember how old she was when she worked on the television show?

A: About 19.

Q: Did you ever develop a romantic interest in [her]?

A: Yes. .... I called her, talked to her.

Q: What did you talk about?

A: I believe, this has been a long time, her twin sister, her brother, their education.

Q: What did you tell her was the reason why you were inviting her into the house?

A: Her career.

Tania Cadogan said...


[On the 19-year-old's second visit]

A: I fed her dinner, gave her three drinks. We went then to the living room. We went through acting, elementary moves. We then went to the sofa. We laid down together. I was behind her.
She said that she believes she was not in the position to consent to intercourse after you gave her the drug. Do you believe that is correct? A: I don't know.

Q: Was she lying down or sitting up?

Q: Was she lying down or sitting up?

A: No, she was down.

Q: Did she fall asleep?

A: Yes.

Q: What did you do when she fell asleep?

A: I got up.

Q: Did you engage in any type of sexual contact with her while you were on the couch?

A: No.

Q. Are you aware that the woman's statement was that on the night of the dinner at your New York townhouse, 'At some point Cosby and the woman were sitting on a sofa and Cosby was massaging her back?'

A: Yes.

Q: 'Cosby then lowered his pants in an effort to receive oral sex?'

A: 'In an effort to receive oral sex,' that did not happen.

Q: 'The woman rebuffed Cosby's advances and was immediately sent home, driven by Cosby's driver?'

A: And that is not true.

[Cosby is asked about educational trusts he offered Constand and others, through his foundation or otherwise.]

Q: How would [the money to Constand] come?

A: It would come through our writing a check.

Q: And our being who?

A: The family.
Q:Was [this] to disguise that you were paying money to Therese? A: Yes. Q: Who were you preventing from knowing that? A: Mrs. Cosby.

Q: Would your wife know about that?

A: My wife would not know it was because Andrea and I had had sex and that Andrea was now very, very upset and that she decided that she would like to go to school or whatever.

Q: How would you explain to your wife that you were giving this personally as opposed to using the foundation?

A: I would say to her that there is a person I would like to help.

[In paying Therese Serignese, Cosby acknowledges the money would flow through his representatives at the William Morris agency.]

Q: So, was the purpose of that to disguise -

A: Yes.

Q: I have to finish my question. Was [this] to disguise that you were paying money to Therese?

A: Yes.

Q: Who were you preventing from knowing that?

A: Mrs. Cosby.

[Cosby was asked by Constand's lawyer about granting an exclusive interview to the National Enquirer in 2005 in exchange for the tabloid agreeing not to publish a story about accuser Beth Ferrier, who has gone public as another accuser attached to Constand's lawsuit.]

Q: What is your understanding of the agreement that you had with the National Enquirer?

A: I would give them an exclusive story, my words.

Q: What would they give you in return?

A: They would not print ... Beth's story.

Q: Did you ever think that if Beth Ferrier's story was printed in the National Enquirer that would make the public believe that maybe Andrea (Constand) was also telling the truth?

A: Exactly.

Q: So that you knew when [your] article was printed ... that you had to make the public believe that Andrea was not telling the truth?

A: Yes.

Anonymous said...

What strikes me is, they don't show any guilt over leaving their kids alone. That is the reason, I think whatever happened to Madeleine, did not happen during the dinner times.

Tania Cadogan said...

Kate mccann told us

"But the certainty that we are truly responsible parents has helped me carry on.

"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

if it was due to other circumstances and not to the children being asleep,The children must therefore have been awake which promptly moves the time of the alleged abduction to daytime/early evening as opposed to night time.

What were the circumstances if the children were not sleeping?

Which children does she refer to, her own or all the children?

we are truly responsible parents
Truly weakens her claim.

Responsible for what?

Anonymous said...

"What happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep"

Thats right. It happened because they left them ALONE.

...or maybe left them to be molested by Gerry and that other sicko.

Tania Cadogan said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep"

Thats right. It happened because they left them ALONE.

...or maybe left them to be molested by Gerry and that other sicko.

The children were not left alone, there was an adult missing from the table each night and gerry slipped up when he referred to "one of the other... twins"
There were no twins only his own.
He stopped and self edited.
Perhaps he was going to say one of the other children before he realized if he said that it was game over.

Turner said...

This is a push to delegitimise Trumps win. Wether he takes office won't matter, they will spend the next 4 yrs claiming he didn't win, block everything they can and scream that he shouldn't have won. They can't accept it and won't.

Unknown said...

Hi Peter

Thank you so much for doing the statement analysis on the McCanns.

Many people have felt for a long time that something was wrong. I guess that a 'gut feeling' is always right.

The British media have not told us the truth regarding this case.

Please keep up your good work, I believe that the truth will always come out somehow.

Have a great Christmas.

Rapinder said...

You analysed Kate's answer - to whether the last time she saw her child was whilst Madeline was sleeping - as a lie.
If Madeline was not sleeping presumably she was awake, then? Else, it is a lie because Madeline was not sleeping in the apartment the last time she was seen by her mother, but elsewhere, or awake elsewhere?

Secondly, the interviewer on BBC's daily radio 4 programme, "Woman's Hour", Jenny Murray, is very pro-establishment and would have interviewed the suspect according to a remit. she would have given Kate a gentle interview based on publicising innocence, imo.

Lastly, your analyses are remarkable, brilliant and at times, astonishing as well as educative. However, I think there is more to this case than meets the eye and could be part of a much bigger conspiracy, involving an elite paedophile ring. I have watched some of the interviews and the embedded confessions, and sometimes it looks to me as if the parents are just dying to confess their complicity, but simply cannot.
I don't think it's just because of careers and custody of twins, or that Jenny Murray is simply bamboozled by the lies.

Rapinder said...

btw, I imagine that Kate could have paused before answering the 'was Madeline asleep' question, because of fear of self-implication with regards sedation being a possible secondary cause of death.

Loz said...

All these years we have only seen the edited version of Australian mcann interview. Love your work peter, so interesting,can you look at this please .

Statement Analysis Blog said...




Loz said...

Hi peter, this is from is from the video Isabelle McFadden uploaded on YouTube.
This Australian Interview was aired over 5 years ago in Australia. The full content of his answer was edited out to Gerry's benefit.


-Did you Kill Your Daughter?

Gerry mcann -"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know...
You would have to start with why? How? When? Who? And there's just
simply, you know, no answer to any of these things – there's nothing
to suggest anything. So no – that's an emphatic 'no'."

Thankyou, Loz

Statement Analysis Blog said...

-Did you Kill Your Daughter?

Gerry mcann -"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know...
You would have to start with why? How? When? Who? And there's just
simply, you know, no answer to any of these things – there's nothing
to suggest anything. So no – that's an emphatic 'no'."

Thank you. Is there more?

I will post analysis, but if you can find a complete transcript, please email at

Loz said...

Hi peter, you analysed the bit that follows Gerry's "no, that's an emphatic no", in the third of your videos with rich d hall, embedded confessions, where Gerry practically tells us Maddie fell and died and they disposed \ hid the body .

The above was edited out and has just come to light since Australian TV seven did a Mcann programme the other night.,thanks Loz x