Sunday, December 18, 2016

Madeleine McCann: The Embedded Confession

Announcement:  This week, Peter Hyatt will be a guest on Crime Wire where he will take questions about the McCann case.

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016, Crime Wire will broadcast for 90 minutes LIVE from 3pm to 4:30pm Eastern time. Statement Analyst Peter Hyatt will discuss the case of missing Madeleine McCann.

Crime Wire will be taking live calls and the chat room will be open to questions from international listeners. The number to call in is: (646)-478-0982. For advance questions or topics you would like discussed on air, please email to

Question for Analysis: 

Do the McCanns show guilty knowledge of what happened to Madeleine?

This is a basic example of statement analysis of the interview given by the McCanns, who's daughter, Madeleine, almost 4 years of age, was reported to have been kidnapped.  

Looking for Madeleine McCann – Sunday Night. Video and transcript

...but first, for four years Kate and Gerry McCann have lived a never ending ordeal and they still don’t know when or if it will ever end. It began on a family holiday in Portugal when Madeleine, their four year daughter, simply vanished. She hasn’t been seen since. Tonight, the mystery deepens. You’re about to see home video never shown before and learn the vital clue Madeleine left behind. Here’s Rahni Sadler.

[Cuts into Video of Madeleine McCann dressed a pink fairy outfit:

Gerry McCann: Okay, spin around darling. Right round. Oh yes, I can see your wings.

Kate McCann: Big smile.

Gerry McCann: Oh yes. One more. Big smile. That’s pretty.]
end of video clip

Gerry McCann: She was incredibly beautiful baby actually.

This is an appropriate use of the past tense verb.  It refers to the specific time when the child was a "baby."  It is not, however, followed up with any present tense description or praise.

It can give listeners the impression not only of nostalgia, but an acceptance of death.  

With a kidnapping, we begin our analysis of the interview:

1.  Presupposing the parents to be truthful.  In order for us to conclude deception, they must "talk us out" of this presupposition of truth.  In fact, they must overwhelm us to convince us, by their own words, that they are not truthful about the kidnapping. 

2.  We have the expectation that they will show anguish or concern for what the victim, Maddie, is going through, in the hands of her kidnappers.  Parental instinct is powerful, and the "unknown" represents the greatest fear for parents.  What is Maddie going through?  Does she have her favorite blankie?  Is she being fed?  Is she being given proper medical care?

When, as a baby, she fell, Mum and Daddy picked her up and made it "all better."  Now that she is kidnapped, they have no natural ability to intervene for her.  This stifles or lays "impotent" the natural and powerful parental instincts for protection and provision.  We presuppose this to be a dominant theme for the interview. 

3.  We also presuppose that addressing the kidnappers and pleading for Maddie is also a dominant theme.  Parents of missing children care for little other than the children.  They care not to defend themselves; or care little:  they just want their child back.  We hold to the expectation that the word "kidnap" in any form, will be heard often.  

What Maddie is going through and getting her back are the two biggest themes of innocent parents.  This is what we expect to dominate the language.  

Whether you know analysis or not, you can simply count the words and see what is most important to these parents.  

Note that bold type is used to separate statement analysis from the interview text.  

We allow the McCanns to guide us.   

Kate McCann: We sound like the most biased parents on the planet now but she was just really compact and was just really the really nice, round, perfect know...and then she, she opened her mouth ...the whole world knew she was with us...

If parents are speaking together, the pronoun "we" is expected, yet we also hold to the expectation that a mother, in particular, is going to jump to "my" for a missing child, as it is very personal to her, with instinct inflamed. 

  The absence of the singular pronoun should call us to attention.  We saw this in the Baby Lisa case as Deborah Bradley, whom was indicated for guilty knowledge and deception in the case of her missing child, had such difficulty using the pronoun "my" in her language.  Research has shown what every parent of every kindergartner knows:  guilt is something we humans like to 'spread around' with plural pronouns.  "Everyone was doing it!"
Every parent calls their child "perfect" yet here we have a specific: "really nice, round, perfect head" is the language of a doctor, particularly when a child is first delivered. 
Note in recollecting her birth, KM says "the whole world knew she was with us" using "the whole world" as a reference.  

Gerry McCann: She’d McCann level volume, there’s no doubt about that.

This is a specific negative reference, even if viewed in a subtle manner, as to complain about the child crying.  While a child is missing, we do not expect to hear anything negative; the heightened anxiety of the parents generally reflects in the language of 'deification' or simply very high praise.  

[Cuts into Video of Madeleine

Kate McCann: I always wanted to be a mother, erm, I don’t know, maybe that stemmed from being an only child and sort of, you know, wanting that feeling of family.

When someone refers to herself as a "child" growing up, we must be on the alert for possible child abuse, which, if confirmed, is 80% likely to be sexual abuse.  Here, however, is the phrase "only child", which, like, "childhood", should not be taken as a signal of child abuse. 

As to always wanting to be a mother, KM portrays herself in a favorable light; not one who has concern of neglect for having left her child. 

Innocent parents of missing and murdered children will often blame themselves; at times, they will even be 'creative' in this acceptance of guilt and shame.  Dr. Harrington talked about regretting moving from one state to another, for if he had not moved, he said, he would not have had his daughter, Morgan murdered. He blamed himself, in spite of having the intellect to know to the contrary.  

This is expected.  

Voice over: Madeleine was the daughter Kate and Gerry McCann always wanted. For years Kate struggled to fall pregnant so when Madeleine came along they felt blessed. They loved to photograph her and she loved being photographed.

Voice over: this is the last picture of Madeleine taken seven hours before she disappeared.

We listen for a general feel:  are the parents showing any signals of psychological distancing, or de-personalizing Maddie by avoiding the regular use of her name?

Gerry McCann: There’s a photo of her that afternoon that was taken at 2:29 (laughs) I think, we’ve got it recorded on the digital camera and er she was just sitting by the pool er with myself and we’ve both got our feet just paddling and she’s so happy.

We first notice that the dating of this photograph is given a lot of detail.  Why?

For whatever reason, the date on this photograph is very sensitive to Gerry McCann.  

This is an example of an incongruent flow of language:  

He gives the exact stamp time, "2:29" while only asserting that he "thinks" that "we've" got it recorded.  The incongruence between an exact time given, and "thinks" is compounded by the further 'weakness' (in analysis) of the pronoun "we"

This use of the pronoun "we" suggests that as the subject looks back in time, he sees himself unified with Maddie.  We still listen for the use of her name in the present language. 

Voice over: In late April 2007, the McCanns decided to travel to Portugal for a family holiday.

[Cuts into a video of Madeleine climbing the flight stairs to the aeroplane where she stumbles on the steps:
Voice over: In the pink pants climbing the stairs to the plane is Madeleine
Gerry McCann on the video: Oop alright?]

Voice over: It was the McCanns first holiday overseas as a family and they went with three other couples
[video on airports shuttle bus pans in Gerry’s direction...‘cheer up Gerry, we’re on holiday.’ Gerry:‘F**k off']

Gerry McCann: It’s a small resort out of season, end of April beginning of May and it was incredibly quiet er, we felt very relaxed there, very relaxed.

When a couple speaks together, the pronoun, "we" is expected and used often.  Where we expect the change is when we come to the highly personal loss of a child.  The expected is that a mother will use the pronoun, "I" when speaking about the child.  Fathers do also, but given maternal instinct, particularly one who just spoke of the birth, we expect to hear the pronoun, "I" to be employed.  

Note that he repeats what "we" felt:  "very relaxed."  This is, perhaps, a signal that he wishes to convey (the repetition) that there was no premeditation in what happened to Maddie. There should be self blame for having left her; not justification.  The instinct for the child should overcome self protection.  

“very relaxed” is repeated.  This is an indication of, while looking back, an attempt to normalize the situation.  It is akin to “narrative” or story telling language. 

Voice over: In the evening the children were put to bed by half past seven before the adults had dinner together down at the pool. From where they ate, Kate and Gerry could see the back of their apartment and left the door unlocked.

Gerry McCann: If you measured it directly from the back of the apartment there’s a straight line to where we’re dining, it’s only 50 metres

Interviewer: 50 Meters?

Gerry McCann: Er..that, that’s a direct line...

Kate McCann : 49 point 4 on Google if you want to be really specific

KM shows the need to employ defense:  she looked it up.  It is her wording that is of interest:  “if you want to be really specific.”

In the case of a missing (presumed alive) child, the mother will be on high alert, and every detail will run through her mind.  This is where sleeplessness takes its toll.  The mother will call police at 2am to report having just remembered something.

If “you”, not her, but if “you” want to be “really specific” is a form of distancing language that moves her away from precise detail.  This is not something we expect a mother to do.

Gerry McCann: But the proximity was very close

The word, "but" often refutes that which came before it, minimizes it, or compares it.  
  Here, we do not know what would be refuted by GM since they appear to agree about the distance, but only in a "direct" line and not actual access.  Since he is not refuting (or minimizing her words), perhaps this is to the “you” who might want to be “really specific.”

Question:  Who, in this case, would want to be “really specific”?
Answer:  the investigators. 

Voice over: Madeleine and the twins slept in a room at the front of villa 5A. Kate and Gerry believed their shuttered bedroom window, overlooking the car park and street, was closed and locked. Every half an hour the parents would take turns to check on each other’s children.

Gerry McCann: We thought that was the best thing erm, and it seemed to work absolutely fine and we didn’t have any problems right until the Thursday morning when Madeleine said “why didn’t you come when we cried last night?” We thought that’s odd

Pronouns are instinctive, and reliable.  It is to be noted here that GM says "we", first when it came to thought.  He reports what both of them were thinking. 
Next, we note anything in the negative as very important.  He reports, again, in the plural, that "we didn't have any problems"; 
People generally do not report "not" having problems; and mark time by problems that arise.  It is to be noted that here, in the negative, he again, uses the word "we" and not "I"; with "I" being the strongest link to truth in the English language. 
Yet, it could be that he is speaking for both, and knew what both thought, and what both did not think. 
He then quotes the child:
"why didn't you come when we cried last night?" as being the words of Madeleine. 

Please note that by quoting Madeleine, he continues to use the word "we."

Did a child of Madeleine's age actually use the word "we" and not the pronoun, "I"?  

I find this odd. 

Having raised 6 children, and having taught parenting classes for many years, small children are selfish.  They are concerned with "I" and use the pronoun, "I" and "me" and "my" most often in life, until they are later taught to be concerned with the well being of others.  

The use of the pronoun "we" when quoting Madeleine is very odd.  It is not the 'expected.'

The reader should question whether or not this is an artificial quote for the purpose of alibi building. 

Research has shown what parents of teenagers have always known:  guilty people will use the pronoun "we" often, in the psychological attempt to share guilt (Dillingham) and spread out responsibility among others.  Even if, via discussions, husbands and wives know what each other thought, it is very unlikely that a child of Madeleine's age would raise concern for her siblings' crying.  

Is this story telling for the purpose of alibi building?  This leads the interviewer to draw a conclusion:  

Interviewer: You now think somebody had either tried to get into the room or was in the room and woke them up the night before

By using the word "now", in 2011, the Interviewer intimates that he is familiar with past claims by the McCanns.  This should alert them to this fact and put them on the defensive.  Interviewers must be very careful and avoid

Kate McCann: Er it seems too much of a coincidence that she made that comment and then that happened that night.

Statement Analysis teaches that the analyst (reader) should believe exactly what someone says unless they prove otherwise.  When someone says, "if I was you, I would not believe me" it is good advice to follow.  Here, KM says it is "too much" of which we may agree.  There is doubt in my mind that Madeleine used the word "we"  and here, KM refers to "that" (distancing language) comment and says that it only "seems" too much.  She does not affirm that Madeleine said it.

Interviewer: Looking back now, you think that could have been your one save her

This is not a question but a statement.  Good interviewing (analytical interviewing) means:
1.  Asking open ended questions
2.  Asking follow up questions using the subjects' own language. 
Making statements can teach the subject how to lie. (Sapir)

Kate McCann: Well as soon as ermm I’d discovered that Madeleine had been taken just hit me straight away what she said that morning and I just thought, my God, someone tried the night before.

Note that she is referring back to the moment of discovery.  This is critical.  
Instead of saying that she discovered Madeleine "missing", she spoke of the conclusion, "had been taken" (passive) and then connects the thought of Madeline's statement "straight away" and "just" thought:  with "just" being minimization, used by comparison.  This means she compared this thought with a much larger thought. 

When KM said that she "just" thought, it indicates that she had "straight away" thought of something much worse for Madeleine. 

Q.   What is much worse than her being “taken”? 
A.     Madeleine being dead. 

It is difficult to imagine the shock and adrenaline (hormonal) rush at the discovery of a missing child, that someone would have the presence of mind to compare a prior night's comment from a child, with something much worse, at the moment. It takes time for us to process, particularly while under such duress (hormonal rush).  

This appears to be an artificial placement of a thought which is “narrative” building or commonly called “story telling.”

Madeleine's quote was about mommy not “coming when we were crying” with a very young child using the word “we”;

this is not credible.  Children are naturally narcissistic and unless she was both older, and parentified, her concern would be self only.

When we are first in a shocking situation, it takes time to debrief and reason.  This is why, for example, the placement of emotions in the 'perfect' or logical part of an account is an indication of having placed them there artificially. 

It takes humans time to process thoughts and emotions. 

Here, KM puts her thoughts, even using logical conclusions and comparisons, all while being a mother of a missing child who, as “missing” is alive, breathing, talking, crying, in need of food, diapering or toiletry, clothing, medicine and so on. 

It is not credible.  The hormonal rush would block out the thought process, and the recall should be very clear, also due to the presence of the hormonal increase. 

Always note the inclusion of Divinity, especially where it is placed within a statement. 

voice over: On Thursday night, Kate put her daughter to bed for the last time.

Kate McCann: My memory of that evening, it’s really vivid, I mean she was really tired but she was just cuddled up on my knee and we read a story and we also had some treats, some crisps and biscuits erm and then after they’d done the usual kind of, toilet, teeth erm we went through to the bedroom and read another story: If your happy and your know it...ermm...[looks at the interviewer then away and back again] ...yep. 

The memory of "that" (distancing language of the loss of a child is emotional distancing done to protect) evening.  Appropriate use. 

"it's really vivid" is due to the hormonal rush of whatever it is that happened that night. 

The pronoun "we" shows unity, cooperation between KM and her children. 

The word "just" is comparison (see above).  This indicates that when Madeleine was very tired, she often acted differently than she did on "that" night:  on "that" night, she cuddled up.  This indicates that on other nights when she was tired or overtired, she did not cuddle, but was likely difficult.  In this description, she not only cuddled, but did so on mother's lap.  

Since they are doctors, one should wonder what caused Madeleine to not act out but only to "just" cuddle and sit on her lap.  

Was Madeleine given something to help her sleep so that the parents could go out to dinner?  Out of anything she could address, ingesting is on her mind.  This is what she decided to tell us; not something we asked about.  

That "toilet" is mentioned (association with water), the topic of sexual abuse should always be explored, especially with a child who's linguistic skills could reveal the perpetrator's identity and actions.  See "water" for more information on sexual abuse within statements.  

Both of these (sedation and possible sexual abuse) are addressed in the documentary, other analysis, and is a report to come.  

Statement Analysis is concerned about “the usual” here; was the child ever put to sleep with artificial means?  Was this done regularly, without problem, before?  
Voice over: At 9pm Gerry checked on Madeleine and the twins

The interviewer (or Voice over) introduced the time of 9PM.  We look to see if "9PM" is confirmed by GM:

Gerry McCann: I’d actually stuck my head around the door and I, I just lingered for a few seconds and thought how beautiful she was erm and that’s the last time saw her.

This is an important statement.  It shows two things, in particular:
1.  GM does speak for himself, with the pronoun, "I"
2.  He used the word "actually" in his checking on Madeleine.  

The word "actually" indicates that he is comparing two or more ways of checking on her. 

What was GM comparing his checking with?  

Note how he also brought his thoughts into the time frame.  One might wonder why he feels the need to describe what he thought at that time, since he was checking to see if the kids were okay and asleep while they were at dinner. 

GM did not affirm the time he checked on Madeleine. 
GM wants his audience to believe that he saw her as "beautiful."  One might wonder why this is important as most fathers see their little girls as beautiful.  This appears to show a need to present oneself in a positive light and manner. Since he is talking about Madeleine, we must now expect words of concern, emotional words, will be spoken about her present condition.  They are not. 

The "stuttering I" is the scale of anxiety, as we are 'well rehearsed' in how to use the pronoun "I", having used it millions of times.  When a non-stutterer stutters on the pronoun "I" it is an increase in tension.  

Here we have the increase in tension with "I, I" but we have seen examples of it increasing even more so; to the point of a nervous break down.  This is the "scale" that is used in Statement Analysis.  The most amount of stutters on "I" (*8 or more) are relegated to up close and very personal murder and can lead the subject to hospitalization.  

Interviewer: Last time you saw her

Gerry McCann  Mmmm

Interviewer: You thought how lucky you were

Note that GM did not use the word "lucky" but it is introduced by the Interviewer.  This is always to be avoided by trained interviewers.  

Gerry McCann: Exactly. Your world’s shattered within an hour

Note the distancing language of the 2nd person pronoun "your", as not appropriate. 

He is the father, not a relative.  He is her biological father.  Is his world shattered?  But what about Madeleine’s world?  Who is in the role of her father right now?

Please note that GM, father of missing child, did not say his world was shattered with "an hour" but said "Your world's shattered..."

The expected is that the father of a missing child would say "My world's shattered"

Fatherhood is very personal and up close. We do not expect to hear the 2nd person pronoun used here.  This is distancing language that is very unexpected.  
In Statement Analysis, we believe people.  Here, he does not say his world was shattered.  I cannot think of anything, as a father, more personal than losing my child.  One should wonder why he feels the need to distance himself in this manner. 
If it was my child, "my world" would be shattered.  

But above all else:  What about Madeleine’s world?

There is no concern about Madeleine’s life or world at this time.  We find that once a child is deceased, the worry for the child ceases, and the verbalized concern for the guilty is present.

voice over: At 10pm it was Kate’s turn to look in on the kids

Here, we lay out what is expected:  "I got there and Madeleine was gone" would be the first thing that a parent would say. (anything similar)  It is not a “discovery” but a traumatic event that is personal. 

Everything pales beyond a child missing and is a lesser, or 'trivial' detail.  

What does she say?

Kate McCann: The bedroom door where the three children were sleeping was open much further than we’d left it. went to close it to about here, and then as I got to about here it suddenly ...slammed. And then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children. And literally as I went back in the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn, were closed was like a gust of wind kind of blew them open.

This is the language of “narrative building” rather than truthful reporting.  It is processed information rather than experiential knowledge reported.  “Narrative building” is also called “story telling” by police.  It slows down the pace, includes unnecessary detail (in an effort to authenticate) and often includes emotion, which is something that is included in fictional stories to engage the listener.  Truthful accounts do not have the intention of engagement; they may be engaging for some, but they do not show a construct designed to hold attention and elicit emotional response. 

Well written stories have a construct that is deliberately designed to hold our attention by eliciting an emotional response. 

1.  The bedroom door
2.  Where the three children were sleeping
3.   open further than we'd left it
4.  I went to close it
5.  It suddenly slammed
6.  I opened it
7.  I just thought I'll just look at the children
8.  The curtains of the bedroom were closed
9.  like a gust of wind blew them open 
"doors" and "windows" are often found within the language of sexual abuse.  Adults who were sexually abused as children often employ them in their own statements.  
The interviewer should explore whether or not Kate was a victim of childhood sexual abuse.  This is a risk factor for the possibility of not protecting her own child, statistically.  

We have someone who will not lie directly and say "she was kidnapped" or "Madeleine was abducted" but gives a scenario description to cause her listeners to interpret it as an abduction.  This is where strangers who will never meet the McCanns defend them saying what the McCanns refuse to say for themselves.  

Kate McCann: And the curtains which had been closed just swung open into the room and reveal that the shutter was all the way up and the window had been pushed right across and then I just knew...I just knew she’d been taken.

10.  curtains just swung open
11.  shutter was revealed
12.  window pushed right across
13.   Thoughts:  "I just knew, I just knew"
14.  "she'd be taken" is passive; not "someone took her"  The passivity is used to conceal the identity of the one who "had taken" her, "disposed" and "hidden" her.  

Deception indicated

In any event told, there are three sections to an account:

1.  What happened before the event
2.  The event itself
3.  What happened directly after the event. 

Truthful accounts will focus primarily on the event, itself. 
The "form" of an answer or statement that is truthful will look like this:

25% of the words or lines written will be dedicated to what happened leading up to the event.  This is the "Introduction" to the event. 

50% of the words used, or lines written, will be about the most important part of the account:  the event itself. 

25% will be of what happened afterwards.

A statement is tested on its "Form" and if there is a major deviation from this formula, it can be said that the Account is unreliable. 

The overwhelming number of deceptive accounts has the Introduction heavily weighted.  85% of deceptive statements have more information in the "pre" or "Introduction" phase. 

Accounts that are false or deceptive are often 70% or more in the "Introduction" phase. 

In Kate McCann's account, she is 100% in the pre-event of Madeline being missing. 

Her answer, by its Form, is unreliable.

She never said Madeline was missing.  

"She'd be taken" should then be coupled with "we hid her incredibly well" and be believed.  "She was taken" as passivity conceals identity and responsibility makes sense when we view the embedded confession.  

voice over: Kate says that after a quick frantic search of the apartment she ran back towards Gerry who was still with their friends at the table by the pool.

Gerry McCann: know exactly where the table was. It was kinda this bit, so it would be about around here. And er, I was kinda sitting in this bit. Kate was clearly distraught and jumped up but, kind of disbelief. She can’t be gone. She can’t...she can’t possibly can she be gone? And I was saying that to Kate as we were both running

Here we have GM using the pronoun, "I" for himself.  
Note body posture of "sitting" is a signal of tension for him, yet he was only "kinda" sitting.  "Kinda" is a form of qualifier which avoids precise language.  
Note that he does not say that "Kate was distraught" (the expected) but that she was "clearly" distraught, showing that being "distraught" is sensitive.  Why the need to emphasize the obvious and expected?  We would not think that a mother of a missing child is anything but distraught.  We must be now on alert for persuasion rather than truth reported.

                          *Why some very specific details given?

In resisting interrogation, NAVY Seals are taught to go into memory and choose something that can be offered truthfully, to save their own lives while not aiding the enemy.  If they attempt to deceive the enemy, they will likely be caught.  For example, the Seal can talk about being a diver and go into great details on how to scrub and clean a ship or boat from under the water; using specific technological terms of the apparatus used to safely accomplish this.  This abundance of detail comes from experiential memory and is convincing without the weak need to persuade.  There is no disruption of the memory process because it comes from experiential memory.  It is also unrelated to critical information that the enemy would seek. 

Voice over: Police were called within fifteen minutes. But they didn’t arrive for nearly an hour. It took them another two hours before they bothered to seal off Madeleine’s bedroom. British investigators later called it the worst preserved crime screen they’d ever encountered. Road blocks and checks weren’t put on Portugal’s borders for a full twelve hours and in days hundreds of guests, potential witnesses and suspects had checked out and left without ever having been interviewed.

Kate McCann:  The night seemed so long, every second was excruciating and it was dark and er, you just want  there to be light and everybody searching and Madeleine found.

KM did not describe Madeline missing. 
 She did not say that she wanted everyone searching. 
She did not say she, the mother, wanted Madeline found. 
She did not address the kidnapper. 
She did not talk about any concerns she has for Madeleine's well being.  

Statement Analysis teaches that the subject will guide us:

She said "you just want" and not that "I just want"

If KM cannot bring herself to say that she wanted Madeleine found, we cannot say it for her.  Using "you" is 2nd person, distancing language. A missing child is very personal to a mother and we expect to hear the oft-used pronoun, "I", something an adult has used millions of times and is quite good at using it properly.  It's absence means that she does not commit herself to the statement. 

KM does not commit to finding Madeleine. 

Note the order of what she wanted:

1.     There to be light
2.     everybody searching
3.     Madeline found
Last in her priority is Madeline found.  This is not what she wanted at this time.

Note also:  the emotion expressed.

For whom was this excruciating?  Was this maternal empathy for what Madeline was experiencing?  It was not.

One of the most telling points of guilt by parents of reportedly missing children is that they truthfully show concern and empathy for themselves; often indicating that the child no longer can be helped but the parent is in need for help. 

This comes out, even subtly, in 911 calls where the parent says, “you must help me!” more than “help my child” in emphasis.  Sometimes guilty parents never even bother to express emotion of what the child must be going through:

*is she crying? 
*does she have her favorite teddy bear?
*is she getting her meds?
*is she calling out for me?

Is the excruciating pain is due to empathy for the victim or is it about Kate, herself?  Here, Kate shows empathy for herself, which would provoke sympathy from the audience; not for Madeline, but for Kate, herself. 

Interviewer: Did you kill your daughter?

Yes or No questions are the easiest to lie to, however, we are still able to analyze responses.  

If the subject says, "no" and when asked, "Why should we believe you?" and says, "Because I told the truth when I said "no", it is a very strong denial.  
Therefore, even though yes or no questions are low stress questions for liars, it is still a good question when followed up with "Why should we believe you?"

Gerry McCann: No. That’s an emphatic no. I mean the ludicrous thing is erm what, I suppose what’s been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. Well when did she have the accident and died, because, the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner so ...if she died then, how could we of disposed – hidden her body. You know, when there’s an immediate, it’s just nonsense. And if she died when we were in the apartment or fell and di...why would we ...why would we cover that up?

This is an important question and a vital answer.  Here, I have repeated his answer, and added emphasis for the analysis:


"No" is a good answer, and is expected.  Each word after the word "no" becomes important.  It would be best to say "no" and nothing else because in innocency, there is no need to explain.  

That’s an emphatic no. 
Need for emphasis noted. 

This now weakens his denial, as he repeats it (any repetition is sensitive) and calls for emphasis (another weakness)

mean the ludicrous thing is erm what,

He is answering the question for himself, and begins with the pronoun, "I", which is good.  This connects him to the sentence.  We want to see him stay in the first person singular, as truthful. 

"the" is an article.  Articles are instinctive and exempt from the personal, subjective, internal dictionary we all possess. He addresses "the" ludicrous thing", which is now important.  What is "the" ludicrous thing?

He ridicules the question.  This is important. 

John Walsh advises parents of missing children to immediately polygraph.  The attitude is critical.  The ridicule he offers indicates an increase in emotion; emotion that has not been evident in regard to Madeline’s current plight. 

 I suppose what’s been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body

"The" ludicrous thing is now weakened by "I suppose".  If it is "a" ludicrous thing, than he might only "suppose" rather than know for certainty.  Something is "ludicrous" when it is not only false, but obviously false.  It is ludicrous to think a man comes down a hot chimney with gifts.  "Ludicrous" means to accept as false, without question.  Yet, he, himself, questions it by the weak, "suppose."

When we "suppose" , we allow for someone else to "suppose" something else. 

"Suppose" is the same thing; he is only speculating, yet, the article, "the" addresses a very specific "ludicrous" issue.  If he does not quote someone else, the language is now his own.  When one says “you say I killed her” it is not an embedded confession.  Yet here, he only “supposes” what is being purported.  The passivity of such conceals any singular source, such as a definitive police officer or news paper or journalist. 

The issue:  Madeliene died in the apartment and "we" hid her body.  

He does not say that this is "the" ludicrous thing.  He only supposes it, allowing for himself, and others, to suppose it to be ludicrous, or not to. 

People do not like to lie directly, as it causes internal stress. 

This is may be an  embedded admission as he is reporting that this is what's been purported, however, he allows for us to suppose that it may, or may not be, ludicrous.  Why might it be an embedded admission?
Because he does not quote any specific person nor article.   

Well when did she have the accident and died, because, the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner so ...if she died then, how could we of disposed – hidden her body?

He now asks a question, "When?"  
Please note that when a person asks a question in an open statement, and does not wait for the Interviewer to answer, it may be an indication that the subject is re-living the event, working from memory, and speaking to himself.  
Note that whenever someone is reporting what happened and has the need to say 'why' something was done, it is very sensitive. 

**Sometimes questions are asked by the guilty to learn what others think:  specifically, if they know what only the subject is supposed to know. 

Note the change to "we" from the stronger "I" and note when it appears in context:  Madeleine dying while "we" were at dinner.  

This is to establish an alibi.  

If an accident happened, it happened while we were at dinner, so it could not have been us. 

This is his reasoning, yet he does not state it but raises it as a question. 

Questions can be answered. 

Roger Clemens said, 'If I have all these performance enhancing drugs it would mean that someone supplied them.  Who is this? Who supplied me?  I wish he would come forward.'

The man who supplied him with his performance enhancing drugs did this very thing.  He came forward and we heard the telephone recording between Clemens and the man who delivered his drugs. 

The challenge shows a need to challenge.  

In the McCann case, he raises "accident" as evidence that he and his wife could not be involved. 

Yet, had he or Kate accidentally gave Madeleine too much medication to sleep through dinner, she could have expired while they were at dinner. 

He raised the question for us to answer.  Answering it is not difficult. 

Note the language:  “disposed” of, is quite soft.  If he is describing a terrible criminal the language is softer, polite, and more respectful of the body.  “Bad” people “dump” or “get rid of”, but to “dispose” of is gentler, more respectful. 
Note also, the change from “dispose” to a very specific element within the disposal:

A killer might have dumped her body and not cared for it. 
One concerned about discovery would need to “hide” it as well.
A respectful person who did not mean to kill her might not dump the body, but “dispose” of it, and in order to not be caught, would have to “hide” it as well. 

 You know, when there’s an immediate [inaudible ] it’s just nonsense. And if she died when we were in the apartment or fell and di...why would we ...why would we cover that up?

Note that he allows for her to die when they were in the apartment, not when "I was in the apartment" moving away from the singular, "I" and does not ask, "Why would I cover that up?" but "why would we...?"
He did not wait for an answer from the interviewer. 

Why would they cover it up?

Because of medicating her to sleep is illegal.  Because if she “fell” because they were not present, they might be charged with negligence. 
 They would lose custody of their other children, lose their license to practice medicine and go to prison. 

The asking of the question is something very important to him.  I wonder if initial investigators threatened him with consequences further pushing him on to the defensive.  It is also possible that his work as a doctor brought him into experiences where an injured child had parents immediately suspected and investigated.  I do not know if this is true, but I would like to know. 

When he asks "why?", we are able to, without much effort, answer him.  Yet, he does not ask for himself.  He began with "I" but moved, with the topic of possible guilt, to the sharing of guilt/responsibility, to "we."

Kate McCann: It gets even more ludicrous that we’ve obviously hidden her somewhere incredibly well where nobody’s found her ..

Note that GM only "supposes" ludicrous activity, yet KM goes even further with "even more";
Note her words, that she herself frames:  
"we've obviously hidden her somewhere." She says this is not something difficult to see because it is “obvious.” 

How well was she “hidden”?  “Incredibly well.”

This is not something we expect to hear from innocent parents.  It is too painful. 

Both GM and KM allow for them to be involved.  Innocent people generally do not allow for any possibility of involvement.  Even while attempting to ridicule the notion, we see signals of sensitivity.  

These are red flags.

Please consider that the child is “missing” and being “hidden” (that is, Madeline is being talked about right here) should produce emotional concern for her well being.  This is context specific.  They are “allowing” for scenarios to be produced without rebuke.  They are, literally, testing the plausibility. 

Interviewer: Incredibly well

Kate McCann: and we’d hidden her so well that we’d decided we’d move her in the car which we hired weeks later and you know, it’s just ridiculous

Note the change of language from "ludicrous" to "ridiculous" as a "car" enters her language.  The timing is not lost on us:  “weeks later”, removing herself from the night of her daughter’s disappearance.  This element of timing is not expected from a mother of a missing child.

Interviewer: When you come back to Portugal do you feel closer to Madeleine?

Kate McCann: Although I don’t know where Madeleine is that is the last place that, you know, I saw her, held her, and I guess there’s a part of me that still feels connected to her there so.

A mother was asked about her feeling. This is very natural.  This was the last place she saw her daughter.   What is the first thing that the mother says?

“Although I don’t know where Madeleine is

This is her priority: to convince the audience that Madeleine has been kidnapped, though she never says Madeleine was kidnapped; instead, opting for the passive, "she was taken"; something we agree to be truthful.  

She did not say “I don’t know where Madeleine is” but “Although…” which is to compare that which follows with “not knowing.”  It is not a reliable denial but places emphasis on that which follows: 

The last place:

“I saw her”
“I held her”

This follows her and her husband’s words about “disposing” and “hiding” the victim.

Now please note that even if we consider this as reliable, it is present tense and should be looked at closely.  She does not know where Madeleine is, presently, uses the pronoun, "I" and is strong, in spite of saying it in the negative.  It could be for several reasons:

1.  GM hid the body without her  (not likely supported by the use of "we" above)
2.  She was placed somewhere where her body would move, such as water;
3.  She does not know due to being placed where wildlife would 'move' her from the location.  

Commonly, small bodies disposed in water are difficult to locate due to current.  Haleigh Cummngs, Baby Lisa, and Baby Ayla come to mind.  Regarding kidnapped kids found years later:

Kate McCann: I think kids can be written off, you know, missing kids can be written off too easily. You cannot do that, you cannot give up on a child.

Consider:  she knows Madeleine  is not alive and move from there:   Regarding her child being kidnapped (the context of the voice over), Kate McCann tells us that this is not the case with Madeleine:

1.  kids" is used
2.  "You" cannot do that; "you" cannot give up.  She does not say "I cannot do that" and "I cannot give up". 
3.  Note the change from "kids" to "child" has a change of language. 
4.  Note the article, "a" child; not "my" child.

This is a strong indication that Kate McCann knows that Madeleine was not kidnapped and will not be found, years later, alive.   

Voice over: With no police force currently investigating Madeleine’s case, the McCanns are using their own money, including royalties from Kate’s book to hire investigators and former police to continue the search for Madeleine.

Gerry McCann: Kids are survivors

Neither comes to defend Madeleine. This is most unexpected and is only appropriate it Madeleine is not alive, nor is there desire to find her.

Note that he identifies Madeleine's looks, behavior, and voice with "McCann" yet here, only "kids" are survivors, not Madeleine.  He does not say that Madeleine is a survivor.  This is an indication that he knows Madeleine did not survive. 

He does not bring himself to say "Maddie is a survivor" which would have been expected. 

Kate McCann: You know, Madeleine means tower of strength. Wherever she was, whoever she’s been with, whatever’s happened, we will get her through it

Listen to what KM says, and do not interpret:

She does not say that Madeleine is a tower of strength who has survived and will be found.  She only says what the name means. 

Note carefully:  She does not say that Madeleine is strong and a survivor and that, therefore, Madeline will get through this.  She says, "we" will get her through it.  
This is a denial of Madeleine's strength and survivor status. 

People do not like to lie.  Here, KM is not lying because she does not say that Madeleine is a survivor.

Now note:

"whoever she's been with"

"Whoever she has been with" is the language of sexual abuse.  It presupposes the child bears responsibility, as well, something that those who fail to protect children sometimes reveal.  

We have seen linguistic indications  associated with sexual abuse.  This sexual abuse could be, for example, entering the language because of the medical profession, or it could be, as another example, from Mrs. McCann referring to her own upbringing.  There is not enough sample to draw a conclusion and in any and all child abuse/neglect investigations, sexual abuse is part of the overall investigation. 

"We will get her through it" within the realm of mothers who have failed to protect is aligned with, 

"I lived through it, so will she..."
"my mother did too, and I did, and we will get her through this"
"men are all like this..."

Women who were victimized are often at risk for the inability to recognize the signs and protect their own children; and once the 'cost' of loss is counted (marriage, finance, career, etc), silence often ensues. 

Most victims do not go on to offend, but often become hyper-vigilant parents.  100% of those who do offend, were perpetrated against as children.  Attraction to children is unnatural.  

To use the phrase "whoever she's been with" is something that sounds more consistent with helping a child cope with familiar sexual abuse than language of a child in the hands of any nonexistent kidnappers.  

Was Madeleine McCann sexually abused?

                     This must be explored in detail. 

Interviewer: You will not rest until you find your daughter, until you wrap your arms around her?

This is a direct question (language given, unfortunately) but is a direct question. One can only guess why the Interviewer said this. 

Kate McCann: I don’t believe any parent could, you know, and I don’t believe we could ever reach the point where we just think oh well, we’ve done everything now, you know. Whilst the situation remains as it is, you know, Madeleine’s out there and she needs us to find her

Start with the order:  “any parent” before “we”; this is not how biological parents of a missing child think or speak.  The innocent are fixated on their own child, her own unique situation.  It is as up close, personal and impactful as anything a parent could experience. 

1.  Please note that KM does not answer the question. 
2.  Please note that she only affirms that "Madeleine's out there", something that police and doubters also believe, just as many believe that Baby Ayla is "out there" and "floating" and that other dead children that are not laid to rest in a proper burial are "out there."  She does not affirm that Madeleine is alive.  This is a natural denial we expect from parents.
3.  Runs away from commitment:  She begins with "I don't believe..." yet switches to "we" repeatedly.  This appears to be a very strong signal that they both need to share guilt and responsibility. 

Note that the question was directed directly to her, but she avoided a direct answer with "parents":  this means the question is very sensitive to her. 

Why would the question of not finding rest until she wraps her arms around her child be sensitive to the mother of a missing child?

Gerry McCann: Mmmm

Interviewer: You’ll keep looking forever?

Kate McCann: We will

This is a strong indicator that Kate McCann knows that there will not be an end to the search: confident that she will "forever" (Interviewer's words) be looking.  

It is similar to OJ Simpson saying he would "never stop" looking for the "real" killer of his ex wife.  

Instead of searching until she is found, she affirms that "we" will keep looking forever, without end. 

This interview was much better than the others I have seen and indicates  that the McCanns have guilty knowledge on what happened to Madeleine on the night they reported her missing. 

In this interview, there is an embedded admission that:

a.      Madeleine has died
b.     That they have disposed of her remains in a hidden manner
c.      That the cause of death was likely not intended
d.     That they feared being accused

e.     That Madeleine may have fallen while unsupervised.   
6.    That sexual abuse is within the language, though its source is not known.  

For whatever reason, the McCanns "disposed" and "hid" the body of Madeleine. 

What was this reason?

Fear of being blamed as neglectful for leaving her alone?
Fear of being caught drugging her, even with cough syrup, so that she would sleep?  I once investigated a medical doctor who confessed doing this very thing:

He said the parents he dealt with were so abusive when using drugs at night that he felt this was the only way to protect children at night.  

He is no longer practicing medicine. 

Mrs. McCann remembers "vividly" (high hormonal response to emergency) that Maddie was "very tired" that last night.  

An embedded confession is one that does not come from the language of another.  There are direct signals that this is the case, including the word "purported" as well as the source cited.  

This should be believed.  

It does not exclude (missing information) the possible sedation of the victim which would heighten the anxiety about telling the truth, far beyond the poor choice of neglect. 

We have seen in other statements the defense of leaving the children unattended.  This answers those who feel that deception indictors are falsely produced by guilt the parents feel from leaving her alone. 

This is not only negated here, but even in giving a wide swing for defensive posture, we still see the inability of the McCanns to say that Madeleine was kidnapped or abducted, and then act upon this belief.  

They do not ever show concern for a living Madeleine. 

If the McCanns are incapable of saying that Madeleine was abducted, why do others say it for them?

This is how deceptive people work:  they are counting on you to interpret their words, rather than listen to them.  

To the question of sexual abuse, there are concerns, but no specific answer at this point of the analysis.  

Parents who were abused as children often become hyper-vigilant protective parents.  

Some parents become incapable of protecting their children due to their own history of abuse. 

Every adult who has sexually abused a child has a sexual abuse history.  Sexual arousal over a pre pubescent child is unnatural sexual attraction.  Something within their own background caused a connection between the destruction of innocence and sexual arousal.  This is where we pick up elements within language.  

There are specific elements in the language that should have guided investigators into exploring this possibility; not just that the parents may have an abuse history impacting their own parental capacities, but that Madeleine, herself, may have been a victim of sexual abuse.  

Sexual abuse is not, as other criminal elements may be, directly related to socio-economic elements.  Sexual abuse history is spread throughout society, regardless of income status.  

The necessary practice within Statement Analysis is Presuppositional; that is, we presuppose that everything the McCanns tells us is truthful and that we believe them unless they "overwhelm" us and convince us to the contrary.  

It is interesting to read comments about the analysis.  

I seek to read those who disagree with it because healthy scientific scrutiny strengthens.  

The disagreements are limited to "emotion", that is, the attempt to silence by using "hate" rather than critical thinking.  It is akin to saying, "if you disagree with me, you are a hateful person"; something politicians use to exploit moral narcissism within the public.  "If you don't see it my way, you are mentally ill (phobia) and morally so repugnant ("hate", "racist") that you are unworthy of being heard."  It is how truth has become today's "hate speech" and how freedom of speech is decried by those who refuse to engage in critical thinking.  

It makes life easy for politicians.  

I also find it interesting that those who believe Madeleine was kidnapped use very specific language; that is, 

They say what the McCanns have refused to say, over many years.  They show more linguistic concern for a kidnapped Maddie than her own parents do.    

In analysis we say, "if the subject is unwilling or incapable of saying it for himself, we cannot say it for him." 

Lance Armstrong never said, "I did not take PEDs" but used a variety of "unreliable" denials over many years to avoid doing so.  Yet, he counted on people to interpret his words and say the very words he himself was unwilling to say.  

It is a very strong point on how deception is indicated. 

Those who wish to understand more can take well known liars such as OJ Simpson, Lance Armstrong, Casey Anthony and other such, and read the analysis conclusions and how these conclusions were reached. 

What will they see?

They will find that the very same methodology was used there, that was used here. 

Objection:  But this is a missing persons' case, and you don't know how you would react if your child was kidnapped!

Answer:  Read the many missing child cases that are covered here in the Statement Analysis blog.  

There are both guilty and innocent statements made.  

See the methodology used to prove innocence and veracity, as well as showing deception and guilt. 

Then, compare it to the McCann case. 

The McCann analysis is not complicated or 'challenging' analysis.  

Parents reported their child kidnapped and parental instinct would follow; behaviorally and linguistically. 

I liken it this way:

You went to the grocery store with your 3 year old daughter.  While pushing a cart with your left hand, you held your daughter's little hand with your right, stopping to add groceries to the cart. 

Losing attention, she slipped away and disappeared. 

I have two questions for you, the parent, of said missing child:

1.  What would you do?
2.  What would you say?

This is behavioral analysis and statement analysis.  

I can tell you what you would do and I can tell you what you would not do. 

You would:

a.  Call out to your child
2.  Search for your child

I can tell you what you would not do:

You would not, upon seeing that she is no with you, continue your shopping, push your cart to the checkout line, pay for your groceries, stack them in your car, drive home, unpack them, have lunch, and take a nap before deciding that you should attempt to recover your child. 

Those who do finish shopping, go home and nap may scream and say, "Don't judge me!  Stop the hate!  You don't know what it is like to lose your little girl!  You don't know how you'd react!  I am doing things my way, so leave me alone!" while slamming the door on media, police and, in effect...

finding your child. 

If your little girl was kidnapped, you'd tell the kidnapper you want her back.  

You'd care not for your sleep, your quiet, or for privacy because with more privacy means less exposure for finding your child. 

Believe what the McCanns say.  I can go through most of their sentences and find truth. 

But while you have been frantically saying, "she was kidnapped!", you are doing something they, themselves, did not do.  

when the McCanns said that Madeleine died in their apartment and they hid her body incredibly well, 

I believe them.  

I think quite a few others do too, including Portugal police first responders and investigators.  

Peter Hyatt 

For training, visit 

We do:

Seminars or 
at home training. 

Those who enroll in either are eligible for live, monthly training in which our work is regularly put to the test.  Our analysts run at 100% or near 100% accuracy.  They either attend the seminar or study at home, and bring to the monthly training their newly acquired skills.  Here, they work one with another, together, for a common goal in solving a crime or statement.  They work in a confidential and cooperative setting.  

To enter into such work without formal training is to derail the work.  Yet, once enrolled, the new analysts quickly see the necessity of their foundation and obtain new appreciation for the dedication behind the work.  

The results of which are then given to the law enforcement agency investigating.  


Nic said...

I always wanted to be a mother, erm, I don’t know, maybe that stemmed from being an only child and sort of, you know, wanting that feeling of family.

What I notice about this statement is that, as usual, the emphasis is placed on “I”. She doesn’t say, “I always wanted to have kids.” She says, she always wanted to be “a” mother, like it’s more initials to put behind her name. She was a mother. Full stop. Objective/goal reached.


Nic said...

Peter said,
There are specific elements in the language that should have guided investigators into exploring this possibility; not just that the parents may have an abuse history impacting their own parental capacities, but that Madeleine, herself, may have been a victim of sexual abuse.

I wonder if this was because the interviews were conducted with translators? Does giving a statement via a translator impact an investigation, i.e., in this case investigation into child abuse?

GM says, "Well when did she have the accident and died, because, the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner so ...if she died then, how could we of disposed – hidden her body?"

He says, "the" accident. So he essentially addresses "the" accident but challenges the interview to when did it happen and how "could" they have hidden Madeleine's body.

Nic said...

Peter said,
This appears to be an artificial placement of a thought which is “narrative” building or commonly called “story telling.”

Madeleine's quote was about mommy not “coming when we were crying” with a very young child using the word “we”;

this is not credible. Children are naturally narcissistic and unless she was both older, and parentified, her concern would be self only.

I agree, and the quote kept changing. This is from GM’s statement/interview on May 10, 2007, which is why I was wondering if KM was having an affair/there was some “swinging” involved on the trip. Whatever the situation, after I was done reading the first statements from the very early days of the investigation, I was left with the impression there was some sort of third-party "involvement". jmo

On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, ... Still on this night, KATE slept in the children's bedroom, in the bed next to the window, because he was snoring. ...----- He cannot say exactly, but he thinks that on Monday or Tuesday MADELEINE had slept for some time in his bedroom with KATE as she [K] had told him that one or both twins had cried making much noise.

The day MADELEINE disappeared, Thursday, 3 May 2007, they all woke up at the same time between 07H30 and 08H00. While they were taking breakfast MADELEINE addressed the mother and asked her ?why didn't you come last night when S*** and I were crying??. That he thought this comment very strange given that MADELEINE had never had this kind of talk [had never spoken like this] and, the night before, they had maintained the same system of checking on the children, not having detected anything abnormal. When he questioned her about the comment, she left [withdrew herself] without any explanation.

Nic said...

Further to my comment about, aside from Madeleine being 'kidnapped' from the bedroom she shared with her siblings, there is *a lot* of talk about beds and people not being in their "proper" beds, and an issue with a crib (which was moved to David's apartment), and the kids being in their apartment or David's apartment, or he arriving at the patio "door". There was so much "mingling" reported day and night.


Anonymous said...

My husband is a doctor and in the two places we have lived, there has been a doctor's swinging group. To me the possibility is there that they were on a wife sharing trip. (Nothing to do with sex abuse-- the kids werent involved-- strictly consenting adults). These groups arent exclusive to doctors, but docs make up a fair share of the groups.

JenB said...

My daughter was 2 when I had my twins. She was precocious and talked very early. By the time the twins were born when she was 26 months, she could almost carry on an adult level conversation. She was also very protective of her baby brothers. I remember her scolding their pediatrician for leaning over them on the exam table because she was worried they'd get hurt. I have always envisioned my daughter when thinking of Madeleine's question about why her parents didn't come when she and Sean (if I remember correctly) were crying. I don't doubt Madeleine said that. But I believe it had more to do with their parents' neglect in favor of alcohol or sex - I don't think it had anything to do with a kidnapper.

Calla said...

OT: There is a somewhat recent trend of "Storytime" YouTube videos where elaborate stories are shared, sometimes for millions of views. I watched this one tonight and noticed the near constant tense changes, something I never would've picked up on before reading this blog: American Airlines Attendant Made Me Cry

And here's a devastating one that rings true:
Lets Talk | Getting Kidnapped & Sold

I'd love to hear others' thoughts on these.

John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

Police search for missing mum Karen Ristevski


“I’m sure it is extremely tough for them, coming up to Christmas,” he said.

“Karen has been missing for coming up to six months.

“I’m sure it will be tough for friends of the family.

“There has been ongoing (police) contact with the family throughout the investigation.

“We are looking at all options at this stage. We are not ruling anything in or out.

“The investigation is ongoing. There has been ongoing discussions with various members of the family.

Various members of the family have been cooperative.

“We are speaking to all the property owners here.

“I would encourage any property owner who has seen anything unusual to contact police.

“We’ll be here as long as it takes to search the area. It is going to be dependant on the terrain. It is quite an extensive area.”

Wreyeter72 said...

John, I find the Australian method of reporting very odd. Stringing one quote after another with no attribution reads so strangely. At any rate - very interesting OT. Thanks for sharing.

elf said...

Kate McCann: The bedroom door where the three children were sleeping was open much further than we’d left it. I went to close it to about here, and then as I got to about here it suddenly ...slammed. And then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children. And literally as I went back in the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn, were closed was like a gust of wind kind of blew them open.

elf said...

(I accidentally hit the publish button before i was done)
Above is Kate checking on the kids at 10. Why does she go to pull the door shut a little BEFORE checking the kids? She's supposed to be at their room checking the kids but it sounds like she just checked the door first.

Turner said...

In regards to your analysis about the McCann's statements in defense of themselves, is it a reflection of their narcissism or due to their own guilty knowledge of her death?
I try to imagine my own statements if I were in their position and even if her death was an accident brought on by my choice to give her something to sleep, left her alone while dining, etc, I can't imagine defending anything I did.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Turner, to answer your question: guilt.

see new article for explanation. It is a good question.


Anje said...

Her diary, I'm not sure about the analysis because what caught my attention is the last line that says "Gerry gave a great performance" and the analyst didn't write of it at all. I think "performance" is a pretty big indicator. Though I'm no statement analyzer.

Anje said...

Sorry. I forgot the link.

Unknown said...

Peter, I have been watching your video's about statement analysis, you do a great job.

I have two questions for you.

Have you seen any evidence in the language of the Madeline case supporting more than one person being involved in sexual abuse (Since you are going down the lines recently of sexual abuse) :- I did not question the Maddie case as I didn't look at it, until my partner and I spoke about it and she told me she thought they were involved. I was interested and watched their first interview. I have always been intuitive and thought that watching the first interview should tell me if they were to blame or not. I can't say why exactly, however I got the feeling right away that not only were they guilty, that it was sexual abuse and part of a ring of them.

I have always been very attentive to what I now know is called "Narrative" and that is the feeling I got. I was also left with an amazement of how they show no guilt, when if it was an honest accident (drugs or not) that they would certainly show a lot of guilt, and grieving. More so perhaps as they wouldn't be able to reconcile with themselves intellectually saying "Well there wasn't anything we could have done"

I don't know why I thought it was sexual, I know you have reasons you can say, such as the hygiene and oral treats and such. I also feel it was part of a group and would be interested to know if you have seen anything thus far suggesting this.

After watching Richards documentaries, I feel the intuitive feeling I got might be correct, especially since the McCanns seem to be getting supported heavily by powerful people and the Media similar to other notable figures who were involved in similar activities.

I also can't understand how if Richard is correct, and the dogs are correct, how any person with humanity could carry their daughter after three weeks of being dead, sitting in a car as a couple and I would imagine gagging on the smell all while knowing that was once your little girl. I find it almost impossible to believe that through all that, if it was an over-medicated accident even from neglectful parents that they could hold it together, and in Gerry's case still arrogantly smile and laugh whenever someone hints on him being smarter than the media, or manipulative and clever. His narcissism shines through more than the fact he "Maybe" sat and carried his dead daughter after 3 weeks... The thought is disgusting.

Second question, I would be interested in having a career in statement work as I feel I have done parts of it (not formally or to a professionals ability) since I was young. Would you be able to recommend the best way to do this in the UK? I had not even heard the name until I saw your videos, so I don't know where to start without being a Police Officer.

Unknown said...

Just to clarify my last comment, after reading it back, I don't want it to sound like I was saying a "Child Sex Ring" however that I meant she was Dead, I thought she might have been murdered in cold blood at first due to their overwhelming attitude and alien attitudes. However I later thought that she could have died by accident during a sexual act and this might have the same effect. I think the holiday was planned in the way that it was planned, to allow for more than Gerry to sexually abuse Madeline. I can't assert proof of that claim. Other than circumstances.

Such as I believe in Richards documentary he showed that it was Gerry's friend who purposefully declined baby sitting. Seems odd to me.

As Richard said to you, I also came across the allegation that Gerry and his friend were chatting about Madeline in a sexual manner and figured that fitted.

So just to clarify.

I think she is dead as you have pointed out overwhelmingly with the language.
I think she was sexually abused by Gerry, and Friends.
I think someone "High" up is protecting Gerry and Kate (As evidenced by the media cover up and propaganda, political movements to stop the investigation, the incident with the lead detective in Portugal etc
I also feel that Gerry and Kate's friends were covering for them, which I can't think of a circumstance where you are on holiday with friends and family, and you decide to go along with covering up a potential homicide. "Yea, umh, Madeline might have died, umh, instead of reporting it, would you mind risking your entire family life and carrer to knowingly cover up her death with us? We are not crazy, and umm we will owe you one"

Tying all of this together it seems very likely to be a conspiracy to me. I can't tell if its ritualistic, or an accidental death during a gang of paedophiles all brought kids on holiday. Why are they being protected? Why is Gerry and Kate so important other than some unknown secret that makes them part of a powerful circle or at least close enough to know something important.

Recently the Media just brought out former M15 spies who claimed to work to help locate Maddie, with fake interviews of other M15 saying the other one tricked the McCanns into trusting him, then stole from the Maddie fund etc. All propaganda to get us looking at who TOOK her and not who KILLED her. They leave it open for interpretation at the end too, so the audience can look at the man made look guilty and say, I THINK he took the money. A powerful assertion they think they made themselves thus it sticks with them, what goes along with that is that you must believe the McCans were tricked into trusting someone to look for their daughter, thus she MUST be missing or they wouldn't be tricked. Why is the Media covering so much?

Peter, I truly hope you can dissect this to the end. I think you will find it is HUGE and you seem to be the only one who is able to really turn the battle on this to expose the truth. Its a war of propaganda, people don't see or believe the evidence, just what they want to believe. You shatter the propaganda with a 50 foot battering ram.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


check out some of the other posts here. There is a statement that is very concerning regarding Madeleine.


Anonymous said...

Has anyone here read Gerry's blog? It's like his online diary of events after the alleged abduction. Being a SA hobbyist, something jumped out at me immediately. Whenever Gerry mentions Maddie being missing in the context of himself and his thoughts, he always calls it "her disappearance". Whenever he mentions her being missing in the context of media or police, he calls it "her abduction". A change of language is cause for concern and disappearance is passive language when talking about himself, whereas abduction is stronger to use when talking about media and police. If she were abducted, then she was abducted, she did not disappear. Gerry is telling us that she was only abducted in the eyes of the media and police, but to him, she has disappeared. How has she disappeared, I think he and Kate know and that is the reason for the change in language.