Sunday, April 30, 2017

Maria Szonert Binienda, Poland: Denial of Posting Photo

Poland Suspends Official Over Social Media Post Portraying EU President Tusk as Nazi Officer

The image as her political rival dressed in the uniform of SS was posted on the Facebook page of Maria Szonert Binienda.  The news agency PAP reported Sunday that she has been suspended from that position and that further decisions will be decided after Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski returns from a visit to Australia.

Szonert Binienda told The Associated Press in an email that she never posted the altered image of Tusk and believes her account was hacked because she can’t access it anymore.

“I did not make a photo of Donald Tusk as SS-man. I am against promoting SS symbols and ideologies. I am against using the words like ‘fascism’ in the public political discourse today. I am against comparing our politicians to Hitler,” she wrote to the AP.

Two elements to observe:

1.  She was not accused of making the photo and avoids denying posting it.  If this is translated properly, it is an unreliable denial and it is a diversion.  

2.  Moral Justification indicates greater weakness.  

When one needs to explain why they did not do something, we are in very sensitive territory.  

Perhaps better to tell the truth as it is very common for politicians to call each other Hitler.  

The Main Stream Media did this in the United States throughout the election campaign and then did it again at the inauguration. 

Saturday, April 29, 2017

Missing 5 Year Old Boy's Father Statement

The father released this statement through his attorney:

I am desperate to find my son, Aramazd Jr., and need the public’s help. I hope and pray for the safe return of my only child, my namesake, who has been missing since last Saturday morning, April 22nd,”

It is interesting to note that the language of concern ("desperate") regards the father, himself.  

It is also interesting that the boy is his "only child" and "his namesake", with emphasis upon the father, himself. 

These references point to the father, not the son.  

If the attorney wrote this statement, it would show the attorney's concern is about the father, not the son.  

In the statement, Andressian Sr. said he last saw his son on Saturday morning at Arroyo Park near his South Pasadena home.

“There has been a great deal of speculation regarding the timeline around his disappearance. The last time I saw my son was on Saturday morning, the 22nd, at Arroyo Park near my home in South Pasadena. After breakfast Aramazd Jr. wanted to go to the park before we were to meet his mother for a custody exchange at 9:00 a.m.

Note the use of the name "Aramazd Jr." and not "he" after already introducing him as "my son."  

Andressian Sr. was later found passed out at the park; the child was reported missing by his mother after the two failed up to show up at an arranged meeting point that morning, authorities said.

The passive voice employed here is of concern.  It does not begin with the pronoun "I":   

Missing 5-year-old Aramazd Andressian Jr. is seen in family photos released April 24, 2017, by L.A. County sheriff’s officials.
“In one moment, I was at the park with my son, and then I found myself waking up in Huntington Memorial Hospital hours later. I was told that a good Samaritan found me unconscious on the ground near my car, with young Aramazd nowhere in sight. I can only speculate that I must have been attacked in the park, given my unresponsive state and subsequent physical condition.”

Note no concern for the child, but lots of details about the father.  

Even with an attorney prepared statement, the focus is not on the missing child.  

For training in Statement Analysis, please visit 

Friday, April 28, 2017

The Danger of Fabrication of Reality

Few people understand how dangerous one who fabricates reality is.  In deception detection, we learn that less than 10% of those who are deceptive, will fabricate reality. 

In live team analysis recently, we covered a statement where rent money went missing. 

The subject was 100% truthful, line by line. 

The statement tested to be "Unreliable" on its Form. 

There was not a single lie in it. 

The team rightfully concluded that the subject (author) had stolen the rent money via their analysis. 

This highlights a very important principle within both lie detection and in life, itself:  90% plus of lies are via missing information rather than the fabrication of reality. 

When we have one willing to literally fabricate reality, we have an unique individual who poses a threat of unknown proportion.  

Lying causes internal stress and the brain becomes quite adept at avoiding this stress.  The stress is not simply due to feelings of guilt, as even sociopaths, who hold no empathy for their fellow man, feel internal stress of a direct lie.  Why?  Because it leave them vulnerable to being caught and accused. 

By what?

By their own words. 

Their own words. 

This is critical in understanding human nature.  We are known by our words via communication, and to be seen a "liar" is not to be seen "lying" but literally to be classified, in total, as a liar.  This is not something the liar likes. 

Out right lies are rare and with the rent money, the analysts, both new and experienced, focused in upon sensitivity indicators and made the only reaonsable conclusion the words would allow:  "Deception Indicated."

In fact, he had stolen the rent money from his two roommates and went out and purchased drugs and some new clothes with it, leaving the living status of the roommates in jeopardy. 

Police asked him to write out a statement and it was very short, so the victims were told, "well, we just don't know..." and no justice was realized. 

This deceptive young man gave indication of not only deception, but the language of addiction.  The analysts spotted this readily.  


When one will lie outright, he is now in the 10% category.  "I didn't do it" when he did, is one thing, but to say

"I took the money and gave it to the landlord", for example, when the subject did not even meet the landlord, puts himself into a new category and it makes him a danger to all around him. 

Those who lie by omission and are successful pose a risk specifically due to their success.  Like a thief at work, $100 success will emboldened for $1,000 theft.  

Yet, when one lies by omission, and continue in this lie, they will experience something similar to the most dangerous fabricator of reality:


Why is the rarer outright fabricator more dangerous?

For whatever reason, likely rooted in childhood, and fueled by success in deceiving people, the fabricator of reality has overcome the internal stress of lying.  

It is here that we learn:  

There is no bottom.  

They are in this sense dangerous because they are not restrained as others. 

You may predict their next downward step, but you cannot predict the bottom.  Their potential for societal harm is only limited by their opportunities.  

Even immoral people have some restraint, such as fearing being caught, and they still have the restraint of internal stress to hinder just how far they will go with deception. 

When Richard Blumenthal said he was boots on the ground in Viet Nam, he fabricated reality; he never left the United States.   Confronted by his own words, his response indicates who he is. His "core" identity was under attack.  His response is consistent with the lack of conscience.  

  With this by-passing of internal stress, we cannot know how low he will go, and we should not expect any basic honesty.  This means that when prosecuting people for crimes, he would be at high risk to prosecute an innocent if it benefited his career. 

Businesses that do not screen for deception pay a severe cost.  

There are ways to spot this type of deceiver, but there is no way to strongly predict how low they will go; we can only predict the next step downward, and perhaps, the next step, but in terms of the bottom: it does not exist. 

Wall of Truth

Truth is powerful and it is an invisible wall of protection.  

What makes fabricators of reality so dangerous is that they do not have the same restraints as others in society. They will go increasingly further into depravity; they will graduate from lie to lie, crime to crime, inflicting costs upon any and everyone around them.  

If you get in their way, they will go on the offensive. 

Without the wall of truth, the 10% fabricator of reality has a need to silence opposition.  It is far more than just being unable to answer truth, they cannot abide it.  

Need to silence

The lack of any reasonable "bottom" is frightening enough, but when it is combined with exploitation of others, we find they possess a need to silence discussion.  

Without a bottom, we now have the need to silence that is often accompanied by a pseudo-morality, which further fuels the liar into the realm of violence.   We see this in the "anti fascist" socialist movement that uses fascism to silence.  Socialism, itself, must use coercion to accomplish its social goals.  When the "virtue signaling" begins, we have a combination of:

a.    Deception that needs to silence communication 
b.  Intrusion of hormonal increase (emotion) 
c.  violence

The "science" march was a political march, not a science march, and its theme was singular and the opposite of science:  silence opposition. 

Anything that needs to silence scrutiny is scientifically indefensible, hence the need for coercive silence.  Combine this with hormonal increase (virtue signaling) and the power is increased. 

Add in male testosterone age 18 to 30 and the result can be violence that increases in both intensity and scope.  

Someone wants to do you bodily harm because you disagree with him.  

When one claims, for example, that a man is a woman, the absurdity, itself, can only be defended by coercion.  Therefore, if you go to the delivery room and your doctor says,

"It's a boy!"

the only contrary argument would be to attack the doctor as a "bigot", "racist", "phobic, nazi" and so on, as is the popular result of identity politics today.  Classify someone to avoid using logic. 

Add in virtue signaling and testosterone and this can lead to violence.  In untreated mental health issues, it is even worse.    

Yet, those who have long recognized that one who sees something that is not is in need of mental health intervention, suddenly, in just a few short years, now defend their position by attacking discussion. Here you see even the defenders acknowledge the mental health issue justifying why one must watch his words around the sufferer of sexual dysmorphia:

The defenders are the actual insulters. 

To claim a man is a woman is a fabrication of reality.  Where once professionals treated such as depression, and later dysmorphia, politicians have made it a "civil right" and has led to the same results of all identity politics:  division.  

The lie brings loss and destruction.  

Today, would any mental health professional dare attempt to treat the dysmorphia?

Yet, the 40% suicide rate remains. 

Taking the same logic, what of the dangerously underweight teen who "identifies" as overweight? 

Is is "respectful" to indulge her lie or should she receive help?

We are not better people or "morally superior" for maintaining a lie.  Only politicians tells us that we are.  

Politicians join in to exploit with the new claim:  "hate speech is not free speech."

Question:  Why is it so important that you change your belief and say that a man is a woman?

Answer:  Because it is not true.  It must be coerced, one way or another, because there is no wall of truth.  

This is why liars like the McCanns must keep up the pressure and have dedicated  their entire lives to this "fight."  It is not a fight for Madeleine, as many note; they rarely dedicated words to her.  It is about them.  

People dedicate websites, not to disprove the McCann analysis but to impugn the analyst.  Recently, it was "he is making money off a dead child."

What does that mean?

If a journalist covers a story and gets a promotion for a job well done, and the story is a dead child, is he making money off of a dead child?

Besides...isn't Madeleine "kidnapped"? 

Free speech was part of our fabric as hate speech against tyranny.  It is, in its historical sense, hate speech.  

Lies must be defended by violence because it is not truth, and, the restraint of lying as taboo is not only removed, but lying now becomes "morally" correct.  This is to increase fuel towards violence. 

Danger:  Deception + Emotion + Faux Morality + Testosterone 

Young males see the videos of black hooded attackers and they see this as exciting.  It appeals to violence but it is violence that is now "justified" by false morality.  If a male wanted to be violent but was reluctant due to his upbringing, the false morality allows him to overcome the resistance. 

Once he is in the crowd, mob psychology takes over and we see the cowardly professor hitting someone in the head, then hiding.  

We can laugh when Al Gore said air conditioners led to the creation of the Islamic State (they certainly laugh) but he is a politician and politicians are adept at separating you from your money for their causes.  

Yet, even a few years ago, few Americans would have ever called for the end of free speech, defining "hate speech" as anything I disagree with.  
It is  dangerous because it has no restraint. It is outright fabrication and with this restraint removed, it is now combined with emotion (moral narcissism or virtue signaling).   Remove restraint and you get violence.  This is why the fascist protesters wear masks.  

Human desensitization.  Fuel with false morality and the end can be dehumanization for the purpose of bloodshed.  This was the argument in the French Revolution, The Marxist Revolution, Nazi Germany, and so on, and the bloodshed was severe. 

Those who maintain a lie will be desensitized similar to the outright liar.  Eventually, the maintained lie will lead to offensive strategy, seeking to harm others. 

Example:  McCann threats as the lie is perpetuated for 10 years.  

Why the need to silence via lawsuit?  Will any of these suits bring their child back? 

Context is Key 

The context is a "missing" child.  If saying, "I don't believe their story" resulted in being terminated at their job because they have been portrayed as child killers, perhaps, professionally they would need protection. 

The context is that they have been building a movement on a lie, and cannot let it go.  

No loss of income like a tv personality falsely accused.  

Those who say they do not believe the parents will not impact the issue:  Madeleine. 

The need to silence is the  indicator of weakness.  

Lance Armstrong sued people of out of business, and destroyed lives and reputations.  Why?

Because they told the truth.  

The list of victims is unknown.  Even in his sport, what of those who rode clean and were cheated out of lawful competition? What of those who lost endorsements in their country because they could not keep up with him?

Liars take their toll on society and the more lying becomes acceptable, especially when disguised as morality, the greater the overall impact.  This is the essence of "third world banana republics" in the insulting language:  they are corrupt.  

Language is the currency. 

Deception is counterfeit currency.  

An acceptance of lies leads to destruction.  In Ferguson, the police officer told the truth about what happened, and eventually, witnesses came forth to say, "there was no 'hands up; don't shoot', yet an entire racist movement is underway, well financed and even received in the White House, based upon a lie.  Police officers have died, particularly in 2016, because of this false narrative that came from the top, beginning in earnest in 2008.  

The spouses and children will never be the same.  

Anti-cheating and sportsmanship lessons were once given to children to help establish an inner point of resistance to the corruption of lying and cheating.  

When you have someone who has overcome the internal stress of lying working for you, he will not "steal" from you; but he may "reimburse" himself, or even use the language of Marxism:

He will "redistribute the wealth."

There is no bottom.  

This form of theft is at the heart of the socialistic ideology:  successful people owe those who are not successful and if they disagree, we will coerce them.  This is what we are seeing today in America, and it is based upon a lie.  

The successful did not get their by hard work and sacrifice, they had to steal. 

The unsuccessful did not get that way by government disincentive. It was a vast conspiracy to hold them down.  

These absurdities are lies in which politicians exploit and use to create violence.  This is why politicians want to control the internet. 

Truth stands upon its own strength.  The "need to persuade" from a liar is incessant.  

If you do not believe him, it will continue to pester. 

If you still do not believe him, the very weakness of a lie will force the only method of acceptance possible:


In any circumstance, none of us knows how low a liar will go. 

Even those who may have once been honest, who will not yield from their lies, will only become more and more desensitized due to their lies.  

Some comment with, "they actually believe their own lies."

No, they do not. If they did, it would not show up as deception in language and in their behavior:  

If they did, they would have no need to attempt to coerce through pressure, through law suits, or through violence.  

The McCanns show a willingness to destroy others careers and lives through threatened suits. 

Yet, would winning a suit bring back Madeleine?

If she was their cause, they would not care who did or did not believe them.  

They spent their energy attacking others and their focus upon their own selves. 


Because Madeleine was never "missing."  

They have lied by omission but the same pattern of desensitization is active.  

This is evident from their own words, and has been consistently remained the same, for a decade.  

Expect the increase in offensive attacks to continue.  It is their life.  Searching for Madeleine was not in their language, nor in their labors.  

For them, maintaining a lie has become an industry.  

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Gerry McCann: Did You Kill Your Daughter

"Yes or no" Questions are generally avoided by skillful interviewers until they have first asked open-ended questions and carefully worded follow up questions, utilizing the subject's own language.  

For innocent parents, even under public pressure, the strength of truth is something instinctively protective.  

"One could never prove I killed my daughter because I didn't.  But, I love my daughter and right now, I do not know if she is being fed, and I must now..."

The language of concern for Madeleine's present state and the kidnapping itself, should dominate the language. 

In basic analysis, we will even count words. 

How many words are dedicated to:

a.  Madeleine's current health and well being in hands of a kidnapper?
b.  Touching the heart of the kidnapper to release her?


c.  How many words are dedicated to proving that which needs no proving?

This is the "Wall of Truth" that produces confidence, and sometimes, under constant accusation, dismissal.  

Dismissal in light of something quite particular:  

The innocent (de facto) father cares for little but what Maddie is going through and how to facilitate her release.  You can accuse him all day long but his words are going to either ignore or dismiss the false claim because his priority is not defense but getting his daughter back.  

Analysis of the McCann interview can be found in three parts.  Here is Part One.  We allow a subject's words to guide us. 

We presuppose truth and innocence.  We only conclude guilt and deception if the subject talks us into it.  

What millions have felt instinctively, we show using principles that are timeless.  

In this, the language reveals that Madeleine died an unintentional death and the parents engaged in a criminal cover up for the purpose of self preservation. 

The theme of "self" has been consistent in the decade since their daughter's death. 

In part three, you will see the scenario that the parents set up for us and how effectively they concealed their daughter's remains.  

It is within the language that we see that Madeleine was very likely sedated, regularly, but on the night in question, something went wrong.  The dosage was not correct.  She may have ceased breathing, or she may have awakened and fallen and was either deceased or beyond savings.  

The McCanns would have faced Negligence charges as well as professional consequences.  

They chose to deceive and protect themselves.  

Behavioral Analysis post crime shows the pattern of deceivers:  attacking the doubters, emotional manipulation and self promotion; all unnecessary in the "Wall of Truth" we find in the statements of the de facto innocent.  (all are judicially "innocent" under presumption).  

IR:  Did you Kill Your Daughter? 

Gerry McCann -"
Q: Did you kill your daughter?

GM: - No…no…never…and you know,  there’s nothing with any logic that could, you know, you’d have to start with why, you know, how, when, who and tha…that’s just simply you know that’s what any these things is there’s nothing to suggest anything so no – that’s an emphatic no.

This is a short portion from a video.  The transcripts were posted and the accuracy of the analysis is based upon the accuracy of the transcripts.  

update:  there is some editing out, making it difficult to get an accurate transcript.  

The question was direct:  "Did you kill your daughter?"

Statement Analysis of the interviews that the McCanns have given is consistent:

The child was not kidnapped nor missing.  

The parents' language made the case simple to follow.  Behavioral Analysis was consistent with the language.  

Parents of kidnapped children move quickly due to instinct.  This happens with or without police intervention.  

1.  They call out for their child.  This is a natural instinct.  They cannot cease thinking about the current status of their child and this will come into their language.  

2.  They will show concern for the immediate needs of the child.  In their language there will be questions about her favorite toy, food, care, medicine, etc.  

3.  They will plead with the kidnapper.  They will do exactly what a parent does when someone babysits:  ensure proper care.  

4.  They will accept nothing less than the return.  

The language will be dominant.  

5.  They will incessantly remember some small detail and facilitate the flow of information.  They will be impatient with police, searchers, etc.  

6.  They will not allow for any possibility of anything other than the truth.  This is called the "wall of truth" and is very powerful.  

They will not entertain possibilities of guilt for themselves.  See Kate McCann's embedded confession.  

In the case of Madeleine McCann, we followed the parents' words.  

People who support the idea of kidnapping will say the words the McCanns refused to say.  

Interviewer:  Did you Kill Your Daughter? 


a.  "No."  

This may exist by itself.  This would shift the burden of conversational politeness to the Interviewer because the question should be a complete disconnect from reality.  This is because the subject will be so far removed from the possibility that he or she will allow the silence to push the interviewer to find another question or rebuttal.  There is an "indifference" to accusations because it is not true.  

Yet, even further here, we have seen cases where one can say "no" because the subject did not directly cause the death.  

In one case, a man said, "I did not kill her" because he had injected his girlfriend with an unintentionally lethal dosage of heroin.  The drug killed her, not him.  

Yes or No questions are not powerful questions.  Yet, in this case, the IR felt the need to ask and we are able to analyze the answer.  

In "yes or no" questions, investigators often count every word after the word "no" as unnecessary.  

b.  "No.  She was kidnapped and we must..." moving directly into action of not giving up, finding the kidnapper, pleading for good care for Madeleine, and so on. 


a.  Avoidance
b.  Sensitivity to the question 
c.  Need to persuade 
Gerry McCann  -"
Q: Did you kill your daughter?

GM: - No…no…never…and you know,  there’s nothing with any logic that could , you know, you’d have to start with why, you know, how, when, who and tha…that’s just simply you know that’s what any these things is there’s nothing to suggest anything so no – that’s an emphatic no."

Let's look at his answer:

Q: Did you kill your daughter?

GM: - No…no…never…and you know,  there’s nothing with any logic that could, (?) you know, you’d have to start with why, you know, how, when, who and tha…that’s just simply you know that’s what any these things is there’s nothing to suggest anything so no – that’s an emphatic no.

We begin with "no" and count every word added to it, weakening the response.  

"no" is repeated;

"never" is unreliable as this was a single specific event.  

Never is used to span indefinite or lengthy time.  

This is the biological father regarding a single event that took place at a specific location, date and time.  "Never" seeks vagueness. 

Not only is it technically "unreliable", it is most unexpected here.  

a.  "And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know."

First notice the avoidance of the simple word "no" making the question sensitive to him. 

Even after years of a public accusing him of killing her daughter the expectation remains that parental instinct will deny death and hold to still recovering her.  

b. "you know" is a pause, showing our second indicator of sensitivity to the question.  This actually speaks to the need to consider what to say rather than the word "no" alone, which would then put the interview burden upon the interviewer to deal with the denial.  

The blunt "no" is used by several:

1.  The actual innocent use it.  This is especially important in the context of biological child. 

2.  Those who do not wish to facilitate the flow of information will use it when they are deliberately practicing short answers.  See 911 call of former police chief Will McCollum for an example of "pulling teeth" to get information.  

c.  "you know" is not only avoidance of "yes or no", and a pause for time to think, it is also a habit of speech that arises when a subject has acute awareness of either the interviewer and/or the interviewer/audience (TV).  

What do we do with a habit of speech?

We note what words provoke it and what words do not.

Here, the simple "yes or no" question has produced sensitivity indicators which means that the question of killing her is sensitive.  

He could have said, "no", even if they had blamed the sedation or accident on the death, yet it may be that the subject is considering himself as ultimately responsible, as a father.  

I have some concerns from their language about other activities that I did not address in the interview due to the technical nature of the principles (it would have been beyond explaining to a general audience) but even in such cases of possible sexual abuse, we find complexity.  This complexity can show itself as incongruent language;  one is a caring responsible parent at times, while a negligent, abusive parent another time.  

Here, we may consider that the subject might be considering his own culpability in her death, even if unintended as the language indicates.  

The sensitivity continues to this question:  

"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 

"you know"  is repeated.  This question is to be considered "very sensitive" to him. 

Now:  "And you know, there's nothing with any logic that kids could, you know... 

"there's nothing" goes immediately to proving his innocence, rather than denying any responsibility for Madeleine's death. 

This is a signal of self preservation and explains the need to pause and the increases in sensitivity: 

he must protect himself rather than deny. 

"There's nothing" (what does "nothing" look like?) is now qualified:

"with any logic"

Rather than deny killing his daughter, he now employs as a distraction, motive. 

An innocent has no need to explore motive, true enough, but so much more when we consider context:

He is using energy to defend himself by refusing to deny, but by claiming it is not logical.  Yet, the broken sentence indicates self censoring.  

Instead of saying "no" and allowing the wall of truth to leave it there, he avoids a denial and introduces the word "logic" where he should have complete linguistic disinterest.  

Even if he had been arrested, this would be something his attorney would argue while he, the innocent, would be focused upon negotiations and pleadings with the kidnapper to:

a.  return Maddie

b.  feed her
c.  give her her favorite ______-
d.  share information with the kidnapper to comfort Maddie
e. express the utter impotence that inflames parental instinct

Maddie was three.  

This means he had, from the beginning, rocked her to sleep, held her to comfort her, relieved her distress in changing diaper, making her warm, etc, and had kissed and bandaged her falls and cuts. 

Suddenly, in a kidnapping, this is all stolen from him.  It causes traumatic frustration in un fulfilled  parental instinct.  It can cause mental health issues. 

Consider the ancient wisdom about the mother bear robbed of her whelps.  

Parental instinct is powerful and creative.  

It is also missing from the language of the parents.  

Question:  How could this be?

Answer:   Acceptance of Madeleine's death.  

It is in death's acceptance that the instinctive frustration is extinguished --and even this takes time. 

The language of parents who have lost children to death reveals this frustration.  They feel guilty for not being able to intervene any longer in their child and it takes time to process and resolve into acceptance.  

Even mothers who have found their children dead will often "rub" them trying to warm their bodies, and cover them with a blanket to "protect, shield and dignify" the child.  It is heartbreaking.  

Falsely accused of missing children care little or nothing for accusers, articles, personal insults; they just want their child back.  "just" being the operative word:  the other issues pale in comparison. 

Here we see the priority of the subject come through in his answer:

Rather than denial, he indicates that he has explored various explanations in logic.  

It is like saying "it does not make sense."

Consider this statement in line with his wife's statement about normal and routine where things "did not" go wrong.  This was likely a reference to sedation.  

If you've ever had a fussy sick child, you were glad to have medicine that alleviated the symptoms and helped the child fall asleep. It is in everyone's best interest. 

Now consider an anesthesiologist as a professional and listen to the interview. 

"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 

It is not just "logic" but further exploration of "any" logic.  This is to broaden a personal defense rather than deny according to the question. 

"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 

Any logic that "could", in regard to the question of killing his daughter.  This speaks to the application of "any logic" in the future/conditional tense.  

He is addressing defense proofs in a scenario that does not exist.  he is not in court and...

his child is still "missing" and in someone else's hands, allegedly, according to the narrative.  

In what could have been a very boring question, we find a pattern emerge:

The need to persuade rather than truthfully report.  

This is the theme of his answer. 

He begins with a diversion to become argumentative in  a position where no argument is needed. 

He does not move towards Madeleine linguistically (as expected) but is in "self" mode, specifically in motive or evidence.  

Rather than deny, the sensitivity continues. 

This is an abundance of words that are employed rather than the single word "no."

You would have to start with why? 

He wants to know what "you" (interviewer/audience) thinks of motive.  

Q.  Why would he want this?

A.  so he can attempt to rebut it. 

This affirms consistency of unintended death by negligence.  The focus is upon self, not the denial and not the child.  

After "why" (motive) he now continues: 


This is the methodology that he addresses rather than saying "no."


This is the time frame of Maddie's death that is concerning to him.  


This is to answer the question "Did you...?" with a question, "Who?"

What does this mean?

Beyond the obvious "answering a question with a question" that parents of teenagers know all about, he is signaling that "did you?", singular, is insufficient. 

This is an indicator that both parents were in agreement with the sedation, neglect and cover up, and have been since.  

And there's just 
simply, you know, no answer to any of these things 

Here he presents the questions and tells us in passive voice that there are "just simply, you know, no answer", which is singular. 

There are answers. 

"just simply" is to make a simple conclusion from one who has, still, refused to answer the question.  

"just" is a dependent word indicating he is comparing "simple" to "complex" (or something that is not simple). 

This comes from not a single question, but a series of questions:

1.  Why?

2. How?

3.  When?

4.  Who?

The order is important.  

None of the questions has to do with kidnapping.  All are presupposing that Madeline is deceased.  

It is interesting to note that "who" comes after "how" and "when."  This makes "who" at the bottom.  "Why?" is first.  

– there's nothing 
to suggest anything. 

Here the question is about killing his daughter, not about how she was killed. 

It is not about when she was killed.

It was not about who killed her. 

It is about "you"; with "Did you kill your daughter?"

He introduces, in his answer, other questions which not only avoid the denial, but also avoid any assertion that Madeleine was "taken" from them by a kidnapper.  

This is not part of his verbalized perception of reality, nor has it been. 

From the beginning, they used language that indicated acceptance of her death. 

As parents, they showed no linguistic concern for her well being under a kidnapper, when asked.  

This is not because they are uncaring but it is because they knew she was not with a kidnapper and she was beyond the workings of parental protective and provisional instincts.  

He now gets to the answer:

So no – 

The "no" is conditional.  He answers, "Did you kill your daughter" by a conditional response:

Since he has no answers as to "how" and "when" he therefore ("so") issues "no" but immediately weakens it with unnecessary emphasis:  

that's an emphatic 'no'."

He even employs the word "emphatic" as a need to persuade.  

Analysis Conclusion:

The question "Did you kill your daughter" is given enough sensitivity indicators to conclude:

Deception Indicated

This indicates parental responsibility.  He is not one who has utterly divorced himself from it.  This should be understood in light of being a father:

His daughter was supposed to be in the hands of a stranger, yet as a father, he gave no linguistic concern for her well being, nor attempts to retrieve her. 

By the time he gets to a denial, he has already given us an abundance of information, particularly, that Madeleine was never "missing" and "alive" via the presentation of questions. 

The questions are designed to divert, but the specific questions chosen reveal his own thinking.  

Even when deceptive people speak, we must listen as their words reveal content.  

Here, his words reveal careful consideration to potential criminal litigation against him rather than assertion of both innocence and the kidnapping of the child.  

This is consistent with the McCanns' statements throughout the years, as well as their media campaign and attacks upon those who refuse to believe them.