– Sunday Night 11.08.2011
Question for Analysis:
Do the McCanns have
guilty knowledge of what happened to Madeleine?
We have not covered the
McCann case in detail because I had hoped the original police
interview transcripts would be released which would likely give us
the information we seek, through the lens of Statement Analysis: the
truth.
In other interviews, the
McCanns have not been asked strong questions. Most interviewers use
the opportunity for self promotion, employing lengthy statements
before the question, which draws the reader's attention to the
Interviewer, and not to the information. Below is an interview
conducted when the McCanns published their book.
(...)
Gerald MC : She was incredibly beautiful baby actually.Kate MC : 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 head...and......you 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. 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.
(...)
GMC : 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.
(...)
KMC interrupts: 49 point 4 on Google if you want to be really specific
KMC shows the use of the
internet, with the word "Google" early in the interview.
The reader should be considering if the internet is a sensitive topic
to KM.
GMC : But the proximity was very close.
The word, "but"
often refutes that which came before 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.
(...)
GMC : 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
KMC : 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 chance...to 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)
KMC : Well as soon as ermm I’d discovered that Madeleine had been taken it..it 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.
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.
Madeleine's quote does
not appear credible, and due to the 'fear' or 'fight/flight' shock of
a missing child, that a mother (maternal instincts inflamed) would be
able to think through these things, conclude abduction and tie it to
the night before leads me to conclude:
It does not appear
credible.
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.
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.KMC : 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 KMC 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?
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.
Similar to a school
teacher noticing a child repeatedly washing his hands, (water) and
being concerned about possible sexual abuse, "water"
entering statements, particularly unnecessarily, indicate a need for
exploration into the topic of sexual abuse. Remember: our words are
verbalized reality and are chosen from the brain, which knows what
has happened. This is called "leakage" (see analysis of
Mark Redwine by Kaaryn Gough for more on "leakage" of the
brain.)
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 GMC:
GMC : 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 I saw her.
This is an important
statement. It shows two things, in particular:
1. GMC 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 GMC comparing his
checking with? Whenever I hear the word "actually", I
follow up with more questions to learn what the person was comparing.
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.
GMC did not affirm the
time he checked on Madeleine.
GMC 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.
Interviewer: Last time you saw herGMC closes eyes and swallows: MmmmInterviewer: 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.
GMC : Exactly. Your world’s shattered within an hour.
Please note that GMC,
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.
voice over: At 10pm it was Kate’s turn to look in on the kids,
Reminder: We are not
viewing reality; we are viewing verbalized reality. (Sapir)
We are not analyzing Kate
McCann; we are analyzing the words KMC chose to employ.
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)
Everything pales beyond a child missing and is a lesser, or 'trivial'
detail. What does she say?
KMC : 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 ...whoooosh...it was like a gust of wind kind of blew them open.
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.
KMC : 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"
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.
Il est curieux d'observer que lorsqu'elle ne peut pas commencer sa narration par le commencement, parce que la question porte sur un certain point de la narration, elle revient en arrière, ce qui, pour les besoins de la réponse, ne s'impose absolument pas.
Her answer, by its Form,
is deceptive.
She never said Madeline
was missing.
GMC : I 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 I jumped up but, kind of disbelief. She can’t be gone. She can’t...she can’t possibly be...how 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.
KMC : 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.
KMC did not describe
Madeline missing. She did not say that she wanted everyone
searching.
She did not say she, the
mother, wanted Madeline found.
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.
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?"
GMC : (on apprendra en 2017 que le début de la réponse a été coupé). 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 [inaudible but sounds like he was about to say ‘search’] 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.
"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.
This now weakens his
denial, as he repeats it (any repetition is sensitive) and calls for
emphasis (another weakness)
I 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?
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.
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 not 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.
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.
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.
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.
Those who lie do not like
to be challenged as to veracity and often turn the challenge on
others, like Lance Armstrong, who sued anyone who
dared question his veracity, because he could afford to tie up
lawyers in court. He added ridicule to his comments.
It is not surprising that
McCann would blame police or others.
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. They would lose custody of their other
children, lose their license to practice medicine and go to prison.
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."
KMC : It gets even more ludicrous that we’ve obviously hidden her somewhere incredibly well where nobody’s found her ..
Note that GMC 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."
This is not something we
expect to hear from innocent parents. It is too painful.
Both GMC and KMC 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.
KMC : 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.
Interviewer : When you come back to Portugal do you feel closer to Madeleine?KMC : 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.
Please note that this 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. She is not involved
2. GM hid the body
without her (not likely supported by the use of "we"
above)
3. She was placed
somewhere where her body would move, such as water;
4. 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:
KMC : 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.
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.
GMC : Kids are survivors.
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.
KMC : 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, KMC is not lying because she does not say that Madeleine
is a survivor.
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:
KMC : 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.
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?
GMC : MmmmInterviewer: You’ll keep looking foreverKMC : 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 has convinced me that the
McCanns have guilty knowledge on what happened to Madeleine on the
night they reported her missing.
Perhaps the "accident"
that they refer to is their use of medication to put Madeleine to
sleep while they were on vacation, of which they then discovered that
they had unintentionally overdosed her.
 |
| Fausse promesse ou vraie valeur ajoutée ? |
