KMC's Answer to Why Didn't You Search? - 08.08.2017
Here is a short statement
submitted for analysis. It is a part of an interview by the BBC of
Kate McCann, mother of missing Madeleine McCann. A mother will speak
differently than a non mother. Mothers and fathers speak
differently. In getting to know the
case of Madeleine McCann, it has been recently called to my attention
that the language of Kate is very different than the language of
Gerry; and this is not in reference to gender. I hope to publish
more analysis on this difference which may provide deeper insight
into this case including the subsequent cover up details.
Grasping human nature is
critical to success in both analysis and subsequent successful
investigations. In this regard, law enforcement in training excel.
Few within law enforcement struggle in understanding of human
nature. Why is this? It is because when they
investigate, they must have results. It is not an academic exercise
to them. They cannot afford, for example, to wrongfully accuse
someone, or to excuse the guilty just to satisfy narrative. The law
enforcement investigator must produce accuracy over any other
considerations. Lives may depend upon it.
Analysts work or assist
on live investigations. In this regard, even
professional instructors are not like the college business professor
who has never run a business, for which his or her theories hold no
consequence. Consider the contrary as
absurd. If an anonymous terrorist threat is made, the recipients
and law enforcement want to know the identity of the author, of which
Statement Analysis is used to identify. Imagine subordinating
lives to political correctness: refusing to identify the author
because it would be offensive to someone.
A mother of a missing
child will speak differently than a father of a missing child. Truthful parents will
speak differently than deceptive parents. Biological parents will
speak differently than relatives, including close relatives,
siblings, etc. This is why data is
important in comparison. Educated people speak
differently than uneducated people. The medical background in the
McCann case is an element to be examined and understood. The processing of
information over time must be noted. There is a decade between
the report of the missing child and a current interview.
The analysis is based
upon human instinct and a large collection of data in which
biological mothers and biological fathers of missing children's
language is analyzed. For the analyst in training, there is no
substitute for this experience; exposure to statement after statement
where the end results are known. When you have analyzed hundreds of
statements from mothers, and then from fathers, specifically of
missing children, you will begin to see patterns emerge. You will
begin to grasp the language of mothers, the language of fathers, the
language of relatives and the language of caring non-relatives, and
how they all differ. You will begin to understand : The truthful
speak one way; The deceptive speak another. This will guide your
expectations far beyond the initial, "what would I say"
that is part of "101" training.
Our expectations are
based upon:
1. Presupposition of de
facto (not judicial) innocence. We are to believe what we hear (and
read) unless the subject pushes us to a new position. Even then,
upon flagging deception, this principle shows us how much reliable
information is still gleaned from one lying.
2. Human Nature. In
this case, the instinct here is of a biological mother of a missing
child.
3. Data building. This
is the above exposure to not only research, but your own analyzing of
many statements in missing child cases.
Nos attentes sont basées sur :
1. Le présupposé de l'innocence de facto (et non judiciaire). Nous devons croire ce que nous entendons (et lisons) à moins que le sujet ne nous pousse à changer d'avis. Même alors, en cas de détection d'une tromperie, ce principe nous montre combien d'informations fiables peuvent encore être glanées à partir d'un mensonge.
2. La nature humaine. Dans le cas présent, l'instinct est celui de la mère biologique d'un enfant disparu.
3. Construction de données. Il s'agit de l'exposition ci-dessus non seulement à la recherche, mais aussi à votre propre analyse de nombreuses déclarations dans les cas de disparitions d'enfants.
Question from Jane Hill,
BBC: “Did you as a mother Kate just sometimes think I’ve got to
go and be out there with them, I want to go and be out there and
physically look for her as well?”
This is a simple question
about physically searching for a "missing" child. The
interviewer specifically targets Kate's instincts with the words, "as
a mother." She reveals her own belief that a mother may speak
differently than a non-mother. A mother's instinct is
from creation (natural). This instinct can be cultivated culturally,
where people have a high view of motherhood, or it can be neglected
(indifference) or it can even be harmed through slander; all with
societal consequences that cause us to look at the linguistic
results. Nonetheless, being a
mother is an instinctive element within human nature. It is within
this truth that Statement Analysis discerns truth. When a child goes
missing, a mother will call out to the child and look for the child.
This is instinctive. A mother who does neither
has a reason for her inaction.
This is not different than
in the interview process where the parent is either working with
police to do everything possible to find the child, or the parent is
not working with police to facilitate the successful locating of the
missing child. Police interviewers know
very quickly which impression is given in the initial interview.
Remember: first
impressions are powerful. Consider this from the perspective of
Portugal police. A mother of a missing
child has a personal, (biological emotional) connection to the child
that is evidenced in pronouns and the linguistic disposition. Pronouns are 100%
reliable for detection of deception. They are not subjective, and
they are instinctive. They require no pre-thought. Our language reveals our
priority. We do not expect the
parent to talk about self over the child victim. It is, in missing child
cases, the "unexpected."
“Did you as a mother
Kate just sometimes think I’ve got to go and be out there with
them, I want to go and be out there and physically look for her as
well?” She is asking Kate, 'why
didn't you search? You're the mother!'
This is a fascinating
answer.
Kate McCann: Tut, sigh,
“I mean I did” erm, tut “I mean we’ve been working really
hard, apart from the first 24 hours, as Gerry said, were incredibly
difficult and we were almost non-functioning I’d say, but after
that you get strength from somewhere. We’ve certainly had loads of
support and this is giving us strength and it’s been able to make
us focus really. So we have actually in our own way, might not be
physically searching, but we’ve been working really hard and doing
absolutely everything we can really to get Madeleine back."
Here is the answer again,
broken down into smaller segments with emphasis added:
Kate McCann: Tut, sigh, “I mean I
did” erm, tut “I mean
What is expressed with
"Tut" and "sigh" is in Statement Analysis a
pause. This means that the subject needs time to think of her
answer.
The context : Missing Child Biological Mother Experiential Memory
Given the three basic
portions of this context, the need to pause to think of the answer
tells us the question about searching for her own child is sensitive
to her. In statement analysis,
"sensitivity" is noted as a specific element needing
consideration. It is expected among
innocence that when a child goes missing, a mother will search. Since this is
chronological, there should be no need to pause to consider the
response. It is, in a sense, an
accusation against Kate McCann, which, given the years of public
doubt and disbelief, should need no pause.
Question: Why would it
be an accusation?
Answer: Maternal
Instinct
The question presupposes
that an innocent mother would, instinctively, search for her child.
It is, in this manner, a reflection of the wisdom of Solomon. "I did" is
given as a short denial, following the pause. This should suffice. Deceptive people have an
overwhelming urge to persuade. They do not possess the powerful
psychological "wall of truth" that allows for truth to
defend itself. Remember, this should be
easy to answer if it comes from experiential memory. There is no
need to pause to think of what she did in the most hormonally active
crisis she has ever been in. The accusation is against her, and this
is her child. Therefore, we expect her to tell us what she, herself,
did.
The pronouns guide us : we’ve been working
really hard,
That a biological mother
would immediately move from the personal, intuitive "I" to
"we" is a red flag of guilt at this place. Remember the emphasis in
the question. It was not necessary to add the words, "as a
mother" to a mother. "We" are not under accusation of
having denied maternal instinct and not searched; Kate, herself, is. This instinctive move to
"we" is indicative of guilty knowledge. The guilty do not like
being psychologically alone. This shows itself in early childhood
when the guilty comes home and immediately reports what "everyone"
was doing. Next, the guilty child, even at an early age, learns what
it means to play "victim status" by claiming to be unjustly
singled out for the same behavior of all. Even at a very early age,
the child learns to avoid the guilt (hence, no lesson learned) and
attempt to indict another (blaming teacher for not correcting others)
and manipulate parents. Its human nature. Through training and
maturity, it is hoped to be overcome or mitigated with lessons in
personal responsibility; the opposite of victim status.
Did you notice the
subject's verb tense? "I did", which
is strong because the event is in the past, but she makes a very
quick change : "we've been working
really hard" not moves from the complete or perfect past tense
to an indefinite period of time.
a. She moves from "I"
to "we"
b. She moves from
perfect past tense to imperfect ("did" to "we have -
been working"
c. Then, note the
unnecessary description of effort: "really hard."
Would a parent of a
missing child need to use this term?
Would a parent of a
missing child need to convince anyone of their effort?
This unnecessary and
sensitive description will, even intuitively to the untrained,
suggest: 'I did not. Nor did I work hard at all.'
It then leads to the
question: "Why?" When a child goes
missing, the parent will either want the child found or the parent
will not. "Hard work" is
qualified by "really", making it sensitive.
Question: Why would
working to find Madeleine be sensitive to the subject? Would there be lesser
than "really" hard work? Could there be even
"more" or "really really" hard work?
It is to compare degrees
of effort within language. She now goes even further in giving away
information by further qualification of "work" to find
Madeleine:
We've been working really
hard apart from the first 24 hours, This "really hard
work" is now further qualified (the first is "really")
with "apart from the first 24 hours." She now exempts the most
critical period of time in which a parent's hormonal responsive is
seen in action: adrenaline. The protective capacities
of a mother, in particular, is even seen in nature. "A bear
robbed of its whelps" is not one to encounter. The proverb only
works when we accept what nature offers. Those who do not accept this
as truth may not wish to test their hypothesis, however.
When a child goes
missing, innocent parents
a. call out to the child
b. look for the child
c. show stark clarity of
mind and body due to the increase in hormones to assist them in
satisfying the primal intuition to save the child. This is sometimes
seen in the incessant phone calls to police, at all hours of the day
and night, with some minor point suddenly remembered.
Years later, they may
describe this as in a "fog" of sorts; as they were "running
on instinct", without fatigue. They were so singularly minded,
that everything else around them disappeared into the fog. The only
thing they "saw" (focus) was their child.
When a child goes
missing, deceptive parents
a. hesitate to call out
to the child
b. refuse to search, or
do only perfunctory searches
c. claim special status
of being too shocked to assist
d. hinder the flow of
information to law enforcement
Kate's "I did"
is immediately nullified in her attempt to persuade. Next, she attempts
emotional manipulation. This holds no interest for the innocent. "as Gerry said, were
incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning I’d say,
a. "as Gerry said"
is to continue to move away from experiential memory and stay in the
"safety" of recalling the script; that is, what Gerry said.
b. Note that continued
refusal to speak for herself. Gerry cannot answer the specifically
worded question "as a mother"; only Kate can. But she will not. Note almost non
functioning is the opposite of the language of innocent parents
who were moving on instinct, with stark clarity of purpose, so much
so, that everything else, including those around them, their own food
and sleep, lacked clarity (fog).
This is where support
forces them to eat. They do not skip foods
because they are grieving, but because they cannot bear to comfort
self while comfort is denied to their child. They are too busy to
eat, sleep or think of their own well being. They do not care to be
"emotionally capable" while some stranger has their hands
on their child.
They have strength and
then after that is spent, they often collapse under the weight of
despair and slow erosion of the natural denial of death.
Under powerful
adrenaline, they are strong, with heightened senses, but as time
passes, they weaken.
What do the deceptive do?
They do the opposite:
but after that you get
strength from somewhere.
Note that a missing child
is not "universal" in experience. "As a mother",
Kate should be speaking for herself. Kate McCann has a reason
why she cannot and must not speak for herself.
Innocent parents are
concerned with what the victim is experiencing.
*Does she have her
favorite blanket?
*Is she being fed?
*Does the kidnapper know
Maddie's favorite song that helps her sleep?
These are the types of
questions that can drive parents into extremes. When a parent of a
missing child shows language about "self", we teach
analysts to believe them. It is about them. The child is dead. They've become the
acceptance process intellectually and emotionally, and they are in
self protection mode, even if they use siblings as an excuse.
When a child is
kidnapped, in whatever words, the innocent parent is going to focus
upon what the child is experiencing and this is described in the most
minute and insightful wording. Only a mother knows the look the
child can give at bedtime, or the look when a child is scared, or
when to comfort, when to correct, and so on. Here, we have Kate
avoiding the victim and avoiding being psychologically alone as
"mother" of the victim, with her focus on their comforts:
We’ve certainly had
loads of support and this is giving us strength and it’s been able
to make us focus really.
This is the opposite,
again. The focus of hormonal
response is powerful when the focus is needed most. It is a force to reckon
with.
Even when police demand a
parent not search (in kidnapping cases) and "leave it to the
professional", they know they have a fight (father) or argument
(both) on their hands.
Listen to her: Madeleine
being "taken" was not enough to bring them focus and
strength. They could not rise up, call her name and turn the world
upside down to find her, on adrenaline alone. They had to wait to be
comforted by others, all while the critical hours (days, months,
years) passed.
Others gave them what
nature did not? This is deception.
Count the number of
sensitivity indicators in one sentence that follows:
So we have actually in
our own way, might not be physically searching, but we’ve been
working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can really to
get Madeleine back."
How many times must you
hear, "we are really really really really trying to get
Madeleine back" before you ask, "Who are you trying
to persuade?"
Gerry and Kate McCann's
language is consistent from interview to interview, year to year.
They have not claimed
that Madeleine was kidnapped and Behavioral Analysis and Statement
Analysis have been in synch.
The language indicates a
maternal guilt, and I agree with the recent assertion by another that
Gerry's language shows a decidedly different personality than Kate's.
Statement Analysis - 19.09.2017
Recall the McCanns' early
interviews. They did not claim Madeleine was kidnapped (only their
supporters did) and did not talk about what Madeleine would have been
going through, hour by hour, with a kidnapper.
This is because it did
not exist in their memory bank. It did not exist because it was not
reality. They did not spend hours stressing over what life must be
like for Madeleine; if she had her special blanket, toy or bottle.
This was not a concern, therefore, it did not process in the brain,
and was not in the memory bank when questioned.
They were, however, great
parents who worked diligently in dedicating words to show the exact
number of meters away they were when they left their little children
home alone, unattended. They devote many more words to self than to
Madeleine.
The innocent parents of
missing and murdered children speak one language while those of
guilty knowledge speak another.
The former blame
themselves for any and everything, while the latter not only excuse
themselves in portrayal as "good" and even "normal"
parents, but the deception eventually causes them to go on the
offensive and attack.
The attack can include
doubters, and then police and then even to law suits.
The innocent are left
bereft of their children and care for nothing else.
The deceptive try to
conceal their contempt for the world, but it is inevitable. When one
believes oneself smarter than all others in putting over a lie,
contempt must come.
In the same sense, they
often cling to their supporters but if you listen closely enough,
you'll witness the contempt, often passive-aggressive, even as they
praise the close circle of those they have successfully deceived.
Parents who have a need
to portray themselves in a positive light would not need to do so
unless circumstances gave rise. This is why we view it in open
statements; they choose their own words and what they feel most
important to state.
In Statement Analysis
22.08.2018
HOST (George Noory): Can you tell deception in writings?
PETER HYATT: Yes. That's chiefly how it's done.
Is that easier than spoken word?
Much easier. That's how, in terms of learning how to go from statement analysis to discourse analysis it takes a lot of time but that's how people are taught first. It's in written statements they learn to look at the words and believe the words, and let the words guide them.
The Madeleine McCann case is one I think that your listeners would be interested in. That was a big mystery. There's a website madeleinefilms.net I believe, a documentarian from the United Kingdom who is often dismissed as a conspirial [sic] theorist.
Right, right.
So instead of listening to the arguments, he's dismissed. And he came over to the United States, he interviewed me and gave me an analysis on the parents. And I found him anything but the tinfoil hat character that's made up to try to silence him. He was a gentleman, he did a great job interviewing, and he may not have agreed with everything I said but he allowed me to explain why: the McCanns literally embedded their admission into their own words. They gave it away. So that is another case like the Jonbenet Ramsey case, where the parents literally gave away what happened in the house.
