Grâce à la liberté dans les communications, des groupes d’hommes de même nature pourront se réunir et fonder des communautés. Les nations seront dépassées.
Friedrich Nietzsche (Fragments posthumes XIII-883)

17/18 - AOÛ 08/19/22 - Statement Analysis


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 Madeline 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.

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 no 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 posses 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

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 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.