The Mirror a publié (19.05) un article sur les soi-disants propos d'une nanny anonyme (identifiée assez facilement comme étant Charlotte P) qui n'a jamais eu à s'occuper de MMC ni des jumeaux, mais qui a fait des pieds et des mains pour avoir ses 15 minutes de gloire à la Andy Warhol.
If you had interviewed
her, what would be the one question that needs answering?
She (KMC) was crying, but almost in a catatonic state, and Gerry was very distressed. That’s the one thing I really remember from him, looking under the cars. I can’t forget that.
First note that she "was
crying" is met with the word "but", used to emphasize the wording that follows it. The word "but"
minimizes (and sometimes even negates) the information that preceded
it.
Why would she need to
challenge "crying" by a mother whose child has just been
'kidnapped' ? In her language, she set up a "versus"
situation : "crying" versus being "catatonic state",
that is one in which there is no reaction or response.
"and Gerry was very
distressed". Any father of a missing child would be "very
distressed." Yet, she has the need to not only tell us that
which is unnecessary, but continues with detail including that it is
"one thing", with "remember."
"I remember"
and "I really remember". Next, please note that in an open
statement, a person can only tell us what they remember. This is an
indication that she is suppressing information.
The point in the article
from The Mirror is that although she was not there when the
disappearance took place, she could tell, later, that the McCanns had
nothing to do with the disappearance, based upon their reaction.
The subject, who is not
named, is not telling us all she knows. It is not just that she
"remembers" but she "really remembers" which
further tells us that she is not telling us all she knows. This
means, at the time of the statement, she is actively engaged in
thoughts that she does not want to share.
"I know" in an
open statement. Could you tell something you "don't know"?
I know I didn’t step into that apartment but pretty much everybody else did. So, evidence gone, nothing.
So, evidence
gone, nothing. Again, an honest person speaking in an open statement
can only tell us what they know. Here, she feels the need to
emphasize knowledge unnecessarily with "I know", followed
by telling us what she did not do. This is called the "rule of
the negative."
What is it about this
portion of what happened that would cause her to think of something
she does not want to share? Yet, she inserts the word "but"
which refutes or minimizes by comparison what preceded it. She
"knows" she did not "step" into that apartment
but... What follows "but" is important : "pretty much
everybody else did."
So: This is
to explain why : evidence gone; nothing.
Since she began with the
unnecessary "I know", we must explore for the suppressed
information. Note two things in particular:
1. She feels the need to
explain why there is "no evidence; nothing."
2. She uses a broken
sentence in doing so.
She does not claim the
evidence is ruined or contaminated but in a broken sentence she says
"evidence gone; nothing."
That she felt the need to
explain "why" (indicting police?) is sensitive but it
follows the negative and the self editing. Self editing (the broken
sentence) is to stop oneself from making a complete thought :
withholding information.
What does this mean?
It means the police
should explore with the nanny what she is specifically concerned
about here that she does not want to say. She is withholding
information, even if it is irrelevant to the investigation; she
believes to the contrary. Nanny sees herself aligned with the
McCanns.
There was nobody there to say, ‘We need to lock this off now.’ The police didn’t get there for ages, maybe an hour and a half (FAUX), so we were looking for her. And at the end of the day, no matter how much you’ve been trained with children, we were children, mainly teenagers, we’re not police.
Here she explains why
they looked for MMC. Would you need to explain why you looked for a
missing child? Would they have not looked for her had the police
gotten there earlier?
Here we see, now, the
indictment of police. This shows a need to shift blame. First,
"everybody" and now "police."
It began with the weak
assertion of contamination of evidence where she was unable to bring
herself to use a full sentence about evidence. Then she went to the
police in her conclusion.
I think a lot of things should’ve happened differently. Unfortunately the effects were catastrophic.
If the effects were
catastrophic, would you only "think" a lot of things should
have been done differently? Recall, she used the
wording "I know" in the interview. Is this something she
does not "know" but only "thinks"? Why the weak assertion? "Things should have
been done differently. Unfortunately, the effects were
catastrophic."
This would show
congruency between the assertion "Things should have been done
differently" and the "effects" that followed. This is
a subject who appears acutely aware of the controversy around her.
She did not search for Madeleine with the McCanns, but "we"
searched, highlighting her unity with them.
Here is what Ellen wrote.
I appreciate her framing the context.
A former Portuguese
police chief, who was involved in the missing persons investigation
in its early stages, published a book alleging that Maddie died
accidentally while she was left alone with her siblings in the resort
apartment, and that her parents covered up the death.
The Mirror interview does
not address why no one at the resort had been hired to look after the
McCann children if child care workers were available that night,
though the nanny did tell the newspaper it was “normal” for
vacationing parents to spend time on resort grounds while their
children were sleeping in their rooms.
Analysis Conclusion:
The Nanny struggles with
her own words. She does not commit to a belief of a kidnapping, and
is aligned with the parents. She may possess some information about
the McCanns, however, that has brought suspicion to her mind, but
does not want to share it.
She does not believe
evidence of a kidnapper was destroyed.
Did YouKill Your Daughter ? - 26.04.2017
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?
expected:
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.
Unexpected:
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.
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:
How?
This is the methodology
that he addresses rather than saying "no."
When?
This is the time frame of
Maddie's death that is concerning to him.
Who?
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.
