12 - NOV - Int.J. Hill Mai 2007 analysée

La (pseudo-science) Statement Analysis examine le dit et le non-dit ou le manquant pour évaluer l'exactitude des propos d'un témoin.

Analyse de Peter Hyatt

The McCann's Interview (Jane Hill – 25.05.2007)

If we had the transcripts of the initial police interview, it is my belief, should that interview be substantial in length, that we would know what happened, at least to the point of knowing whether or not the parents have guilty knowledge.

In this interview, the parents are together, therefore, the expected is that they may speak for each other, using the plural pronouns, "we" and "us"; however, given the extreme nature of a missing child, the expectation of the pronoun "I" remains. A missing child is acutely personal to a parent, any parent, but more so a biological parent. We expect to hear the pronoun "I", especially when the child is being described by the parent.

The overuse of the plural is an indicator of guilt, as parents of teens know well. When there is guilt, there is a desire to share guilt, which, psychologically, may feel a lessening of its impact.

"Follow pronouns" is great advice in discerning deception.

This interview is poor, as it does not seek to gain information as it does seek to avoid offense.

Jane Hill: Kate and Gerry McCann, thank you so much for agreeing to, talk to me. Perhaps you could just tell us a little bit about your holiday here, how it started, why you decided to... to come here and to bring your children here.

Kate McCann: We came with a group of friends actually and their children, I mean, I've had lots of good reports about Portugal, a lot of our other friends and family have been and said it's very... very good for children. But, yeah, we came with a... a group of friends and, I mean, it was a great week, we were having a great holiday. It was... we had lots of fun, the children had a really great time, didn't they?

Dans une interview, la meilleure question est celle qui contient le moins de mots et qui est ouverte. "Qu'est-il arrivé?" Noter où commence l'interviewé et quels mots il emploie. Dans les médias, une interview généralement détourne beaucoup d'attention de l'interviewé sur le journaliste, qui donne ensuite à l'interviewé les mots à utiliser. Ce n'est pas efficace pour collecter des informations, bien que cela puisse l'être pour la carrière du journaliste.

La journaliste ici utilise le nom de Kate avant celui de Gerry (l'ordre est important) et bien qu'elle s'adresse aux deux, Kate répond en premier, mais se tourne ensuite vers Gerry pour sa réponse.

Pronoms: Quand un couple parle ensemble, ils utilisent souvent le pronom "nous" et quand ils le font, et passent à "je", cela doit être considéré comme très important et personnel. Ici, c’est "nous" mais ensuite elle passe à "je" quand il est question de "bons rapports", ce qui rend très personnelle l'obtention des "bons rapports".

Gerry McCann: Yeah, very much the... the combination of, the child friendly environment and the sporting facilities and errr... a lot of our friends are quite water-sports based but Kate and I were mainly, taking advantage of the tennis facilities but the kids loved it and the kid's club, facilities were good.

Please note: "child" friendly, and not "kid friendly" yet, "kids loved it" and "kids' club" are used. The word "child" is more associated with child abuse than "kid" (we don't say "kid abuse" in our language very often). What caused him to change from "child friendly" to "kid's club"? It could be the names used at the facility, but we would like to know.

JH: And what sort of activities does Madeleine like doing? Does she get in and muck around with all the other children, that sort of thing?

C'est une très mauvaise interview. Si la journaliste souhaitait en savoir plus sur Madeleine, elle aurait dû demander: "Parlez-moi de Madeleine".

GMC : She's a complete, she might look like Kate but in terms of personality she's much more of a McCann. She's very extroverted and lively, you know, vivacious, she's...

KMC : She likes running, she played tennis, as well, didn't she?

Veuillez noter la référence au passé après "elle aime courir", "elle jouait au tennis".  Est-ce une question qui concerne uniquement un événement passé? Si c'est le cas, c'est approprié, mais s'il s'agit de jouer au tennis, comme courir, comme un événement en cours, ce n'est pas le cas. Combien de temps a passé depuis sa disparition? La police lui a-t-elle dit que l'enfant est probablement mort ou soutient-elle que l'enfant est en vie?
Les parents, et dans un sens élevé, les mères, refusent naturellement d’accepter la mort d’un enfant; par conséquent, lorsque la mère d'un enfant disparu, par exemple, fait référence à son enfant au passé, cela signifie que la mère sait ou croit que l'enfant est mort.
La police lui a-t-elle donné cette conviction? Le temps a-t-il usé son déni naturel? Ou a-t-elle connaissance coupable de la mort de Madeleine?

GMC : She's very funny and, she's often a little, kind of, ringleader in nursery and with her other friends and cousins and things, as well, you know.

KMC : She's very sociable.

JH: A... a very big sense of a very big group all having fun together and...

KMC: Yeah, yeah, it was, yeah.

Notez le langage présent utilisé par les deux sujets (à une exception près) et par la journaliste à propos de Madeleine. La journaliste a posé une question composée qui permet au sujet de choisir laquelle il va répondre; c'est généralement une erreur, bien qu’il s’agisse ici d’activités en général. Notez soigneusement l’utilisation du nom propre, des pronoms ou de tout terme d’attachement, comme le disent les parents pour décrire un enfant, tout comme le libellé utilisé pour identifier l’enfant.

GMC : You know, often in the evening, just in the play area down by the pool, every night after the kid's tea we would spend an hour and... invariably with the adults chasing the kids with Madeleine shouting... running up shouting 'Be a monster! Be a monster!' then running away and then you would chase her for five minutes and then she would be back over again because there was lots of adults. She was tiring us all out, really.

Remarque "thé pour mômes (kids)"; pas "pour enfants (children)" qui serait plus formel. "Mômes" est décontracté. Cela a été noté car, lorsque des personnes sont liées à la maltraitance d’enfants, y compris quand elle la craignent, elles utilisent «enfants» ou «enfant» plus fréquemment. Ici, Madeleine est décrite comme l'un des "mômes". Nous rechercherons tout changement de langue. Le changement de langue est toujours significatif. Un changement de langage est un changement de perception de la réalité, ce qui signifie qu'il devrait y avoir une justification pour le changement. Si aucune justification n'est notée, la tromperie est suspectée.

Notez qu'il ne dit pas qu'il a poursuivi Madeleine, mais "vous le feriez ..." S'il avait été celui qui la poursuivait, il nous l'aurait probablement dit. Les temps de verbe ne lient pas Madeleine à cette activité, mais simplement ils "poursuivaient" et non "avaient poursuivi" et "couraient", non "n'avaient pas couru". Les verbes au passé nous lient à ce qui s'est passé. L'absence de verbes au passé réduit la fiabilité.

Si cela s'est produit, il devrait le dire. Si cela n’a pas eu lieu (il ne peut pas le dire parce qu’il ne l’a pas fait), on devrait se demander s’il s’agit là d’une tentative de créer une atmosphère de plaisanterie et de divertissement. Parle-t-il de mémoire en regardant quelqu'un d'autre jouer avec elle? Nous ne savons pas. Nous ne pouvons savoir que si quelqu'un nous le dit.

JH : And then on that Thursday night, Kate, when you realised that she wasn't in her bed where you'd left her. Did you think even momentarily perhaps that she'd just woken up, wandered off of her own accord, perhaps?

The question is directed specifically at Kate.

KMC : Not at all, no.

"No" is sufficient, and the additional words indicates sensitivity.

GMC : No, I mean, that, I think, was absolutely certain but, you know, before you raised the alarm, we double and triple checked but we certainly had no doubt in our mind that she'd been taken.

C'est une réponse très faible. On ne peut pas "penser" et être "certain" en même temps. En disant "je pense", il permet à quelqu'un d'autre de "penser" le contraire. Pour lui, ce n'est pas seulement "certain" mais "absolument" certain.

Follow the pronouns: He begins with, "no" but goes beyond this answer with, "I mean" and "I think", which, both broken, at least begin with the pronoun, "I" in the answer, but then he uses "you know" indicating sensitivity, and then the distancing language of "you" raised the alarm, only to then switch to the pronoun, "we." He began with "I", moved to "you" and then on to "we". Please note that if he is speaking for himself and his wife, he should, in the least, start with the pronoun "we" and remain in it, yet even if he turned to "I" (showing a very strong, personal connection) he could return to "we." In this case, the pronouns are very concerning. Please note that "we" is often used when sharing guilt. To begin with "I" but to move to "you" and finally "we" gives the appearance of shared guilt.

Notez que des mots comme "absolument" rend "certain" sensible. Entre le changement de pronom et l'ajout de "penser" et "absolument", la réponse est très faible.
Dans Statement Analysis, des mots supplémentaires nous fournissent des informations. Les mots supplémentaires sont ceux qui peuvent être supprimés d'une phrase sans que celle-ci cesse de fonctionner. Ici, nous avons "absolument" ajouté à "certain", montrant une sensibilité. Nous ignorons, à ce stade, la raison pour laquelle il est sensible; Il se pourrait qu'ils tentent de persuader la journaliste qu'ils étaient certains que MMC avait été kidnappée et qu'elle ne s'était pas égarée. 

La plupart des parents, après avoir trouvé un lit vide, pourraient présumer que leur enfant est parti. Il est important pour GMC que cela ne soit pas une possibilité.

JH : And... and... and was there then frantic activity that night? I mean, I've spoken to even local people who've told me they became aware of what had happened pretty quickly and they were looking around, as well.

C'est une question très mal formulée qui introduit "activité frénétique" dans le discours. Les bonnes questions utilisent les propres mots de l'interviewé et évitent d'introduire de nouveaux concepts.

GMC : From the minute we discovered she was gone, if you actually look at the actions, our own actions and those of the group are actually, response and the speed of the response from all of us in the group and the Mark Warner representatives was excellent, the alarm and the call to the police went out within 10 minutes and the Mark Warner resort manager, John Hill, had, ... missing child, protocol in place within, you know, half an hour and all of the staff, were contacted... returned to the resort here and the, you know, the local search started, errr... so, you know, in terms of that it was done very, very quickly.

We come upon a highly sensitive statement. Note when the habit "you know" arises, as it shows an increased awareness of the presence of the journalist, or of the question.

Because I do not know what took place, regarding media criticism or challenges, I cannot say if this sensitivity is in response to what has already been said. "Actually" is used when comparing two or more thoughts. We don't know what is being compared but repetition is noted as sensitive and we have some words being repeated.

"very very" quickly is weak. It suggests guilt or guilty feelings at the response time.

This weakness may be in response to prior criticism, or, that it is because the response was not quick.

There is a strong need to justify response. It may be due to guilt, or it may be due to criticism they have heard, but it is present.

JH : And as time went on and I totally appreciate you can't talk about specifics in any way but even one of the things that was hard even for all the journalists who've been here for so long was to... to get their head around this idea that the police aren't... aren't allowed to tell anybody anything, they're not allowed legally to talk about the progress of an investigation.

How... how hard has... has that been for you? What sort of guidance were they able to even give you privately just to tell you what was going on?

Note the compound question. The Interviewer does a good job drawing attention to the Interviewer, while doing a poor job getting information.

GMC : I think it's fairly obvious that, you know, the system here and, what we're used to in the UK is very different. I don't think it's any secret that in the early days, ... the information void was the hardest thing for Kate and I to deal with. The not knowing... not knowing anything and taking you back to the darkest places that, really, you don't want to go and... and ultimately doesn't help you. But, ... I think, you know, as the liaison officers and other British police arrived and the consulate, helped us, that, you know, the communication channels have improved, in terms of at least what information we get and how we get it and certainly, you know, at the minute we're... we're happy with the way information is conveyed to us, ... but tho... those first 48 hours are, I think, in particular, when, ... were the most difficult.

In Statement Analysis, we note any stuttering by non-stuttering subjects. A stutter shows nervousness, which is to be expected. If it is the word, "I" however, it is noted for a higher level of sensitivity, with the repetition of "I" 3 times showing stress, 4 or 5 times showing anxiety, and 7 or more generally only in a homicide in which the killer is speaking and personally knew the victim. More than 7 is likely going to mean hospitalization and a nervous breakdown.

JH : And I've spoken to a lot of people, over the weeks, who... local people who'd given up a lot of time. You've talked about the support that they've given you. I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. 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 just physically look as well'?

This is far more a statement than a question. It is posed to Kate, and it is about what Kate was "thinking" regarding physically searching. By limiting it to just "thinking" it makes is a very weak question. The length of it draws more attention to the journalist rather than to the ingathering of information.

By using Kate's own name in the statement, the Interviewer has called Kate's attention to it. Kate should now speak for herself, with the easy, and most often used pronoun, "I" in her answer:

KMC : I mean, I did... we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are 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 that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back.

In Statement Analysis, pronouns are critical. Here, Kate speaks for both; first with "I" but then with "we". We note all pronoun use; but in particular possessive pronouns. This is a very concerning switch from "I" to "we"; especially given that the question was not only directed to Kate, but her name was also used in the question, heightening the 'personal' element of it. Possessive pronouns solve cases. From prior to speech, children learn possessive pronouns and will take ownership ONLY of what they wish to take ownership of; and nothing else.

Please note that innocent parents do not feel the information or effort is complete or absolute as long as the child is missing.

Working "really hard" is a very sensitive topic to Kate McCann. "Getting Madeleine back" is a topic that is of extreme sensitivity to Kate McCann. This is the unexpected in innocent parents. Here, we find the first 48 hours to be highly sensitive to both parents.

Parents who think that "everything" has been done or said indicate, by their words, that there is "nothing" else to do; nothing to say, and nowhere to search.

When all has been said and done, there is nothing more to do or say. This is a strong desire to stop the flow information. Why would any parent want the flow of information to stop? This is a red flag.

We expect to hear Gerry McCann speak for himself, his own feelings and his own thoughts:

GMC : I think that's key, that, in that period, the worst feeling was helplessness and being completely out of control of anything, in terms of getting Madeleine back and, I think, as we started to take control of some issues, particularly influencing the publicity side of it, then you start to feel that there are certain things under your control and, I know, initially that helped me tremendously and more importantly, I think, it helped, ... and being positive about what you can do, has helped people immediately around us, as well, and that... that has spread like wildfire to everyone in the popu... people we don't know are doing so much to help and it's the smallest thing and it makes them feel that they're helping; distributing posters locally; sending them abroad, all of these things, we think, helped and, ultimately, you know, someone will provide the key bit of information.

Control is a sensitive area to anyone who feels a situation is not in control. He is "completely" out of control of getting Madeleine back. This is an admission that the father can do nothing to help.

Why can't he? What has caused the constraint? Note the emphasis on helping himself, and not on getting Madeleine back? Note his order:

1. Helping me

2. Helping people

Note that helping Madeleine return home is not in his language; only "the key bit" of information.

Here we have the instinctive use of an article. Pronouns and articles are instinctive.

He should be looking for "a key" to open a door for information.

What is "the key" not "a" key? Articles being with "a" and then move to "the" after being introduced.

This is alarming.

Note the inclusion of "publicity" as sensitive.

JH : And... and some of that support has translated into a lot of money that's gone into the fighting fund, I think nearly £300,000 has been pledged, so far. What of the reports that say, perhaps... those people who suggest that some of that money could be sensibly spent on things like private investigators, for example.

GMC : Well, you know, the fund, ... was really... really evolved to provide an oulet for people who wanted to contribute financially and these offers, will help us and are helping us and that has helped us to bring in quite a comprehensive legal team and independent sector, consultants as to what we could and should be doing.

The fund was to provide an outlet for people. Why do people need an outlet? If an outlet is needed, why is it financial? If the reason to have a fund is to give them an outlet, what else is the money used for?

Note also the order : legal team, independent sector, consultants.

Note a "comprehensive" legal team. It would be interesting to learn if the "comprehensive" team, being paid for by those who need an "outlet", includes a criminal defense attorney.

It is disingenuous to claim to set up a fund to help people first have an "outlet" but then it is to "help us", and not help find or help Madeleine.

Note that it "really, really" evolved, making the fund's "evolution" very sensitive.

GMC : I did, address this and the situation hasn't changed that, at this time, with the huge amount of resource from the police, both in the UK and Portugal that the advice is that private investigators will not help. I personally, and we, believe that it's the public who hold the key to this; someone knows something and we would urge that if anyone has any information to come forward and anyone who's been in this area, within the two weeks leading up to Madeleine's disappearance, to come forward if they haven't already done so and upload those pictures.

There is the... I'd like to say about the website again, which is 

www.madeleine.ceopupload.com

and there are two numbers, if I could say them, as well, that, if you have any information, to ring in, if you have not already spoken to the police.

JH : And we'll certainly broadcast those numbers again later and there've been so much support and you're reflecting on some of it there; some emotional, some practical. I mean, I have to ask, you will know, along with that support, in some quarters, comes criticism; for example a lot of people, in the last fews weeks, have contacted the BBC and said: 'I can't imagine doing such a thing. I wouldn't be able to leave three children, in that situation'. How do you deal with those sort of comments?

GMC : I think, you know, any criticism of us at this time, which we know there has been, particularly early on, is quite hard to take when you're being so positive. I think what we did, errm... many, many other thousands of people, and I think you yourself said on television that you've either done it or would have done exactly the same in such a safe resort.

This may indicate the defensive sensitivity above. It appears to be about their choice and reaction time. However, this is still a good time to say "I didn't do it" regarding suspicion of being involved in lying and in Madeleine's disappearance.

GMC : No one will ever feel more guilty than us for the fact that we were not with Madeleine at that time when she was abducted and whether we'd been in the bedroom next door we would still have felt as guilty, I'm sure, but, you know, you've seen the proximity of the restaurant; there was a line of sight to the apartment and it was not dissimilar to having dinner in your garden and, you know, baby listening facilities, exist in a lot of Mark Warner resorts and I would argue that what we were doing was actually even more regulous than that with multiple people from the group checking the apartments at, staggered times and obviously we were going into our apartment at regular intervals. If you thought for a minute that someone could abduct your child, of course, you would never have left them but, you know, that was the furthest thought from our mind during... what really was, up until that point, the most idyllic holiday.

We are not told if they actually used a baby listening device, or if it is just being mentioned. Passive language is noted. "your child" shows distance; which is common in any painful description. "child" is noted as it is connected with kidnapping rather than a "kid" playing or enjoying time. This is consistent so far in the interview.

Note the use of Madeleine's name indicates closeness, but there is an incongruity here:

Madeleine's disappearance should be something very personal for the parent, yet GMC uses, "if you thought" and "your child" and "you" would never have left... This is distancing language regarding the disappearance. Is it due to guilt over the choices made, or is it guilty knowledge of her disappearance? This is what most people want to know.

Note that it was the furtherest thing from "our" mind; entering into the thinking of each other.

JH : You've got a little boy and a little girl to... to think about and we've seen them around the resort a lot in the last few weeks. How... they're tiny, I know, but they must have a sense that big sister isn't around at the moment. How... how do you deal with things for them? How do you look to the future for their sake?

KMC : I mean, I think you're right. I mean, they... they are still quite young at the minute, they're just over two, ... so it maybe hasn't affected them as much as if they were a little bit older. They do talk about Madeleine and Amelie has asked 'Where is she?' ... You know, they'll say 'That's Madeleine's', 'This is Madeleine's' and they include her if we're saying 'Who wants a biscuit?', they'll say 'Sean, Amelie, Madeleine',

Note the order which is what "they'll" say is: Sean, Amelie, Madeline".

It is "they" who will say it, not the parents. Under "they" it would likely be the name mentioned first as the speaker. He is likely older than Amelie but they're handling it really well, they... they don't appear upset, put it that way, you know, and they're... they're just... they're lots of fun and we... we will take some advice actually, as to...

GMC : Yeah. I mean, without doubt, they... they help us to continue, you know. This is every parent's worse nightmare and everyone can feel and imagine what we've gone through but, you know, if we'd had discovered all three of our children had gone or if something else had happened, then, you know, we... we'd not have had the same strength and resolution and determination to find Madeleine that Sean and Amelie give us, as well, because we know that they're there, errr... life continues but we need to bring them back... bring Madeleine back as much for them, as for Madeleine, as for us.

This is a very strange answer. The loss of a child is very personal, and the innocent parent who has lost a child often feels (and articulates) that "no one" can understand the level of pain the parent is in. Here, he says it is "every" parent's worst nightmare, rather than his own worst nightmare and that "everyone can feel and imagine"; whereas most parents, in such horrific pain, say the very opposite thing.

JH : And... and how... how do you aim to... to keep that strength and that positive outlook that we've seen you expresss to the media a lot in the last three weeks and that sense that... that life will continue, that what you said publicly to us a few weeks ago that you believe, and have to believe, that Madeleine is somewhere being looked after by someone. How do you hold onto that thought?

GMC : Yeah, absolutely, we must, continue with that and we do believe it, you know, I think if anything really bad had happened, we would have found her by now, so I think, you know, I'm confident and believe this strongly that, we will find her, it's not hard to... to continue believing that; she's our daughter, we love her more than anyone can possibly imagine and, you know, the alternative would be giving up and we will not give up our search.

The weakness in the assertion shows a lack of commitment to believing she will be found. Loving her "more than anyone can possibly imagine" is the expected. Here, he cannot accept that anyone could know how much they love her, yet previously he accepted that people could know what they were going through.

KM: Absolutely, you know, we need to believe that she's coming back to us.

This sentence is noteworthy: It is not that "we" believe, but that we "need" to believe. I would have expected a mother to say "I know she is coming back to me"; but the plural weakens a mother's assertion, as does the meaning change: the need to believe rather than the belief.

Why is this? What has transpired at the time of this interview to show a lack of commitment to the child's return?

JH: Kate McCann, Gerry McCann, we do appreciate your time. Thank you very much and, all the very best to your family, of course.

This was a very "McCann-Friendly" interview which the Interviewer drew attention away from the pressing issue, introduced new language, and asked compound questions.

GMC : Thank you.

KMC : Thank you, Jane. Thank you.

We like to hear parents speak for themselves, particularly using the pronoun, "I", connecting what they say to the past with the appropriate verb tense. Gerry McCann, as father, in particular, did not commit to his statements.

A missing child is a very personal topic, yet here we have the distancing language employed, (second person, "you") instead. Why the need for distancing?

We also like to see straight, open ended questions asked.

We like parents to tell us, personally, that "I was not involved" or "I did not cause Madeleine's disappearance" in a 3 component reliable denial:

1. First Person Singular, "I"

2. Past Tense Verb

3. Specific allegation

If someone cannot bring himself to say "I didn't do it" we cannot say it for him.

Was this on the mind of the public at this time? Or, was it only that the parents were irresponsible in leaving their children alone?

There are too many sensitivity indicators to ignore.