Madeleine McCann Case - The Free Editing Process – 05.06.2017
When we speak, there is
an intention of being understood. This is the presuppositional
position within analysis : the person who is using words holds to an
intention that his words will be understood. This makes all
communication subject to analysis. I have interviewed and analyzed
in 2nd languages, and have interviewed non verbal adults with
developmental disabilities. If the subject holds to the intention of
communication, analysis can be done.
The Free Editing Process
is where one is freely choosing his own words, rather than use the
language of another. The element of time is critical within the Free
Editing Process. With an average personal dictionary in excess of
20,000 words within a person's brain, consider what process takes
place when one is asked to "Tell me what happened."
Everyone must self-edit
to tell "what happened" in every and all answers. The
subject (speaker) must now go into his or her personal dictionary and
choose:
1. Which words to use
2. Which verb tenses to
use
3. Where to place each
word next to another in order to fulfill intention of communication
4. Decide which
information to use and which to leave out. No one can ever tell us
everything that happened because it would never end. This is only
natural that the choice will reveal the subject's priority.
5. Which pronouns to use
(for example, "we" when there is more than one person in
mind)
The subject is not
telling us reality, but his or her own perception of reality. This
process of choosing the words, syntax and editing is extremely rapid.
The person's brain has processed this information in less than a
microsecond of time. In less time than it takes you to blink your
eye, the brain has processed what happened when Gerry and Kate McCann
were asked by police "What happened?"
We use a system of "the
expected versus the unexpected" within analysis. Although it
may begin with, "What would I say if I came home and my child
was missing?" but moves to a data base of cases known and
documented, as well as studies of reduction where what people said
has been studied. In this "data base" collected for many
decades and more studies than I can even begin to compile, we
establish"The Expected Versus The Unexpected." Rather than
rely upon one individual's hypothetical "what would I do?"
answer, the reference point is how innocent parents communicate
compared to how parents with guilty knowledge of their child's
disappearance/murder communicate.
There are two basic
objections:
1. Objection: "You
don't know how you'd react in that situation!"
Answer: "Yes, we
do. We have a large body of research to show exactly how truthful
people sound in this situation and how those who have been found
guilty sound in this situation.
This is a common excuse
to dismiss guilt. Cindy Anthony, mother of killer Casey Anthony
said. "Just because someone tells a few mistruths doesn't make
them a murderer." Indeed. Yet, the outright fabrication of
reality, rather than deceiving by withholding information, is rare
(10%) and is the language of sociopathic elements within murderers
who hold no true human empathy for anyone but self.
2. Objection: When one
disagrees with analysis, we sometimes find the following in various
forms:
"Well, I wouldn't
say that if my child disappeared!"
Answer : Principle is
build upon general and overwhelming data. There will always be an
exception. For the narcissist, the exception is the rule of thumb
because it is self-centered.
When a child goes
missing, the parent speaks with the presupposition that the words
that come out of her mouth, as a mother, will be understood. Even if
the subject intends deception, there is an expectation that the
audience will understand her words, with the intention of leading the
audience away from the truth.
When an innocent mother
speaks, she may be just as emotionally traumatized as the guilty
mother (the guilty mother will cry real tears and feel deep fear,
remorse, guilt, etc, just as the innocent mother will), and her words
will be used by her presupposing that whoever is listening will
understand. Neither mother is likely to choose a local colloquialism
that will confuse the audience unless she wants the audience
confused. Truth comes from experiential memory, while those who are
actively speaking (freely choosing her own words) speak from
chronological order, with a priority on finding the missing child.
Even while great emotional upheaval is present, the message will be
clear. What is the expectation of innocent mothers of missing
children? The innocent mother will go into her personal dictionary
and in less than a micro second, will tell us:
1. Her priority is her
child
2. Her child is alive
3. Her child must be
found
4. She calls out to her
child
5. She pleads with the
kidnapper
When does this happen? It
happens immediately. It happens in less than a micro second whether
or not police advise her to remain silent or what to say. It is a
powerful instinct recognized since antiquity that a mother is
created with. In this sense, she has no choice but to express this
powerful maternal instinct. The guilty mother will go into her
personal dictionary and will have a disruption in the speed of
transmission. She has a new pressure (stress) in which she must say
"what happened" while editing out any information that will
bring suspicion upon her.
Both mothers are
emotionally charged and traumatized to some extent. The guilty mother
will show a priority of:
1. Concealing what
happened becomes a priority. She must try to slow down the process
and even, at times, interrupt it.
2. She will also speak
truth. She will emphasize truthful elements because these are
stress-reducing words. This will be evident in slowing down the pace
of the chronology of what happened, and it often produces additional
and unnecessary detail.
Behavioral Analysis
Consider the absurdity of
the following. You were grocery shopping with your toddler, and
turned to check a price and the toddler was gone. What would you do?
You'd call her name and look for her. Would you:
a. keep shopping?
b. finish your shopping?
c. load your car?
d. drive home?
e. unload groceries at
home?
f. eat lunch?
g. Take a nap?
Wake up and now call
emergency services to help find your daughter? This is what Gerry and
Kate McCann essentially have done, but add in:
Attack those who disagree
Dedicate lives to self
preservation
When a child goes
missing, the parent will say: Madeleine is kidnapped. The kidnapper
will be identified by the parent. It will not be in passive voice.
Why not? Objection: Passivity is appropriately used when the subject
does not know the identity of the kidnapper, responsible for
kidnapping Madeleine.
Answer: The kidnapping
of a child from a mother (and bio father) is to enflame the single
most powerful instinct within woman. It is even more powerful than
breathing or self preservation. History is replete with accounts of
women who have sacrificed their own lives, without a moment to even
consider, instinctively to save their children' lives. It is not
only personal to the mother, but there is nothing more personal to
the mother than a stranger putting his hands on the child.
Someone kidnapped Madeleine, not "she has been taken" which
de-personalizes and conceals the identity of the person who "has
taken" her. Kate did not say, "someone took her" but
"has taken" is (in Statement Analysis) an "imperfect"
past tense; it is used to emphasize something truthful. It also
elongates time (element) in the subject's wording. It is truthful.
Madeleine has been taken. I believe Kate. Kate also said that she
hid her incredibly well. I believe this too.
Two Questions: What and
When.
1. What would an
innocent Kate McCann sound like?
1. Madeleine is
kidnapped.
2. Madeleine is alive.
3. Madeleine must be
found.
4. Give me my daughter
back.
This can be said through
tears, or through stony icy cold resolve. It can be said in
hysterics or it can be said in composure, but it is what innocent
people say when their child has been kidnapped.
2. When is this said?
Immediately.
This is the point of the
Free Editing Process.
When there is a delay to
say these things, the subject has not only denied her own maternal
instincts, but she is now giving "contaminated words"; that
is, words spoken well after the event because of external influence.
It could be the cries of the disbelieving public, or the suspicions
of the police.
When Kate McCann finally
made this speech it is akin to not only the absurdity of going home
from the food store and putting away the food, napping and waking up:
it is akin to doing this for the next two years before finally
deciding, "I guess I better talk to the kidnapper now."
Absurdity creates anger.
When someone is not
speaking from experiential memory, but disrupting memory in order to
deceive, it often sounds absurd. When people hear this, they become
naturally angry. It is the same as fake news. It insults us. Liars
hold their audiences in some level of contempt and when not believed,
this contempt may increase to the point of going on the offensive
with threats and suits against those who do not believe their lie.
Gerry and Kate McCann have held the world in contempt for ten years.
They have grown in their contempt to the point of attacking others
with threats and suits. This is no different than what liars do, such
as Lance Armstrong who sought to destroy reputations, businesses and
the lives of anyone who dared doubt him. Even his televised mea
culpa employed deception. The McCanns can read a statement here or
hear it on the news and call a press conference and say "We did
not cause Madeleine's death. Madeleine was kidnapped and we appeal
to you who have her..."
It is no longer the Free
Editing Process.
In an Australian
newspaper, Gerry McCann did not give weak denial of killing
Madeleine, he gave an "unreliable denial." After ten
years, there is nothing he could say to make it "reliable."
OJ Simpson can now stand up and say, "I did not kill Nicole",
but it is no longer a reliable denial. This was something we
expected to be said in the initial police interview. This would have
turned the burden of the interview over to police because no matter
where the interview went, if he did not kill her, he is behind the
Wall of Truth.
No matter the local
expressions, nor the emotions, body language, nor any other factor,
it was ten years ago that they were incapable of telling us that
their daughter, Madeleine, was kidnapped. It was not in their
language. It is, however, in the language of absurdity of those who
have dedicated their lives to defending the McCanns. These defenders
must say the words that the McCanns were incapable of saying.
Statement Analysis is non interpretive and allows the subject to be
believed. The same principles applied to the McCanns are applied to
known liars. The similarities are not "striking"; The
similarities are consistent. In order to defend the McCanns, one must
interpret their words and assign them new meaning, and speak for
them. This absurdity is why McCann supporters use words like "hate"
or attack personally, rather than address analysis. This is why they
must rely upon personal motive rather than fact.
Portuguese police knew
they did not have a kidnapping case, but stonewalling parents. In
every interview, the subject will give you one of two impressions :
Either the subject is working with you to facilitate the flow of
information to the same end (finding Madeleine) or The subject is
working against you to hinder the flow of information to conceal
guilty knowledge of what happened. When someone "didn't do it",
media interviews are often short and even dropped by media because
they are not interesting. Truthful people issue a reliable denial,
immediately, and it becomes a wall of truth of psychological
protection. They care about finding their child and show little
linguistic concern about anything else. If suspected, they
immediately take a polygraph so that investigators can quickly get to
the business of finding their child. How would you react if your
child was kidnapped? You'd be in an emotional state like nothing
you've experienced and your instincts would have you:
Call out to your child;
Call out to your child's
kidnapper;
and focus everything on
finding your child.
Timing? Immediately. Not
two years later. Not at the ten year anniversary.
The language of Gerry and
Kate McCann revealed that their daughter was dead and that they
needed to conceal what had happened. Please see here for analysis of
their words. In it, you are asked to follow the language and believe
them as you go along.
You should begin with the
presupposition of a kidnapping and see if the McCanns will affirm
this, or if their own words will talk you out of this position.
