Mail make a complete pig's ear of the case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425551/Kate-McCann-came-close-suicide-Portuguese-police-chief-unleashed-smear-campaign-reveals-psychologist.html

Kate McCann came close to suicide after Portuguese former police chief unleashed a 'smear campaign' against her, reveals her psychologist
Alan Pike, Kate McCann's psychologist, told a civil court she confessed 'dark thoughts' to him after the former detective's book was published
Police chief claimed the McCanns hid their daughter's body after a car crash
Kate's psychologist Alan Pike said she experienced a 'second trauma'
Evidence heard in Lisbon in £1million libel case against Goncalo Amaral

car crash ?

He is surely confusing "accident" with what Kate said later about Wanting to die in a car crash.

I sometimes despair when faced with all the laziness and stupidity.

Can I now sue Kate and all her minus variant minions?

I love it when the journalist wrote that there was an "injection" against the book! I see that the DM also failed to add that the book ban was overturned and this decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Car crash reporting more like  all the buzz words Disgraced  etc , the book IS banned etc ,[ somebody Email This d*** and set him straight ], keep them words in the public conscience , i'm surprises Kate is not  referred to as Fragrant  ala ARCHER .

How odd the Mail interrupts the article with the heading of the article of the mother who lost het 5 year old by leaving her on a conveyor belt.

Desmondic!

Was Madeleine DRIVING the crashed car?

 Madeleine wasn't driving - she had a seat in the boot alongside the dirty nappies.

Ye gods, you couldn't make it up - but someone, or lots of someones as the case may be, is being paid to. [sob emoticon]

Pig's ear?  Dog's bollocks and money for old rope come to mind.

PeterMac wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425551/Kate-McCann-came-close-suicide-Portuguese-police-chief-unleashed-smear-campaign-reveals-psychologist.html

Kate McCann came close to suicide after Portuguese former police chief unleashed a 'smear campaign' against her, reveals her psychologist
Alan Pike, Kate McCann's psychologist, told a civil court she confessed 'dark thoughts' to him after the former detective's book was published
Police chief claimed the McCanns hid their daughter's body after a car crash
Kate's psychologist Alan Pike said she experienced a 'second trauma'
Evidence heard in Lisbon in £1million libel case against Goncalo Amaral

car crash ?

He is surely confusing "accident" with what Kate said later about Wanting to die in a car crash.

Well, they cant help putting a twist to it to sell papers.

This Kate got more media attention than the Royal Kate.
You would think one is yesteryear and the other one ever lasting news because of who she marries.....but...
Must tell you who the press are obssessed about? And, you have to wonder at the reason behind the logic.

aiyoyo wrote:
Well, they cant help putting a twist to it to sell papers.

And then when they do put a twist on it, they don't allow comments so they can be put right.  

I  hope Amaral turns the tables and sues these tabloids aswell as the McCann's.

ultimaThule wrote:Pig's ear?  Dog's bollocks and money for old rope come to mind.

Please can we leave animals out of this
 
 
Only cuddlecat belongs to this saga, and a poor pony with 'maddie' 'margaret' 'madalene' err whomever on it.
Even those I doubt as being present in Madeleine's short life.

No animal was involved, only humans!

Animals were used to try and solve the case, we are still waiting.

Have a good day all! I am thinking of Amaral, hope the sun is shining!
Wishing him the best possible outcome.
I admire him

parapono

stillsloppingout wrote:Car crash reporting more like  all the buzz words Disgraced  etc , the book IS banned etc ,[ somebody Email This d*** and set him straight ], keep them words in the public conscience , i'm surprises Kate is not  referred to as Fragrant  ala ARCHER .

Oh but she is fragrant ...a la Eddie 

Daily Express also running this as headlne article of online edition - sorry can't post link.  Seems like a press release then.  Interesting earlier witnesses not reported, but hardly surprising given the calibre.  It's not stated how this trauma specialist came in contact with KMcC, was he privately consulted?  Interestingly, he thinks he was the only person told of K's sucicidal feelings.  He hadn't seen the diary then, shared with NoW readers, regarding wishing to press a button and they would all be gone, together and gone, which predated GA's book release.  Interesting also how he unquestioningly accepts that her upset was solely due to the book and the 'injustice' to her daughter when it would be equally likely, if not more so, that the injustice felt was about herself.  Anger also mentioned but attributed to family members, not KMcC, although other witnesses have attested to K's anger over the book.  Still waiting for a witness who will explain exactly how GA's book damaged 'the search', when there is no evidence that the public were searching in any case.  This case  is entirely about reputation (the couple's) and the fact the book made a fair bit of money.  Even if the judge does find in the McC's favour, it is to be hoped she won't overlook the fact that they failed to complain until after the first year of sales, once G had discovered the extent of these and the profits involved, and reduces their claim to zero.  Action should have been taken immediately if this was about stopping the alleged effect on 'the search', smears, trauma, hurt, etc.  Waiting for the profits to rack up when these claimed effects could have been imediately staunched should negate the claim entirely, even if it is successful.  IMO.

When is Rebekah Brooks' trial?

28th October according to this -[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23804179.]

And -does anyone else see the resemblance of Andy Coulson to - erm - anyone else?

Surely Stupid boy Pike knows that GA , TV1 knows that KM has said , to the world, that she wanted to push a button and her AND the twins would be gone.
Surely Stupid boy Pike  knows tha GA, TV1 knows that KM has said, to the world, that she wanted her AND the twins to die in a car crash.

And he thinks that she gave an EXCLUSIVE 'suicide bid' STORY only told him!

And all these pyschos want to PROTECT the twins?

What are they going to hear at school today?
__________________________________________________

Informe Especial interview CTN interview

Kate said: "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."

This is an extremely DISTURBING quote

What is Kate saying when she says that she sometimes wants to "press a button", the result of which would be that they were "all gone, and it's all finished"? It would appear to imply the families communal death through the quick and painless means of pressing an imaginary 'suicide' button.

If that is what she means, then there must be serious concern for the safety and welfare of the twins should the McCanns eventually face charges over Madeleine's disappearance.

She continues by saying that they will be "all together and gone". The only way they could be "all together", in such a scenario as she describes, is if she knows that Madeleine is already dead.
___________________________________________________________

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/kate-mccann-i-fantasised-we-would-all-be-wiped-out-in-a-car-crash-1-802272

Kate McCann: I fantasised we would all be wiped out in a car crash.

She said: "I used to have thoughts like, we'll get wiped out in the car on the motorway. So it would just happen, we'd all be gone, and the pain would be away.

"The guilt, where you feel, 'Madeleine is missing so how can you enjoy yourself?' – that is much, much, much less than it was and I think if you're going to have some sort of normality, you've got to have some laughter and some joy."
_________________________________________________________________________

Good to know that you now feel that the GUILT about Madeleine 'missing' and in the hands of paedos, is much, much, much LESS than it was, Kate.

AND ALL THE ABOVE BEFORE, BEFORE, BEFORE GA HAD WRITTEN A SINGLE WORD!

The newstatesman article was written in May 2010 - snipped from the article "
"The guilt, where you feel, 'Madeleine is missing so how can you enjoy yourself?' – that is much, much, much less than it was and I think if you're going to have some sort of normality, you've got to have some laughter and some joy." "


On Wee Kelly's sofa before this year's marathon run it was stated that she can at last smile for the first time.

She would have been better shutting up a long time ago then the internet warriors wouldn't be able to show time and again so many contradictory statements.

Monty Heck wrote:Daily Express also running this as headlne article of online edition - sorry can't post link.  Seems like a press release then.  Interesting earlier witnesses not reported, but hardly surprising given the calibre.  It's not stated how this trauma specialist came in contact with KMcC, was he privately consulted?  Interestingly, he thinks he was the only person told of K's sucicidal feelings.  He hadn't seen the diary then, shared with NoW readers, regarding wishing to press a button and they would all be gone, together and gone, which predated GA's book release.  Interesting also how he unquestioningly accepts that her upset was solely due to the book and the 'injustice' to her daughter when it would be equally likely, if not more so, that the injustice felt was about herself.  Anger also mentioned but attributed to family members, not KMcC, although other witnesses have attested to K's anger over the book.  Still waiting for a witness who will explain exactly how GA's book damaged 'the search', when there is no evidence that the public were searching in any case.  This case  is entirely about reputation (the couple's) and the fact the book made a fair bit of money.  Even if the judge does find in the McC's favour, it is to be hoped she won't overlook the fact that they failed to complain until after the first year of sales, once G had discovered the extent of these and the profits involved, and reduces their claim to zero.  Action should have been taken immediately if this was about stopping the alleged effect on 'the search', smears, trauma, hurt, etc.  Waiting for the profits to rack up when these claimed effects could have been imediately staunched should negate the claim entirely, even if it is successful.  IMO.

I think you're right - it does seem like press release from pinky.  

Pike has done the most damage to Kate by breaking client-counsellor confidence.
Counsellor is not supposed to divulge client's secret.  
Not that kate hasn't arleady told the world wide world, but coming from her is a different story.
This may have repercussion later on.
Imagine if she was incarcerated she'll have to be put on suicide watch 24/7.

Hello Kevin....!!!  I am good at stating the obvious aren't I?

Mr Pike: "would you ever break client-counsellor confidentiality"?

Mr Pike, in best Ian Paisley 'voice'.."'NEVER!, NEVER!, NEVER!"

You'd love to tell Mr Pike your 'secrets and thoughts' wouldn't you?..................................NOT!

It came from an interview by CTN interview, Informe Especial - Late AugustE

PublishedAOct. 5, 2007

The full quote is:

Kate said: "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."

What is interesting here is the use of the word ALL, and the use of this single world tells me that kate knows Maddie is dead and she has guilty knowledge of it.

Think about it.

If we go with the claim by both kate and gerry that Maddie is alive and not seriously harmed, that they had no involvement in her disappearance or the subsequent cover up, then the mom's maternal instinct would automatically preclude her from ever considering giving up let alone pressing any button and ending it all.

Her only concern is and should be finding her missing child, co-operating fully with any investigation and answering any an all questions regardless of how probing or embarrassing.

By using the word ALL in relation to pressing a button and ending it all. she tells us Maddie is dead, if she pressed a button and ended it and she knows Maddie is alive, then she has just made Maddie an orphan, something no mom would ever considerm
 Not only that she has told us she is prepared to kill her remaining children in order for them to ALL be togeather.

This is deeply concerning in regard to her mental state.

No innocent or sane mom would ever consider killing her own children regardless of the reason.

Where we have seen children murdered by their mom (or dad) they have been out of their minds with anger, jealousy or fear.

They have murdered their child to prevent the other parent gaining custody of the children, in extremes even to gaining visitation with the children.

They have done it out of anger as we have seen all too often in cases of abuse, often it is just one child that bears the brunt of the abuse and when killed a faked abduction is staged.

They have also done it out of fear of having their children removed by CPS as an example and here we see a case of if i can't have them, nobody can. This can also apply to custody battles.

The problem here is if Kate can kill her own children so they can all be togeather then it indicates quite possibly that the taboo of child death either deliberately or by accident has been crossed, they in fact have nothing left to lose so to speak.

If i were to see this comment and i was with social services or even her doctor i would be extremely concerned with regard to the safety and well being of her children and would have in fact removed them either to a trusted family member or, if there could be no guarantee of their dafety should the mccanns visit a foster family until the case had been resolved.

It may also be the straw that breaks the camel's back, fear of losing all the children, never to see them again or have contact with them could be nough to get to th truth of what happened and then perhaps at some point in the future the parents could be allowed contact with the twins. better to confess and have some hope than be deceptive and lose all hope.

THE FULL INTERVIEW BEFORE THEY WERE MADE ARGUIDOS

(CBS) "Every day, it's very hard without Madeleine, and we all miss her so much. It certainly feels like there's a big void in our life without her."

Little Madeleine McCann's mother, Kate McCann, summed up the feelings of her and her husband, Gerry McCann, Madeleine's father, in an interview in late August. It was done in Lisbon, Portugal, with reporter Mirna Schindler of Chile's Television Nacional, for "Informe Especial" -- their 60 Minutes.

Madeleine vanished from her parents' vacation villa in Portugal five months ago, and Kate and Gerry, who live in England, have been named suspects in the disappearance by Portuguese authorities. They adamantly deny any involvement.


The Television Nacional interview was the last they gave before being named suspects. British and Portuguese law bars them from granting interviews, now that they're officially under suspicion. But they did give an interview to a local British newspaper recently.

The Early Show has exclusive United States rights to the Chilean network's interview, and is showing it in two parts. One aired Friday, and the other will be broadcast Monday.



Gerry McCann told Schindler, "I'm sure most people can imagine how bad it was that first night ... how terrifying it was and, as most parents would say, the parents' worst nightmare.

"The key thing that we're trying to do is trying to channel all of our emotions and energy into influencing a search for Madeleine, and that's what drives us forward."

Madeleine is "pretty," Kate said. " ... She's very sociable, very engaging. She's bright and funny. She does have a sense of danger there."




"Mm-hmm," Gerry agreed.

"Even though she's very young," Kate continued. "She does have a sense of danger."

"We're clearly biased," Gerry admitted, "but Madeleine is as close to the perfect child as you could get, you know, for someone who is so young, less than four when she was taken. She really is amazing. Nothing like this has ever happened -- and I mean, going with anyone she didn't know, for example."

The McCanns say they had left Madeleine and her younger, twin siblings asleep in the rented villa while they had dinner nearby. Despite an extensive search and international publicity effort led by Kate and Gerry, no confirmed trace Madeleine has turned up.

What, Schindler asked, was the first thing that crossed their minds when they came back to the room from dinner and realized that Madeleine wasn't there?

"I knew straight away she'd been taken," Kate replied.




"At the first moment?" Schindler asked.




"Well," Kate responded, "put it this way: I mean, she hadn't walked out of the apartment."




"When I got there," Gerry said, "and Kate told me, and when I looked at the scene as well, I had absolutely no doubt. But, you know, our immediate reaction was to double and triple check, and we did do that, both in the apartment and in the vicinity. And then we said, 'Call the police.' And one of our friends alerted both the resort manager and the police."


Are they relying on the expertise of Portuguese police?

"Well, we have to rely on them," Gerry answered. "They are the investigating police force. Of course, the investigation, we've stated all along, has the most likely chance of us finding her.

"There's still no evidence of serious harm to Madeleine that we know of, and that gives us hope and gives us hope that she could still be alive."

Kate said, "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."




Kate constantly carries around a stuffed animal she said "was Madeleine's favorite cuddly toy, and, you know, she took it to bed with her every night, or if she was tired or not feeling very well, she always had it as a comfort. And, I suppose, it was special to Madeleine, so it's special to me, really, and I just feel a bit closer to her" holding it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(CBS) "Every day, it's very hard without Madeleine, and we all miss her so much. It certainly feels like there's a big void in our life without her."

Initially this sounds like a strong statement yet it isn't.

I would expect to see the strong Personal I since a mom's bond with her child is very strong. Instead there is the pronoun WE which shares or minimises.

Note also the qualifiers used in regard to a big void in our life.

Qualifiers are additional words in a sentence which if removed do not affect the meaning of the sentence.

Qualifiers weaken a statement, each additional word making the statement weaker.

Note that she doesn't tell us there is a big void in our lives, ONLY that it FEELS LIKE there is a void.
If it only feel like something then it isn't an actuality.
She doesn't tell us there is a big void in their lives so we can't do it for her either.



Gerry McCann told Schindler, "I'm sure most people can imagine how bad it was that first night ... how terrifying it was and, as most parents would say, the parents' worst nightmare.

Most parents?

I am sure having a child go missing is every parents worst nightmare.

If it is something that most parents would say is their worst nightmare, what is the worst nightmare for the rest of the parents?

He also uses MOST when referring to parents imagining how bad it was, why not all parents?

Are there some parents who can't imagine how bad it was?

Who are these parents?

Parents who perhaps aren't innocent?



"The key thing that we're trying to do is trying to channel all of our emotions and energy into influencing a search for Madeleine, and that's what drives us forward."

We is used to share responsibility, unity and/or guilt.

I look for where the pronouns are, which ones are used and where and also where they aren't.

Trying doesn't mean succeeding, it can be limited by knowledge or consquences.

Trying to channel doesn't mean they are channeling, there are limitations, what are those limitations and why are there limitations in what they can do if they are innocent?

Order is important, it tells us the priorities of the subject at the moment they speak, each word is spoken a microsecond after being thought.

Here he places emotions first before energy.

Why are emotions more important than energy, thinking more important than doing?

Now we have a strange sentence which tells us a lot about what he was thinking.

The keyword here being influencing.

He doesn't tell us they are searching for Madeleine physically or helping the search, rather he uses the word influencing.

Why would he need to influence the search for his daughter?

What did the influencing of the search involve and whom?

Was the influencing to help find Madeleine or to control how the search was done in order to not find Madeleine?

If i were interviewing i would spend time asking what he meant by the word influencing and what it pertained to.

Innocent parents don't have a reason to spend time influencing the search, they are out there searching and co-operating with LE.

Parents who have guilty knowledge on the other hand, have a reason to influence the search, away from them and away from finding the child.

What drives them forward is not finding Madeleine, rather it is influencing the search.



Madeleine is "pretty," Kate said. " ... She's very sociable, very engaging. She's bright and funny. She does have a sense of danger there."

A good interviewer will not introduce new language into an interview, rather they will allow the subject to guide the interview.

They will note when new language is introduced.

Also pay attention to the tenses, parents of missing or dead children, especially mom's use presnt tense refusing to acknowledge their child is dead, this can often persist even when the child has been dead for many years.

Here we see kate introducing a sense of danger.

Why did she need to introduce this?
Because it is on her mind.

Order is important.

Here Pretty is first, showing kate prioritises looks first.

Next comes sociable, engaging, bright funny and finally a sense of danger.



"Mm-hmm," Gerry agreed

Gerry cannot bring himself to agree with kates description of Madeleine, why?

If he can't say something, we can't do it for him.

I would be interested to see what the family dynamics were in relation to gerry and Madeleine in comaprison to gerry and the twins



"Even though she's very young," Kate continued. "She does have a sense of danger."

Here we see kate repeating sense of danger making it sensitive.

Why is it sensitive?

Would this explain the reaction of the cadaver dog behind the sofa, the laundered curtains and fluids on the apartment floor?

Is it possible Madeleine and her sense of danger caused her to have an accident?

I would be asking more questions in relation to this sense of danger, what she meant by it and what caused her to have this impression?



"We're clearly biased," Gerry admitted, "but Madeleine is as close to the perfect child as you could get, you know, for someone who is so young, less than four when she was taken. She really is amazing. Nothing like this has ever happened -- and I mean, going with anyone she didn't know, for example."

We're is used to share responsibility, unity or guilt.

But negates the previous sentence which in this case is "clearly biased".

Parents will always call their child perfect, even when it isn't due to perhaps a disability.
What is gerry's definition of the perfect child?

Note the article he uses which is THE rather than the expected A.

Note also the pronoun he uses, he says YOU rather than the expected I or WE.

You is 2nd person distancing. he distances himself from the statement close to perfect.

He tells us how we would describe her not how he would describe her.

This tells me that the relationship between him and Madeleine was perhaps not as good as he made out.

Could the fact she be IVF be a source of the problem?

YOU KNOW shows awareness of the interviewer and is also used to convince or convey.

We don't know so tell us.

TAKEN is an interesting phrase to use as it has several different conotations.

Why does he not use the word abducted or kidnapped?

Is it because she wasn't and taken in fact means died?.

We often hear it at funerals or in obits, xxx taken too soon.


She really is amazing.

She is amazing because she was taken?

Nothing like this has ever happened --

He stops himself before finishing the sentence, what was he going to say Nothing like this has ever happened -- before?

Broken sentences mean the subject is self editing.

Why is there a need to self edit if they are innocent?

This is close, that is distancing so he is close to what happened.

Nothing cannot happen, anything in the negative is sensitive.

If nothing like this has ever happened, then there must be a something else that has happened.

What has happened before that isn't like this?



And I mean, going with anyone she didn't know, for example."

She went with anyone she did know?

Is he telling us she went willingly with whoever it was because she knew them?

Is this subtle demeaning?

She vanished because she went with someone she knew?

And at the start of a sentence indicates missing information

What, Schindler asked, was the first thing that crossed their minds when they came back to the room from dinner and realized that Madeleine wasn't there?

A good question. he lets the subject choose where to start on the question.
Compound questions are bad as it lets the subject pick and choose what to answer and we can't always tell what question they are actually answering.

"I knew straight away she'd been taken," Kate replied.

"At the first moment?" Schindler asked.

It would have been better if he hadn't prompted her, subjects don't like silence and will fill it often revealing more than they intended.

"Well," Kate responded, "put it this way: I mean, she hadn't walked out of the apartment."

Well is used to buy thinking time.

This is close, that is distancing.

Anything in the negative is sensitive.

How could she be so sure she hadn't walked out of the apartment?



"When I got there," Gerry said, "and Kate told me, and when I looked at the scene as well, i had absolutely no doubt.
But, you know, our immediate reaction was to double and triple check, and we did do that, both in the apartment and in the vicinity.
And then we said, 'Call the police.'
And one of our friends alerted both the resort manager and the police."

Kate told him what when he got there?

She had allegedly shouted from the balcony "They've taken her", another version has her running to the tapas bar and shouting Madeleine was gone.

Is this a 3rd version of when he found out?

Note the use of the qualifier ABSOLUTELY, not only did he have no doubt he had absolutely no doubt which weakens the statement.
ualifiers are extra words that when removed do not affect the meaning of the sentence

You know shows awareness of the interviewer and is also used to convince and convey.

I pay attention to see where such phrases occur to see if it is a pattern of speech that crops up frequently. or if it only crops up occasionally in which case it should be flagged.

Here, it has cropped up when telling us how Madeleine was close to the perfect child and now when he talks about their immediate reaction.

Why does he need to convince us?

Why reaction and not response?

THAT is distancing, THIS is close.

WE did that, What is the THAT they they did?

Why does he feel the need to convince us they double and triple checked, it would be a given.

Is there a need to tell us this is what they did because they in fact did something else?

What was the something else they did?

He tells us WE checked the apartment and the vicinity.

Who is the We that checked?

He doesn't tell us so we can't assume?

And then we said, 'Call the police.

And indicates missing information, what happened between the we checked and the we said call the police?

Did they both say call the police and to whom or did only one of them say call the police.

We indicates shared responsibility, unity or guilt.

Who did he say to call the police?

'And one of our friends alerted both the resort manager and the police."

And indicates missing information, what happened between the request being made to call the police and the friend making the call?

Note he says One of our friends (shared friendship) why doesn't he say who made the call?

Is there a need to conceal the identity of the caller?

Order is important.

The resort manager before the police.

Given that kate knew immediately Madeleine had been abducted, why was time wasted double and triple checking not only the apartment but the vicinity as well?

Why was the resort manager contacted before the police?

He says to call the police yet the resort manger and police are alerted, what prompts the change in language?

Are they relying on the expertise of Portuguese police?

I would prefer to have heard the exact question



"Well, we have to rely on them," Gerry answered. "They are the investigating police force.
Of course, the investigation, we've stated all along, has the most likely chance of us finding her.

Well is used to buy thinking time, why does he need to think about an answer in regard to relying on the police, who else would they rely on?

Have is an interesting word to use in relation to relying on the Portugues police, it implies reluctance perhaps.

Would he prefer an investigation by another police force?
 This is interesting given they weren't exactly on speaking terms with the police by this time.

Of course is used to convince and convey.

We've indicates shared responsibility, unity and/or guilty knowledge.

Note, it is not the police running the investigation that has the best chance of finding her rather it is US that has the best chance of finding her.

"There's still no evidence of serious harm to Madeleine that we know of, and that gives us hope and gives us hope that she could still be alive."

Note he weakens the statement with the qualifier Still indicating there could be evidence in the future of serious harm.

Also note the qualifier Serious in relation to harm which again weakens the statement.

Note also he weakens it further with the qualifiers WE KNOW OF.

Is there evidence of serious harm they don't know of?

How does he define serious harm as opposed to harm?

I would ask him to define serious harm and what evidence would be needed to prove such? ( especially since the cadaver and blood dogs reacted not only in the partment and to clothing, they also reacted to the hire car)

This is close, That is distancing

Is there then evidence of harm.

he distances himself from evidence of serious harm, would that explain they thorough cleaning job even to washing the curtains?
Remember We look not only at what is there that shouldn't be, we also look at what should be there and isn't,
A criminal can clean a crimes scene too well which is just as revealing.

He distances himself from hope there is no evidence of serious harm leading me to conclude there is ( the dogs and fluids)

He also distances himself from hope Madeleine is still alive.
This is unexpected as am innocent parent will continue to believe their missing child is alive until proven otherwise (Ben Needham as an example)

Hope is repeated twice making is sensitive.

Note also he uses the word us which shows unity.



Kate said, "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."

Note the qualifier REALLY in relation to coping.
Additional qualifiers weaken the statement, remove them and the sentence still works.
Anything in the negative is sensitive, here she weakens her statement of it not being easy to cope.

What isn't easy coping?

Some days are better than others. ...

What days are better than others? what happens in the good day, what happens in the bad days?

There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone.

She tells us there are days when you think which allows for others to think otherwise.

Her pronouns are all over the place here, she uses a lot of we and you and very few I so we note where she does take ownership.

She tells us what we think not what she herself thinks, if she can't tell us we can't assume.

'I can't do this anymore,'

Anything in the negative is sensitive,

This is close, that is distancing.

What is the THIS she can't do any more?

She doesn't tell us so we can't assume.

Could it be the searching, the charade, the media interviews, the doubters, the pretending to be a happy wife to gerry?

I would ask her what is the THIS

and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone

Again she tells us what we want, not what she wants.

There is a lot of distancing when kate is asked about herself.

This is concerning.

Pressing a button would indicate perhaps suicidal thoughts except she uses the word we which indicates unity.

She also uses the word ALL which is inclusive.

we're all gone and we're all together and gone.

This is repeated making it sensitive.

Why would she want to have them all gone?

It also tells me she knows or suspects Madeleine is dead.

Logically, if she knew or suspected Madeleine was alive, pressing a button so they would all be gone togeather would make Madeleine an orphan if she were alive.

Why would an innocent parent contemplate not only suicide, rather, a murder suicide since she would be killing the twins and gerry.

Since she is allegedly a practising catholic she is also committing mortal sins.

It only make sense if Madeleine is dead, only then could they all be togeather.

One then as to ask why she would go so far as killing her remaining children if she were an innocent parent?

Yes, she would feel guilt that Madeleine is dead and that if they had done things differently she would be alive and all would be well in the mccann household.

Innocent parents would cherish and protect the children they have left and perhaps become an advocate for children in the world.

Now, guilty parents may decide that the net is closing in, they don't want to lose their remaining children which is why they lied and deceived, and if they can't have them nobody can.

After all they have nothing to lose, they will lose custody of Sean  and Amelie, they will lose their jobs, their family and friends and they wouldn't be the first nor the last to go out with a bang. (josh powell)



Wherever.

An interesting word to use. I would have asked what she meant by wherever.

As catholic who just commited a murder suicide, she knows she would go to hell.
 Her children as victims and children and being innocent would go to heaven, gerry would be with kate.

Now, does she think she and the children would be togeather in heaven?

Does she think the children would be with her in hell? not very nice for her innocent victims and a tad unfair.

Does she think they will all end up in purgatory?

Where does she think Madeleine is that they would all be togeather?

But you can't, you know.

Anything in the negative is sensitive.

She tells us we can't not that she can't.

It is something she has seriously considered, i wonder if she had mental health issues prior to Madeleine going missing?

You know shows awareness of the interviewer and is also used to convince and convey.

Who is she trying to convince, the interviewer or herself?



Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."

Just is a minimising downwards word, here it is an additional qualifier which weakens the statement.

She doesn't take ownershop instead she uses the pronoun YOU which tells us we may have a bad day, not that she has a bad day.

Broken sentences indicate a reason to self edit. Words are spoken a microsecond of being thought.

Why does she feel the need to edit what she says? Knowledge or consequences?

What was she going to say?

Notice also she weakens it with the qualifier IF.

She doesn't tells us there are bad days only there might be, even then she tells us again we might be having a bad day not that she herself has a bad day. Note also yet another qualifier REALLY, which further weakens the statement concerning a bad day.

Now look at it again and you can see how weak her statement is about having a bad day.

She doesn't have a bad day you do, not only is it a bad day it is a really bad day, if inded it was a bad day at all.

If it isn't a really bad day what is it?

If it isn't a bad day what is it?

What is the opposite of bad?

If she can't take ownership of these days, we can't do it for her.



-- if you're having a really bad day, which we do.

We is used to share responsibilty or guilt. She says YOU'RE instead of i which is expected.

Does she not have bad days? Why not?

If she does, when are those bad days?



"And you can't help but think that."

And indicates missing information.

Again she tells us what we can't help thinking, not, what she can't help thinking.

What is the THAT that can't be helped thinking about thinking about?

Is is concerning that she has contemplated to some degree what amounts to murder suicide.

She is a risk to not only herself, also her children, When would she feel pressured enough to press the button?

If she and gerry are truly innocent and Madeleine is found alive as she believes why would she consider doing what to any parent is unthinkable?

Yes, there would be guilt that Madeleine was harmed and they should have done things differently, it doesn't warrant thinking about pressing any button.

Granted they may not get Madeleine back, either because of what she endured and she needs years of treatment, because the authorities feel the parents are in part responsible and thus should not be trusted with her care or, that Madeleine herself refuses to go back to their care.

Again it doesn't warrant pressing any button,

Now, Guilty parents on the other hand would and do consider pressing a button (josh powell as an example)

If Madeleine is found alive and points the finger at kate and gerry for what happened, they would lose custody of their remaining children face serious jail time in Portugal and probably in the UK as well for things such as fraud, obtaining money and services by deception, wire fraud, lying to police and so on. they would also lose theor medical licences, their family and friends and supporters and also probably be sued by those they previously sued or threatened to sue.

If Madeleine is found dead and there is evidence incriminating kate and gerry, see above.

If Madeleine is dead and there is evidence incriminating a person or persons unknown and it is proven kate and gerry had knowledge of such and conspired to hide the evidence and lie to police see above.

If Madeleine is found dead and there is evidence incriminating a person or persons known to the mccann ie a tapas 7 member see above. they would have known or at a minimum suspected, hence the need to be deceptive.

If Madeleine is found dead and there is evidence incriminating a person or persons unknown to the mccanns or the tapas 7 then they couldn't face homicide charges. However, one would have to ask why, if they were innocent of involvement, they had the need to be uncooperative with police in two countries, refuse to answer questions or do a reconstruction and generally act like a guilty parent. it would lead me to ask if they are deceptive, they have a reason to be deceptive and i would be asking some real interesting questions.

Given the behavior of the parents (and the tapas 7) i would discount the latter option, the perpetrator was known to Madeleine and also to kate and gerry.



Kate constantly carries around a stuffed animal she said "was Madeleine's favorite cuddly toy, and, you know, she took it to bed with her every night, or if she was tired or not feeling very well, she always had it as a comfort. And, I suppose, it was special to Madeleine, so it's special to me, really, and I just feel a bit closer to her" holding it.

Note the tenses, lots of past tense which is unexpected.

Was, not is Madeleine's favorite toy? Is it not anymore?

YOU KNOW shows awareness of the interviewer and is also used to convince and convey.

Note when the language changes from Madeleine to she or her.

And indicates missing information.

She doesn't tell us it was special to Madeleine, only that she supposes it was.

I would ask more questions about cuddlecat, such as when she got it, who got it for her, why dogs reacted to it, why she washed it, why it wasn't kept as evidence due to DNA on it.

Just is a minimising downwards word, she doesn't feel closer to Madeleine holding it, notice also the additional qualifier of really in relation to it being special to kate which weakens the statement.

Since she washed it, and thus lost Madeleine's smell. i wonder what part of it makes her feel closer to Madeleine and where it is these days since it seems to have gone awol.

How can it have been her favorite toy when she allegedly had received it for her 4th birthday early ?

There are multiple red flags in this short interview, there are also warning signs should the investigation start getting too close to the truth of the matter.

My concern is the twins are at risk should the case be reopened, something the mccanns refused to do when offered the chance to keep it open and currently when by answering the 48 questions or taking part with the tapas 7 in a police reconstruction they could have it opened for the price of a stamp or a quick phone call.

Innocent parents act in a certain and specific way.

Guilty parents also act in a certain and specific way,

There is no book per se ( as such, yet) that says how a parent should act when their child goes missing.

Innocent parents cooperate fully and completely with police, they take polygraphs so they can be immediately cleared from the investigation.

They constantly call police with ideas and suggestions, the smallest memory or bit of information could find their child.They almost camp at the police station.

They show emotion in pressers simply because they love their child dearly, they talk to their child promising to find them, they don't care about any abductor getting their jollies, they want their child to know they are searching for them.

They don't have to be prompted to talk to the media and call out to their child.

They can't be kept quiet such is their determination to get their child home.

They don't threaten to sue anyone who disagrees with their version of events, go travelling the world meeting celebs.

Their child is first and foremost their priority, nothing else matters.

They look like crap, they don't eat or sleep, they don't care how they look, their child is all that matters.

They are out physically searching till they drop

Guilty parents refuse to cooperate with the police, they find excuses not to take polygraphs or polygraph shop john and patsy ramsey) or take drink or drugs in an effort to pass (billie dunn & shawn adkins)

They don't talk to their child reassuring them they will be found.

They show no emotion in relation to their missing child but woe betide anyone who disparages them.

They are concerned more with their own reputation than finding their child.

They have to be prompted to call out to their child (sergio and becky celis)


They hire defence lawyers.

They have a need to hire PR spokesment to control the flow of information.

They don't search, instead they stay at home (debbie bradley and jeremy irwin) or go jogging (kate and gerry mccann) or hide away saying nothing to anyone (even to the extent of losing visitation with their daughter so as to not incriminate themselves- terri horman) or go out partying and having fun (casey anthony)


In cases of missing children in relations to statement analysis, assume the parents are being completely honest, look for the expected (how you would react, what you would sayin the same situation) and note anything that is unexpected.

This way the unexpected will stand out. if you assume they are being deceptive then the unexpected doesn't stand out clearly and can be overlooked.

Hobs wrote:It came from an interview by CTN interview, Informe Especial - Late AugustE

PublishedAOct. 5, 2007

The full quote is:

Kate said: "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."

What is interesting here is the use of the word ALL, and the use of this single world tells me that kate knows Maddie is dead and she has guilty knowledge of it.

Think about it.

If we go with the claim by both kate and gerry that Maddie is alive and not seriously harmed, that they had no involvement in her disappearance or the subsequent cover up, then the mom's maternal instinct would automatically preclude her from ever considering giving up let alone pressing any button and ending it all.

Her only concern is and should be finding her missing child, co-operating fully with any investigation and answering any an all questions regardless of how probing or embarrassing.

By using the word ALL in relation to pressing a button and ending it all. she tells us Maddie is dead, if she pressed a button and ended it and she knows Maddie is alive, then she has just made Maddie an orphan, something no mom would ever considerm
 Not only that she has told us she is prepared to kill her remaining children in order for them to ALL be togeather.

This is deeply concerning in regard to her mental state.

No innocent or sane mom would ever consider killing her own children regardless of the reason.

Where we have seen children murdered by their mom (or dad) they have been out of their minds with anger, jealousy or fear.

They have murdered their child to prevent the other parent gaining custody of the children, in extremes even to gaining visitation with the children.

They have done it out of anger as we have seen all too often in cases of abuse, often it is just one child that bears the brunt of the abuse and when killed a faked abduction is staged.

They have also done it out of fear of having their children removed by CPS as an example and here we see a case of if i can't have them, nobody can. This can also apply to custody battles.

The problem here is if Kate can kill her own children so they can all be togeather then it indicates quite possibly that the taboo of child death either deliberately or by accident has been crossed, they in fact have nothing left to lose so to speak.

If i were to see this comment and i was with social services or even her doctor i would be extremely concerned with regard to the safety and well being of her children and would have in fact removed them either to a trusted family member or, if there could be no guarantee of their dafety should the mccanns visit a foster family until the case had been resolved.

It may also be the straw that breaks the camel's back, fear of losing all the children, never to see them again or have contact with them could be nough to get to th truth of what happened and then perhaps at some point in the future the parents could be allowed contact with the twins. better to confess and have some hope than be deceptive and lose all hope.

THE FULL INTERVIEW BEFORE THEY WERE MADE ARGUIDOS

(CBS) "Every day, it's very hard without Madeleine, and we all miss her so much. It certainly feels like there's a big void in our life without her."

Little Madeleine McCann's mother, Kate McCann, summed up the feelings of her and her husband, Gerry McCann, Madeleine's father, in an interview in late August. It was done in Lisbon, Portugal, with reporter Mirna Schindler of Chile's Television Nacional, for "Informe Especial" -- their 60 Minutes.

Madeleine vanished from her parents' vacation villa in Portugal five months ago, and Kate and Gerry, who live in England, have been named suspects in the disappearance by Portuguese authorities. They adamantly deny any involvement.


The Television Nacional interview was the last they gave before being named suspects. British and Portuguese law bars them from granting interviews, now that they're officially under suspicion. But they did give an interview to a local British newspaper recently.

The Early Show has exclusive United States rights to the Chilean network's interview, and is showing it in two parts. One aired Friday, and the other will be broadcast Monday.



Gerry McCann told Schindler, "I'm sure most people can imagine how bad it was that first night ... how terrifying it was and, as most parents would say, the parents' worst nightmare.

"The key thing that we're trying to do is trying to channel all of our emotions and energy into influencing a search for Madeleine, and that's what drives us forward."

Madeleine is "pretty," Kate said. " ... She's very sociable, very engaging. She's bright and funny. She does have a sense of danger there."




"Mm-hmm," Gerry agreed.

"Even though she's very young," Kate continued. "She does have a sense of danger."

"We're clearly biased," Gerry admitted, "but Madeleine is as close to the perfect child as you could get, you know, for someone who is so young, less than four when she was taken. She really is amazing. Nothing like this has ever happened -- and I mean, going with anyone she didn't know, for example."

The McCanns say they had left Madeleine and her younger, twin siblings asleep in the rented villa while they had dinner nearby. Despite an extensive search and international publicity effort led by Kate and Gerry, no confirmed trace Madeleine has turned up.

What, Schindler asked, was the first thing that crossed their minds when they came back to the room from dinner and realized that Madeleine wasn't there?

"I knew straight away she'd been taken," Kate replied.




"At the first moment?" Schindler asked.




"Well," Kate responded, "put it this way: I mean, she hadn't walked out of the apartment."




"When I got there," Gerry said, "and Kate told me, and when I looked at the scene as well, I had absolutely no doubt. But, you know, our immediate reaction was to double and triple check, and we did do that, both in the apartment and in the vicinity. And then we said, 'Call the police.' And one of our friends alerted both the resort manager and the police."


Are they relying on the expertise of Portuguese police?

"Well, we have to rely on them," Gerry answered. "They are the investigating police force. Of course, the investigation, we've stated all along, has the most likely chance of us finding her.

"There's still no evidence of serious harm to Madeleine that we know of, and that gives us hope and gives us hope that she could still be alive."

Kate said, "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."




Kate constantly carries around a stuffed animal she said "was Madeleine's favorite cuddly toy, and, you know, she took it to bed with her every night, or if she was tired or not feeling very well, she always had it as a comfort. And, I suppose, it was special to Madeleine, so it's special to me, really, and I just feel a bit closer to her" holding it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(CBS) "Every day, it's very hard without Madeleine, and we all miss her so much. It certainly feels like there's a big void in our life without her."

Initially this sounds like a strong statement yet it isn't.

I would expect to see the strong Personal I since a mom's bond with her child is very strong. Instead there is the pronoun WE which shares or minimises.

Note also the qualifiers used in regard to a big void in our life.

Qualifiers are additional words in a sentence which if removed do not affect the meaning of the sentence.

Qualifiers weaken a statement, each additional word making the statement weaker.

Note that she doesn't tell us there is a big void in our lives, ONLY that it FEELS LIKE there is a void.
If it only feel like something then it isn't an actuality.
She doesn't tell us there is a big void in their lives so we can't do it for her either.



Gerry McCann told Schindler, "I'm sure most people can imagine how bad it was that first night ... how terrifying it was and, as most parents would say, the parents' worst nightmare.

Most parents?

I am sure having a child go missing is every parents worst nightmare.

If it is something that most parents would say is their worst nightmare, what is the worst nightmare for the rest of the parents?

He also uses MOST when referring to parents imagining how bad it was, why not all parents?

Are there some parents who can't imagine how bad it was?

Who are these parents?

Parents who perhaps aren't innocent?



"The key thing that we're trying to do is trying to channel all of our emotions and energy into influencing a search for Madeleine, and that's what drives us forward."

We is used to share responsibility, unity and/or guilt.

I look for where the pronouns are, which ones are used and where and also where they aren't.

Trying doesn't mean succeeding, it can be limited by knowledge or consquences.

Trying to channel doesn't mean they are channeling, there are limitations, what are those limitations and why are there limitations in what they can do if they are innocent?

Order is important, it tells us the priorities of the subject at the moment they speak, each word is spoken a microsecond after being thought.

Here he places emotions first before energy.

Why are emotions more important than energy, thinking more important than doing?

Now we have a strange sentence which tells us a lot about what he was thinking.

The keyword here being influencing.

He doesn't tell us they are searching for Madeleine physically or helping the search, rather he uses the word influencing.

Why would he need to influence the search for his daughter?

What did the influencing of the search involve and whom?

Was the influencing to help find Madeleine or to control how the search was done in order to not find Madeleine?

If i were interviewing i would spend time asking what he meant by the word influencing and what it pertained to.

Innocent parents don't have a reason to spend time influencing the search, they are out there searching and co-operating with LE.

Parents who have guilty knowledge on the other hand, have a reason to influence the search, away from them and away from finding the child.

What drives them forward is not finding Madeleine, rather it is influencing the search.



Madeleine is "pretty," Kate said. " ... She's very sociable, very engaging. She's bright and funny. She does have a sense of danger there."

A good interviewer will not introduce new language into an interview, rather they will allow the subject to guide the interview.

They will note when new language is introduced.

Also pay attention to the tenses, parents of missing or dead children, especially mom's use presnt tense refusing to acknowledge their child is dead, this can often persist even when the child has been dead for many years.

Here we see kate introducing a sense of danger.

Why did she need to introduce this?
Because it is on her mind.

Order is important.

Here Pretty is first, showing kate prioritises looks first.

Next comes sociable, engaging, bright funny and finally a sense of danger.



"Mm-hmm," Gerry agreed

Gerry cannot bring himself to agree with kates description of Madeleine, why?

If he can't say something, we can't do it for him.

I would be interested to see what the family dynamics were in relation to gerry and Madeleine in comaprison to gerry and the twins



"Even though she's very young," Kate continued. "She does have a sense of danger."

Here we see kate repeating sense of danger making it sensitive.

Why is it sensitive?

Would this explain the reaction of the cadaver dog behind the sofa, the laundered curtains and fluids on the apartment floor?

Is it possible Madeleine and her sense of danger caused her to have an accident?

I would be asking more questions in relation to this sense of danger, what she meant by it and what caused her to have this impression?



"We're clearly biased," Gerry admitted, "but Madeleine is as close to the perfect child as you could get, you know, for someone who is so young, less than four when she was taken. She really is amazing. Nothing like this has ever happened -- and I mean, going with anyone she didn't know, for example."

We're is used to share responsibility, unity or guilt.

But negates the previous sentence which in this case is "clearly biased".

Parents will always call their child perfect, even when it isn't due to perhaps a disability.
What is gerry's definition of the perfect child?

Note the article he uses which is THE rather than the expected A.

Note also the pronoun he uses, he says YOU rather than the expected I or WE.

You is 2nd person distancing. he distances himself from the statement close to perfect.

He tells us how we would describe her not how he would describe her.

This tells me that the relationship between him and Madeleine was perhaps not as good as he made out.

Could the fact she be IVF be a source of the problem?

YOU KNOW shows awareness of the interviewer and is also used to convince or convey.

We don't know so tell us.

TAKEN is an interesting phrase to use as it has several different conotations.

Why does he not use the word abducted or kidnapped?

Is it because she wasn't and taken in fact means died?.

We often hear it at funerals or in obits, xxx taken too soon.


She really is amazing.

She is amazing because she was taken?

Nothing like this has ever happened --

He stops himself before finishing the sentence, what was he going to say Nothing like this has ever happened -- before?

Broken sentences mean the subject is self editing.

Why is there a need to self edit if they are innocent?

This is close, that is distancing so he is close to what happened.

Nothing cannot happen, anything in the negative is sensitive.

If nothing like this has ever happened, then there must be a something else that has happened.

What has happened before that isn't like this?



And I mean, going with anyone she didn't know, for example."

She went with anyone she did know?

Is he telling us she went willingly with whoever it was because she knew them?

Is this subtle demeaning?

She vanished because she went with someone she knew?

And at the start of a sentence indicates missing information

What, Schindler asked, was the first thing that crossed their minds when they came back to the room from dinner and realized that Madeleine wasn't there?

A good question. he lets the subject choose where to start on the question.
Compound questions are bad as it lets the subject pick and choose what to answer and we can't always tell what question they are actually answering.

"I knew straight away she'd been taken," Kate replied.

"At the first moment?" Schindler asked.

It would have been better if he hadn't prompted her, subjects don't like silence and will fill it often revealing more than they intended.

"Well," Kate responded, "put it this way: I mean, she hadn't walked out of the apartment."

Well is used to buy thinking time.

This is close, that is distancing.

Anything in the negative is sensitive.

How could she be so sure she hadn't walked out of the apartment?



"When I got there," Gerry said, "and Kate told me, and when I looked at the scene as well, i had absolutely no doubt.
But, you know, our immediate reaction was to double and triple check, and we did do that, both in the apartment and in the vicinity.
And then we said, 'Call the police.'
And one of our friends alerted both the resort manager and the police."

Kate told him what when he got there?

She had allegedly shouted from the balcony "They've taken her", another version has her running to the tapas bar and shouting Madeleine was gone.

Is this a 3rd version of when he found out?

Note the use of the qualifier ABSOLUTELY, not only did he have no doubt he had absolutely no doubt which weakens the statement.
ualifiers are extra words that when removed do not affect the meaning of the sentence

You know shows awareness of the interviewer and is also used to convince and convey.

I pay attention to see where such phrases occur to see if it is a pattern of speech that crops up frequently. or if it only crops up occasionally in which case it should be flagged.

Here, it has cropped up when telling us how Madeleine was close to the perfect child and now when he talks about their immediate reaction.

Why does he need to convince us?

Why reaction and not response?

THAT is distancing, THIS is close.

WE did that, What is the THAT they they did?

Why does he feel the need to convince us they double and triple checked, it would be a given.

Is there a need to tell us this is what they did because they in fact did something else?

What was the something else they did?

He tells us WE checked the apartment and the vicinity.

Who is the We that checked?

He doesn't tell us so we can't assume?

And then we said, 'Call the police.

And indicates missing information, what happened between the we checked and the we said call the police?

Did they both say call the police and to whom or did only one of them say call the police.

We indicates shared responsibility, unity or guilt.

Who did he say to call the police?

'And one of our friends alerted both the resort manager and the police."

And indicates missing information, what happened between the request being made to call the police and the friend making the call?

Note he says One of our friends (shared friendship) why doesn't he say who made the call?

Is there a need to conceal the identity of the caller?

Order is important.

The resort manager before the police.

Given that kate knew immediately Madeleine had been abducted, why was time wasted double and triple checking not only the apartment but the vicinity as well?

Why was the resort manager contacted before the police?

He says to call the police yet the resort manger and police are alerted, what prompts the change in language?

Are they relying on the expertise of Portuguese police?

I would prefer to have heard the exact question



"Well, we have to rely on them," Gerry answered. "They are the investigating police force.
Of course, the investigation, we've stated all along, has the most likely chance of us finding her.

Well is used to buy thinking time, why does he need to think about an answer in regard to relying on the police, who else would they rely on?

Have is an interesting word to use in relation to relying on the Portugues police, it implies reluctance perhaps.

Would he prefer an investigation by another police force?
 This is interesting given they weren't exactly on speaking terms with the police by this time.

Of course is used to convince and convey.

We've indicates shared responsibility, unity and/or guilty knowledge.

Note, it is not the police running the investigation that has the best chance of finding her rather it is US that has the best chance of finding her.

"There's still no evidence of serious harm to Madeleine that we know of, and that gives us hope and gives us hope that she could still be alive."

Note he weakens the statement with the qualifier Still indicating there could be evidence in the future of serious harm.

Also note the qualifier Serious in relation to harm which again weakens the statement.

Note also he weakens it further with the qualifiers WE KNOW OF.

Is there evidence of serious harm they don't know of?

How does he define serious harm as opposed to harm?

I would ask him to define serious harm and what evidence would be needed to prove such? ( especially since the cadaver and blood dogs reacted not only in the partment and to clothing, they also reacted to the hire car)

This is close, That is distancing

Is there then evidence of harm.

he distances himself from evidence of serious harm, would that explain they thorough cleaning job even to washing the curtains?
Remember We look not only at what is there that shouldn't be, we also look at what should be there and isn't,
A criminal can clean a crimes scene too well which is just as revealing.

He distances himself from hope there is no evidence of serious harm leading me to conclude there is ( the dogs and fluids)

He also distances himself from hope Madeleine is still alive.
This is unexpected as am innocent parent will continue to believe their missing child is alive until proven otherwise (Ben Needham as an example)

Hope is repeated twice making is sensitive.

Note also he uses the word us which shows unity.



Kate said, "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."

Note the qualifier REALLY in relation to coping.
Additional qualifiers weaken the statement, remove them and the sentence still works.
Anything in the negative is sensitive, here she weakens her statement of it not being easy to cope.

What isn't easy coping?

Some days are better than others. ...

What days are better than others? what happens in the good day, what happens in the bad days?

There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone.

She tells us there are days when you think which allows for others to think otherwise.

Her pronouns are all over the place here, she uses a lot of we and you and very few I so we note where she does take ownership.

She tells us what we think not what she herself thinks, if she can't tell us we can't assume.

'I can't do this anymore,'

Anything in the negative is sensitive,

This is close, that is distancing.

What is the THIS she can't do any more?

She doesn't tell us so we can't assume.

Could it be the searching, the charade, the media interviews, the doubters, the pretending to be a happy wife to gerry?

I would ask her what is the THIS

and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone

Again she tells us what we want, not what she wants.

There is a lot of distancing when kate is asked about herself.

This is concerning.

Pressing a button would indicate perhaps suicidal thoughts except she uses the word we which indicates unity.

She also uses the word ALL which is inclusive.

we're all gone and we're all together and gone.

This is repeated making it sensitive.

Why would she want to have them all gone?

It also tells me she knows or suspects Madeleine is dead.

Logically, if she knew or suspected Madeleine was alive, pressing a button so they would all be gone togeather would make Madeleine an orphan if she were alive.

Why would an innocent parent contemplate not only suicide, rather, a murder suicide since she would be killing the twins and gerry.

Since she is allegedly a practising catholic she is also committing mortal sins.

It only make sense if Madeleine is dead, only then could they all be togeather.

One then as to ask why she would go so far as killing her remaining children if she were an innocent parent?

Yes, she would feel guilt that Madeleine is dead and that if they had done things differently she would be alive and all would be well in the mccann household.

Innocent parents would cherish and protect the children they have left and perhaps become an advocate for children in the world.

Now, guilty parents may decide that the net is closing in, they don't want to lose their remaining children which is why they lied and deceived, and if they can't have them nobody can.

After all they have nothing to lose, they will lose custody of Sean  and Amelie, they will lose their jobs, their family and friends and they wouldn't be the first nor the last to go out with a bang. (josh powell)



Wherever.

An interesting word to use. I would have asked what she meant by wherever.

As catholic who just commited a murder suicide, she knows she would go to hell.
 Her children as victims and children and being innocent would go to heaven, gerry would be with kate.

Now, does she think she and the children would be togeather in heaven?

Does she think the children would be with her in hell? not very nice for her innocent victims and a tad unfair.

Does she think they will all end up in purgatory?

Where does she think Madeleine is that they would all be togeather?

But you can't, you know.

Anything in the negative is sensitive.

She tells us we can't not that she can't.

It is something she has seriously considered, i wonder if she had mental health issues prior to Madeleine going missing?

You know shows awareness of the interviewer and is also used to convince and convey.

Who is she trying to convince, the interviewer or herself?



Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."

Just is a minimising downwards word, here it is an additional qualifier which weakens the statement.

She doesn't take ownershop instead she uses the pronoun YOU which tells us we may have a bad day, not that she has a bad day.

Broken sentences indicate a reason to self edit. Words are spoken a microsecond of being thought.

Why does she feel the need to edit what she says? Knowledge or consequences?

What was she going to say?

Notice also she weakens it with the qualifier IF.

She doesn't tells us there are bad days only there might be, even then she tells us again we might be having a bad day not that she herself has a bad day. Note also yet another qualifier REALLY, which further weakens the statement concerning a bad day.

Now look at it again and you can see how weak her statement is about having a bad day.

She doesn't have a bad day you do, not only is it a bad day it is a really bad day, if inded it was a bad day at all.

If it isn't a really bad day what is it?

If it isn't a bad day what is it?

What is the opposite of bad?

If she can't take ownership of these days, we can't do it for her.



-- if you're having a really bad day, which we do.

We is used to share responsibilty or guilt. She says YOU'RE instead of i which is expected.

Does she not have bad days? Why not?

If she does, when are those bad days?



"And you can't help but think that."

And indicates missing information.

Again she tells us what we can't help thinking, not, what she can't help thinking.

What is the THAT that can't be helped thinking about thinking about?

Is is concerning that she has contemplated to some degree what amounts to murder suicide.

She is a risk to not only herself, also her children, When would she feel pressured enough to press the button?

If she and gerry are truly innocent and Madeleine is found alive as she believes why would she consider doing what to any parent is unthinkable?

Yes, there would be guilt that Madeleine was harmed and they should have done things differently, it doesn't warrant thinking about pressing any button.

Granted they may not get Madeleine back, either because of what she endured and she needs years of treatment, because the authorities feel the parents are in part responsible and thus should not be trusted with her care or, that Madeleine herself refuses to go back to their care.

Again it doesn't warrant pressing any button,

Now, Guilty parents on the other hand would and do consider pressing a button (josh powell as an example)

If Madeleine is found alive and points the finger at kate and gerry for what happened, they would lose custody of their remaining children face serious jail time in Portugal and probably in the UK as well for things such as fraud, obtaining money and services by deception, wire fraud, lying to police and so on. they would also lose theor medical licences, their family and friends and supporters and also probably be sued by those they previously sued or threatened to sue.

If Madeleine is found dead and there is evidence incriminating kate and gerry, see above.

If Madeleine is dead and there is evidence incriminating a person or persons unknown and it is proven kate and gerry had knowledge of such and conspired to hide the evidence and lie to police see above.

If Madeleine is found dead and there is evidence incriminating a person or persons known to the mccann ie a tapas 7 member see above. they would have known or at a minimum suspected, hence the need to be deceptive.

If Madeleine is found dead and there is evidence incriminating a person or persons unknown to the mccanns or the tapas 7 then they couldn't face homicide charges. However, one would have to ask why, if they were innocent of involvement, they had the need to be uncooperative with police in two countries, refuse to answer questions or do a reconstruction and generally act like a guilty parent. it would lead me to ask if they are deceptive, they have a reason to be deceptive and i would be asking some real interesting questions.

Given the behavior of the parents (and the tapas 7) i would discount the latter option, the perpetrator was known to Madeleine and also to kate and gerry.



Kate constantly carries around a stuffed animal she said "was Madeleine's favorite cuddly toy, and, you know, she took it to bed with her every night, or if she was tired or not feeling very well, she always had it as a comfort. And, I suppose, it was special to Madeleine, so it's special to me, really, and I just feel a bit closer to her" holding it.

Note the tenses, lots of past tense which is unexpected.

Was, not is Madeleine's favorite toy? Is it not anymore?

YOU KNOW shows awareness of the interviewer and is also used to convince and convey.

Note when the language changes from Madeleine to she or her.

And indicates missing information.

She doesn't tell us it was special to Madeleine, only that she supposes it was.

I would ask more questions about cuddlecat, such as when she got it, who got it for her, why dogs reacted to it, why she washed it, why it wasn't kept as evidence due to DNA on it.

Just is a minimising downwards word, she doesn't feel closer to Madeleine holding it, notice also the additional qualifier of really in relation to it being special to kate which weakens the statement.

Since she washed it, and thus lost Madeleine's smell. i wonder what part of it makes her feel closer to Madeleine and where it is these days since it seems to have gone awol.

How can it have been her favorite toy when she allegedly had received it for her 4th birthday early ?

There are multiple red flags in this short interview, there are also warning signs should the investigation start getting too close to the truth of the matter.

My concern is the twins are at risk should the case be reopened, something the mccanns refused to do when offered the chance to keep it open and currently when by answering the 48 questions or taking part with the tapas 7 in a police reconstruction they could have it opened for the price of a stamp or a quick phone call.

Innocent parents act in a certain and specific way.

Guilty parents also act in a certain and specific way,

There is no book per se ( as such, yet) that says how a parent should act when their child goes missing.

Innocent parents cooperate fully and completely with police, they take polygraphs so they can be immediately cleared from the investigation.

They constantly call police with ideas and suggestions, the smallest memory or bit of information could find their child.They almost camp at the police station.

They show emotion in pressers simply because they love their child dearly, they talk to their child promising to find them, they don't care about any abductor getting their jollies, they want their child to know they are searching for them.

They don't have to be prompted to talk to the media and call out to their child.

They can't be kept quiet such is their determination to get their child home.

They don't threaten to sue anyone who disagrees with their version of events, go travelling the world meeting celebs.

Their child is first and foremost their priority, nothing else matters.

They look like crap, they don't eat or sleep, they don't care how they look, their child is all that matters.

They are out physically searching till they drop

Guilty parents refuse to cooperate with the police, they find excuses not to take polygraphs or polygraph shop john and patsy ramsey) or take drink or drugs in an effort to pass (billie dunn & shawn adkins)

They don't talk to their child reassuring them they will be found.

They show no emotion in relation to their missing child but woe betide anyone who disparages them.

They are concerned more with their own reputation than finding their child.

They have to be prompted to call out to their child (sergio and becky celis)


They hire defence lawyers.

They have a need to hire PR spokesment to control the flow of information.

They don't search, instead they stay at home (debbie bradley and jeremy irwin) or go jogging (kate and gerry mccann) or hide away saying nothing to anyone (even to the extent of losing visitation with their daughter so as to not incriminate themselves- terri horman) or go out partying and having fun (casey anthony)


In cases of missing children in relations to statement analysis, assume the parents are being completely honest, look for the expected (how you would react, what you would sayin the same situation) and note anything that is unexpected.

This way the unexpected will stand out. if you assume they are being deceptive then the unexpected doesn't stand out clearly and can be overlooked.

Gerry McCann told Schindler, "I'm sure most people can imagine how bad it was that first night ... how terrifying it was and, as most parents would say, the parents' worst nightmare.

Most parents?

I am sure having a child go missing is every parents worst nightmare.

If it is something that most parents would say is their worst nightmare, what is the worst nightmare for the rest of the parents?

He also uses MOST when referring to parents imagining how bad it was, why not all parents?

Are there some parents who can't imagine how bad it was?

Who are these parents?

Parents who perhaps aren't innocent?

Fueling Fear

Highly publicized cases of child victimization serve to heighten fears among children and parents.

	A 1987 Roper poll found that 76 percent of children "feared being kidnapped" -- their number one concern (Feinberg, 1987).
	In 1988, Peter Hart found that the second greatest perceived risk of parents regarding their children was "being kidnapped" (37 percent) (Colburn, 1988).
	In a 1997 survey conducted by the Princeton Survey Research Associates Poll, the top worry of parents is the fear that their child might be kidnaped or become the victim of violent crime. In the same survey, parents' fear that their child might become a victim of sexual abuse ranked fourth, just behind serious accident or illness (Kantrowitz, 1997).

In 1991, Mayo Clinic pediatricians Gunnar B. Stickler, M.D., Daniel D. Broughton, M.D., and Anthony Alario, M.D., in conjunction with Margery Salter, Ph.D., published an extensive examination in Clinical Pediatrics (Stickler et al., 1991:527). The authors reported that 72 percent of parents feared "that their child will be kidnapped by a stranger" but noted that, "as in other violent crimes such as rape, physical abuse, and sexual abuse, a child is more likely to be abducted by someone known to the victim than by a stranger. Anticipatory guidance in these areas needs to be aimed more at interpersonal relationships than at 'stranger danger.'" Although intense media focus on the most extreme cases has led millions of Americans to define the missing and exploited children problem in terms of the rarest cases, some media have performed a public service by focusing national attention on the need for research, common definitions, and consistent reporting of missing children.

Combating Fear With Facts

America's families need not live in fear, but parents need to be fully informed about the dangers their children face and the most effective ways to educate them and guard them from harm. The key to child safety is communication. Children should recognize that "strangers" often do not look strange, and parents should recognize that most abductions and assaults involve an offender and victim who know each other. The exaggerated fears of "stranger danger" generated by lurid tabloid headlines need to be replaced with solid facts garnered from serious research.

Madeleine is "pretty," Kate said. " ... She's very sociable, very engaging. She's bright and funny. She does have a sense of danger there."

A good interviewer will not introduce new language into an interview, rather they will allow the subject to guide the interview.

They will note when new language is introduced.

Also pay attention to the tenses, parents of missing or dead children, especially mom's use presnt tense refusing to acknowledge their child is dead, this can often persist even when the child has been dead for many years.

Here we see kate introducing a sense of danger.

Why did she need to introduce this?
Because it is on her mind.

Order is important.

Here Pretty is first, showing kate prioritises looks first.

Next comes sociable, engaging, bright funny and finally a sense of danger.



"Mm-hmm," Gerry agreed

Gerry cannot bring himself to agree with kates description of Madeleine, why?

If he can't say something, we can't do it for him.

I would be interested to see what the family dynamics were in relation to gerry and Madeleine in comaprison to gerry and the twins

"Even though she's very young," Kate continued. "She does have a sense of danger."

Here we see kate repeating sense of danger making it sensitive.

Why is it sensitive?

Would this explain the reaction of the cadaver dog behind the sofa, the laundered curtains and fluids on the apartment floor?

Is it possible Madeleine and her sense of danger caused her to have an accident?

I would be asking more questions in relation to this sense of danger, what she meant by it and what caused her to have this impression?

"Stranger Danger"

Dr. David Warden, psychologist at the University of Strathclyde in the United Kingdom, evaluated the efficacy of child safety programs. He emphasized that the responsibility to identify a potential assailant cannot be left to the child alone (Kent, 1990):

No matter how intelligent the child, he or she does not see the world through skeptical adult eyes . . . Children live very much in the present. They can't foresee someone's actions or judge their intentions, certainly not at primary school age. They have a very weak understanding of motives, they simply take someone at face value. The concept of stranger danger is difficult, because it clashes with the social constraints on children to be polite to adults. Research suggests that children don't really know what a stranger is. They feel that once someone tells his name, he ceases to be a stranger.

Dr. Ray Wyre, a noted authority on the treatment of sex offenders and director of therapy at the Gracewell Institute in Birmingham, England, cautioned that "the first step in advising 'never talk to strangers' is to make sure that the child understands what a stranger is. Children might believe it means a person who looks odd, rather than someone they do not know." Dr. Wyre further observed that a child's image "of a stranger is different from an adult's. The person trying to ensnare them could seem caring and persuasive and not at all threatening. After ten seconds' chat, they are no longer a stranger to a child" (Rayment, 1991).

On the HBO special "How to Raise a Street Smart Child" (1987), host Daniel J. Travanti asked, "Does your child know what a stranger is? The fact is most children just do not know. They think a stranger is someone threatening and evil. The problem with telling your children, 'don't talk to strangers' is that the bad guys don't always look bad."
On the same cable program, young, elementary schoolchildren provided their definitions of a stranger:

	"A stranger sometimes wears a hat . . . sometimes a black or brown jacket and is a guy with a beard . . . some hair and a moustache and some glasses."
	"I think a stranger is like . . . a punk rocker that drinks beer all day and sits around in a vacant lot."
	"A stranger looks mean and ugly . . . a creep."
	"Big . . . bigger than you, bigger than most people."

The concept is clearly a difficult one for a child to grasp. A neighbor, a familiar face in a child's daily routine, or someone the child's parents know well enough to speak to or whose name the child knows is probably not regarded as a stranger.

Keeping Children Safe: Rhetoric and Reality
by Ernest E. Allen

http://www.ojjdp.gov/jjjournal/jjjournal598/safe.html