Monday

Extended version Deception Indicated: Rahni Sadler to Gerry McCann: "Did you kill your daughter?"




From Peter Hyatt's blog http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/gerry-mccann-did-you-kill-your-daughter.html?m=1

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Gerry McCann: Did You Kill Your Daughter


"Yes or no" Questions are generally avoided by skillful interviewers until they have first asked open-ended questions and carefully worded follow up questions, utilizing the subject's own language.  

For innocent parents, even under public pressure, the strength of truth is something instinctively protective.  

"One could never prove I killed my daughter because I didn't.  But, I love my daughter and right now, I do not know if she is being fed, and I must now..."

The language of concern for Madeleine's present state and the kidnapping itself, should dominate the language. 

In basic analysis, we will even count words. 

How many words are dedicated to:

a.  Madeleine's current health and well being in hands of a kidnapper?
b.  Touching the heart of the kidnapper to release her?

Or

c.  How many words are dedicated to proving that which needs no proving?

This is the "Wall of Truth" that produces confidence, and sometimes, under constant accusation, dismissal.  

Dismissal in light of something quite particular:  

The innocent (de facto) father cares for little but what Maddie is going through and how to facilitate her release.  You can accuse him all day long but his words are going to either ignore or dismiss the false claim because his priority is not defense but getting his daughter back.  

Analysis of the McCann interview can be found in three parts.  Here is Part One.  We allow a subject's words to guide us. 

We presuppose truth and innocence.  We only conclude guilt and deception if the subject talks us into it.  

What millions have felt instinctively, we show using principles that are timeless.  

In this, the language reveals that Madeleine died an unintentional death and the parents engaged in a criminal cover up for the purpose of self preservation. 

The theme of "self" has been consistent in the decade since their daughter's death. 

In part three, you will see the scenario that the parents set up for us and how effectively they concealed their daughter's remains.  

It is within the language that we see that Madeleine was very likely sedated, regularly, but on the night in question, something went wrong.  The dosage was not correct.  She may have ceased breathing, or she may have awakened and fallen and was either deceased or beyond savings.  

The McCanns would have faced Negligence charges as well as professional consequences.  

They chose to deceive and protect themselves.  

Behavioral Analysis post crime shows the pattern of deceivers:  attacking the doubters, emotional manipulation and self promotion; all unnecessary in the "Wall of Truth" we find in the statements of the de facto innocent.  (all are judicially "innocent" under presumption).  




IR:  Did you Kill Your Daughter? 

Gerry McCann -"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 
You would have to start with Why? How? When? Who? And there's just
simply, you know, no answer to any of these things – there's nothing
to suggest anything. So no – that's an emphatic 'no'."


This is a short portion from a video.  The transcripts were posted and the accuracy of the analysis is based upon the accuracy of the transcripts.  

The question was direct:  "Did you kill your daughter?"

Statement Analysis of the interviews that the McCanns have given is consistent:

The child was not kidnapped nor missing.  

The parents' language made the case simple to follow.  Behavioral Analysis was consistent with the language.  

Parents of kidnapped children move quickly due to instinct.  This happens with or without police intervention.  

1.  They call out for their child.  This is a natural instinct.  They cannot cease thinking about the current status of their child and this will come into their language.  

2.  They will show concern for the immediate needs of the child.  In their language there will be questions about her favorite toy, food, care, medicine, etc.  

3.  They will plead with the kidnapper.  They will do exactly what a parent does when someone babysits:  ensure proper care.  

4.  They will accept nothing less than the return.  

The language will be dominant.  

5.  They will incessantly remember some small detail and facilitate the flow of information.  They will be impatient with police, searchers, etc.  

6.  They will not allow for any possibility of anything other than the truth.  This is called the "wall of truth" and is very powerful.  

They will not entertain possibilities of guilt for themselves.  See Kate McCann's embedded confession.  

In the case of Madeleine McCann, we followed the parents' words.  

People who support the idea of kidnapping will say the words the McCanns refused to say.  


Interviewer:  Did you Kill Your Daughter? 


expected:  

a.  "No."  

This may exist by itself.  This would shift the burden of conversational politeness to the Interviewer because the question should be a complete disconnect from reality.  This is because the subject will be so far removed from the possibility that he or she will allow the silence to push the interviewer to find another question or rebuttal.  There is an "indifference" to accusations because it is not true.  

Yet, even further here, we have seen cases where one can say "no" because the subject did not directly cause the death.  

In one case, a man said, "I did not kill her" because he had injected his girlfriend with an unintentionally lethal dosage of heroin.  The drug killed her, not him.  

Yes or No questions are not powerful questions.  Yet, in this case, the IR felt the need to ask and we are able to analyze the answer.  

In "yes or no" questions, investigators often count every word after the word "no" as unnecessary.  

b.  "No.  She was kidnapped and we must..." moving directly into action of not giving up, finding the kidnapper, pleading for good care for Madeleine, and so on. 

Unexpected:  

a.  Avoidance
b.  Sensitivity to the question 
c.  Need to persuade
Gerry McCann  -"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 
You would have to start with why? How? When? Who? And there's just
simply, you know, no answer to any of these things – there's nothing
to suggest anything. So no – that's an emphatic 'no'."


Let's look at his answer:

"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 
You would have to start with why? How? When? Who? And there's just
simply, you know, no answer to any of these things – there's nothing
to suggest anything. So no – that's an emphatic 'no'."


a.  "And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know."

First notice the avoidance of the simple word "no" making the question sensitive to him. 

Even after years of a public accusing him of killing her daughter the expectation remains that parental instinct will deny death and hold to still recovering her.  

b. "you know" is a pause, showing our second indicator of sensitivity to the question.  This actually speaks to the need to consider what to say rather than the word "no" which would then put the interview burden upon the interviewer to deal with the denial.  

The blunt "no" is used by several:

1.  The actual innocent use it.  This is especially important in the context of biological child. 
2.  Those who do not wish to facilitate the flow of information will use it when they are deliberately practicing short answers.  See 911 call of former police chief Will McCollum for an example of "pulling teeth" to get information.  

c.  "you know" is not only avoidance of "yes or no", and a pause for time to think, it is also a habit of speech that arises when a subject has acute awareness of either the interviewer and/or the interviewer/audience (TV).  

What do we do with a habit of speech?

We note what words provoke it and what words do not.

Here, the simple "yes or no" question has produced sensitivity indicators which means that the question of killing her is sensitive.  

He could have said, "no", even if they had blamed the sedation or accident on the death, yet it may be that the subject is considering himself as ultimately responsible, as a father.  

I have some concerns from their language about other activities that I did not address in the interview due to the technical nature of the principles (it would have been beyond explaining to a general audience) but even in such cases of possible sexual abuse, we find complexity.  This complexity can show itself as incongruent language;  one is a caring responsible parent at times, while a negligent, abusive parent another time.  

Here, we may consider that the subject might be considering his own culpability in her death, even if unintended as the language indicates.  

The sensitivity continues to this question:  

"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 

"you know"  is repeated.  This question is to be considered "very sensitive" to him. 

Now:  "And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 

"there's nothing" goes immediately to proving his innocence, rather than denying any responsibility for Madeleine's death. 

This is a signal of self preservation and explains the need to pause and the increases in sensitivity: 

he must protect himself rather than deny. 

"There's nothing" (what does "nothing" look like?) is now qualified:

"with any logic"

Rather than deny killing his daughter, he now employs as a distraction, motive. 

An innocent has no need to explore motive, true enough, but so much more when we consider context:

He is using energy to defend himself by refusing to deny, but by claiming it is not logical.  Yet, the broken sentence indicates self censoring.  

Instead of saying "no" and allowing the wall of truth to leave it there, he avoids a denial and introduces the word "logic" where he should have complete linguistic disinterest.  

Even if he had been arrested, this would be something his attorney would argue while he, the innocent, would be focused upon negotiations and pleadings with the kidnapper to:

a.  return Maddie
b.  feed her
c.  give her her favorite ______-
d.  share information with the kidnapper to comfort Maddie
e. express the utter impotence that inflames parental instinct

Maddie was three.  

This means he had, from the beginning, rocked her to sleep, held her to comfort her, relieved her distress in changing diaper, making her warm, etc, and had kissed and bandaged her falls and cuts. 

Suddenly, in a kidnapping, this is all stolen from him.  It causes traumatic frustration in un fulfilled  parental instinct.  It can cause mental health issues. 

Consider the ancient wisdom about the mother bear robbed of her whelps.  

Parental instinct is powerful and creative.  

It is also missing from the language of the parents.  

Question:  How could this be?
Answer:   Acceptance of Madeleine's death.  

It is in death's acceptance that the instinctive frustration is extinguished --and even this takes time. 

The language of parents who have lost children to death reveals this frustration.  They feel guilty for not being able to intervene any longer in their child and it takes time to process and resolve into acceptance.  

Even mothers who have found their children dead will often "rub" them trying to warm their bodies, and cover them with a blanket to "protect, shield and dignify" the child.  It is heartbreaking.  

Falsely accused of missing children care little or nothing for accusers, articles, personal insults; they just want their child back.  "just" being the operative word:  the other issues pale in comparison. 

Here we see the priority of the subject come through in his answer:

Rather than denial, he indicates that he has explored various explanations in logic.  

It is like saying "it does not make sense."

Consider this statement in line with his wife's statement about normal and routine where things "did not" go wrong.  This was likely a reference to sedation.  

If you've ever had a fussy sick child, you were glad to have medicine that alleviated the symptoms and helped the child fall asleep. It is in everyone's best interest. 

Now consider an anesthesiologist as a professional and listen to the interview. 

"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 

It is not just "logic" but further exploration of "any" logic.  This is to broaden a personal defense rather than deny according to the question. 

"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 

Any logic that "could", in regard to the question of killing his daughter.  This speaks to the application of "any logic" in the future/conditional tense.  

He is addressing defense proofs in a scenario that does not exist.  he is not in court and...

his child is still "missing" and in someone else's hands, allegedly, according to the narrative.  

In what could have been a very boring question, we find a pattern emerge:

The need to persuade rather than truthfully report.  

This is the theme of his answer. 

He begins with a diversion to become argumentative in  a position where no argument is needed. 

He does not move towards Madeleine linguistically (as expected) but is in "self" mode, specifically in motive or evidence.  

Rather than deny, the sensitivity continues. 

This is an abundance of words that are employed rather than the single word "no."

You would have to start with why? 

He wants to know what "you" (interviewer/audience) thinks of motive.  

Q.  Why would he want this?

A.  so he can attempt to rebut it. 

This affirms consistency of unintended death by negligence.  The focus is upon self, not the denial and not the child.  

After "why" (motive) he now continues: 


How? 

This is the methodology that he addresses rather than saying "no."



When? 

This is the time frame of Maddie's death that is concerning to him.  


Who? 

This is to answer the question "Did you...?" with a question, "Who?"

What does this mean?

Beyond the obvious "answering a question with a question" that parents of teenagers know all about, he is signaling that "did you?", singular, is insufficient. 

This is an indicator that both parents were in agreement with the sedation, neglect and cover up, and have been since.  


And there's just
simply, you know, no answer to any of these things 


Here he presents the questions and tells us in passive voice that there are "just simply, you know, no answer", which is singular. 

There are answers. 

"just simply" is to make a simple conclusion from one who has, still, refused to answer the question.  

"just" is a dependent word indicating he is comparing "simple" to "complex" (or something that is not simple). 

This comes from not a single question, but a series of questions:

1.  Why?

2. How?

3.  When?

4.  Who?

The order is important.  



None of the questions has to do with kidnapping.  All are presupposing that Madeline is deceased.  


It is interesting to note that "who" comes after "how" and "when."  This makes "who" at the bottom.  "Why?" is first.  

– there's nothing
to suggest anything. 


Here the question is about killing his daughter, not about how she was killed. 

It is not about when she was killed.

It was not about who killed her. 

It is about "you"; with "Did you kill your daughter?"

He introduces, in his answer, other questions which not only avoid the denial, but also avoid any assertion that Madeleine was "taken" from them by a kidnapper.  

This is not part of his verbalized perception of reality, nor has it been. 

From the beginning, they used language that indicated acceptance of her death. 

As parents, they showed no linguistic concern for her well being under a kidnapper, when asked.  

This is not because they are uncaring but it is because they knew she was not with a kidnapper and she was beyond the workings of parental protective and provisional instincts.  

He now gets to the answer:



So no – 


The "no" is conditional.  He answers, "Did you kill your daughter" by a conditional response:

Since he has no answers as to "how" and "when" he therefore ("so") issues "no" but immediately weakens it with unnecessary emphasis:  


that's an emphatic 'no'."


He even employs the word "emphatic" as a need to persuade.  

Analysis Conclusion:

The question "Did you kill your daughter" is given enough sensitivity indicators to conclude:

Deception Indicated

This indicates parental responsibility.  He is not one who has utterly divorced himself from it.  This should be understood in light of being a father:

His daughter was supposed to be in the hands of a stranger, yet as a father, he gave no linguistic concern for her well being, nor attempts to retrieve her. 

By the time he gets to a denial, he has already given us an abundance of information, particularly, that Madeleine was never "missing" and "alive" via the presentation of questions. 

The questions are designed to divert, but the specific questions chosen reveal his own thinking.  

Even when deceptive people speak, we must listen as their words reveal content.  

Here, his words reveal careful consideration to potential criminal litigation against him rather than assertion of both innocence and the kidnapping of the child.  

This is consistent with the McCanns' statements throughout the years, as well as their media campaign and attacks upon those who refuse to believe them. 

-------

By Mark Saunokonoko

Previously unseen footage of Gerry McCann being asked if he killed his daughter justifies taking a closer look at his possible role in Madeleine's disappearance, according to a law enforcement expert who specialises in detecting deception.

Mark McClish, a former US Marshall and Secret Service agent, has analysed Mr McCann's unedited 25 second response to an Australian reporter in 2011 asking him and his wife, Kate: "Did you kill your daughter?"

In his reply (which can be viewed above), Mr McCann used 51 words, often "rambling on in his denial", when just a succinct response was necessary, Mr McClish told nine.com.au.

"He spends a lot of time trying to convince us why he would not kill his daughter," Mr McClish said.

Mr McClish, who now trains police and military interrogators in the art of statement analysis, said Mr McCann's body language in the footage was also a possible area of concern.
   
Kate and Gerry McCann said Madeleine vanished from their holiday apartment on May 3, 2007. Source: AFP
"He displayed some non-verbal gestures that indicate possible deception," Mr McClish said.

"When Gerry was first asked, 'Did you kill your daughter?' he looked down and brought his left hand up to his nose as he answered, 'No, no never.' Not being able to look the interviewer in the eyes while giving a specific denial is an indication of deception."

If someone brings their hand up to their mouth or nose while answering a question it is also a deceptive indicator, Mr McClish said.

The documentary footage is remarkable for more than just the confronting question posed so directly to Kate and Gerry McCann.
   
Madeleine Beth McCann: Missing for 10 years, would now be 14 years old. Source: Getty

Mr McCann's denial was first aired in 2011 by Australia's Channel Seven, but his response – as is now apparent – had been heavily edited by the broadcaster.

In the 2011 version, Maddie's father's answer to the question appeared to be a simple: "No, that's an emphatic no".

However, those who follow the case closely were shocked to see Mr McCann's full and unedited answer on a Channel Seven documentary Gone in May this year, which marked the 10th anniversary of Maddie's disappearance.

Doctors Kate and Gerry McCann have always strongly denied any involvement in the disappearance of Maddie, who vanished from a Portugal holiday apartment in May, 2007.
   
The McCanns were involved in a long-running, bitter court battle with a Portuguese detective who wrote a book saying the parents had disposed of their daughter's body. Source: AFP

Statement analysis is not admissible evidence in court, but police can use it as a tool to assist investigations and zero in on potential lines of inquiry.

For nine years Mr McClish was lead instructor on interviewing techniques at the U.S. Marshals Service Training Academy in Glynco, Georgia. Mr McClish categorised parts of Mr McCann's reply as "a weak denial".

"There are enough deceptive indicators within his answer which would justify taking a closer look at his possible role in Madeleine's disappearance," Mr McClish said.

The McCanns were considered formal suspects by the Portuguese police until the investigation was shelved and their "arguidos status" was lifted.

Earlier this month, Assistant Commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police Mark Rowley was asked in a media briefing if Kate and Gerry McCann had ever been questioned as potential suspects by Scotland Yard detectives.

"No," he replied.

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/05/29/13/38/gerry-mccanns-unedited-weak-denial-in-new-footage-has-some-hallmarks-of-deception-expert

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

Gerry McCann's 'weak denial' in new footage has some hallmarks of deception, expert claims

Monday

Mark Saunokonoko: UK police guilty of flawed tunnel vision in hunt for Maddie McCann answers, says former top cop Colin Sutton

UK police guilty of flawed tunnel vision in hunt for Maddie McCann answers, former top cop says

Prime Minister Theresa May - A member of the 'Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum sums up what the Maddie case is all about

Wednesday

Ex MET murder cop, Colin Sutton, blows the whistle on Operation Grange's corrupt remit to "investigate abduction" in Madeleine McCann case

UK detective refused to head up Madeleine McCann probe because 'Scotland Yard would order him to prove Kate and Gerry were innocent and ignore other leads' 

  • Colin Sutton said he was warned by senior friend in the Met about case in 2010
  • Friend said he would be told 'who to talk to and what to investigate', he claimed
  • 'Narrow focus' would be to prove Kate, Gerry and Tapas Nine innocent, he said 
  • Spoke on Sky Documentary based on leaked Home Office report that revealed 'turbulent relationship' between McCanns and police in London and Portugal 

A detective tipped to head up the Madeleine McCann probe was warned he would be ordered to prove she was abducted and ignore other leads. 

Colin Sutton said a high-ranking friend in the Met called him and warned him not to lead the case when Scotland Yard announced it would get involved in 2010.

The source warned that he would be tasked with proving her parents Kate and Gerry were innocent and ignoring any alternatives to the abduction theory, he claims.

Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said he was warned he would be tasked with proving her parents Kate and Gerry were innocent and ignoring any alternatives theories

Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said: 'I did receive a call from a very senior met police officer who knew me and said it wouldn’t be a good idea for me to head investigation on the basis that I wouldn’t be happy conducting an investigation being told where I could go and where I couldn’t go, the things I could investigate and the things I couldn’t.

Asked to clarify what he meant, he added: 'The Scotland Yard investigation was going to be very narrowly focused and that focus would be away from any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the McCanns or the tapas friends.'

The Tapas Nine refers to the McCann parents and the seven friends they were out to dinner with when Madeleine disappeared in 2007.

They were interviewed by Portuguese Police, who have always worked on the basis that Madeleine was abducted from her room, but Mr Sutton said other possibilities should be entertained.

Speaking on Searching for Maddie, which looks at the case ten years on from her disappearance, he criticises the narrow focus of both Portuguese and British police.

He added: 'If you are conducting a re-investigation you start at the very beginning. Look at all the accounts all the evidence all the initial statements and go through them and make sure they stack up and they compare.'

The documentary revealed details from a Home Office report on the case, ordered by then Labour minister Alan Johnson before the 2010 election, seen by Sky News' Martin Brunt.

The report shows that Gerry and Kate McCann's relationship with Portuguese police after they closed the investigation into her disappearance.

The Met took the unusual step of getting involved in the case in 2010 after the report was compiled, and recommends police collaborate with private investigators hired by the McCanns because of the 'unique nature of the case'.

However, it also reveals that much of the information gathered by investigators had not been shared with police investigating the case so far.