Grâce à la liberté dans les communications, des groupes d’hommes de même nature pourront se réunir et fonder des communautés. Les nations seront dépassées.
Friedrich Nietzsche (Fragments posthumes XIII-883)

17 - AVR 19 et 26 - Statement A.




The  Mirror a publié (19.05) un article sur les soi-disants propos d'une nanny anonyme (identifiée assez facilement comme étant Charlotte P) qui n'a jamais eu à s'occuper de MMC ni des jumeaux, mais qui a fait des pieds et des mains pour avoir ses 15 minutes de gloire à la Andy Warhol. 


If you had interviewed her, what would be the one question that needs answering?

She (KMC) was crying, but almost in a catatonic state, and Gerry was very distressed. That’s the one thing I really remember from him, looking under the cars. I can’t forget that.

First note that she "was crying" is met with the word "but", used to emphasize the wording that follows it. The word "but" minimizes (and sometimes even negates) the information that preceded it.

Why would she need to challenge "crying" by a mother whose child has just been 'kidnapped' ? In her language, she set up a "versus" situation : "crying" versus being "catatonic state", that is one in which there is no reaction or response.

"and Gerry was very distressed". Any father of a missing child would be "very distressed." Yet, she has the need to not only tell us that which is unnecessary, but continues with detail including that it is "one thing", with "remember."
"I remember" and "I really remember". Next, please note that in an open statement, a person can only tell us what they remember. This is an indication that she is suppressing information.


The point in the article from The Mirror is that although she was not there when the disappearance took place, she could tell, later, that the McCanns had nothing to do with the disappearance, based upon their reaction.

The subject, who is not named, is not telling us all she knows. It is not just that she "remembers" but she "really remembers" which further tells us that she is not telling us all she knows. This means, at the time of the statement, she is actively engaged in thoughts that she does not want to share.
"I know" in an open statement. Could you tell something you "don't know"?
I know I didn’t step into that apartment but pretty much everybody else did. So, evidence gone, nothing.
So, evidence gone, nothing. Again, an honest person speaking in an open statement can only tell us what they know. Here, she feels the need to emphasize knowledge unnecessarily with "I know", followed by telling us what she did not do. This is called the "rule of the negative."

What is it about this portion of what happened that would cause her to think of something she does not want to share? Yet, she inserts the word "but" which refutes or minimizes by comparison what preceded it. She "knows" she did not "step" into that apartment but... What follows "but" is important : "pretty much everybody else did."

So: This is to explain why : evidence gone; nothing.

Since she began with the unnecessary "I know", we must explore for the suppressed information. Note two things in particular:
1. She feels the need to explain why there is "no evidence; nothing."

2. She uses a broken sentence in doing so.

She does not claim the evidence is ruined or contaminated but in a broken sentence she says "evidence gone; nothing."
That she felt the need to explain "why" (indicting police?) is sensitive but it follows the negative and the self editing. Self editing (the broken sentence) is to stop oneself from making a complete thought : withholding information.

What does this mean?

It means the police should explore with the nanny what she is specifically concerned about here that she does not want to say. She is withholding information, even if it is irrelevant to the investigation; she believes to the contrary. Nanny sees herself aligned with the McCanns.

There was nobody there to say, ‘We need to lock this off now.’ The police didn’t get there for ages, maybe an hour and a half (FAUX), so we were looking for her. And at the end of the day, no matter how much you’ve been trained with ­children, we were children, mainly ­teenagers, we’re not police.

Here she explains why they looked for MMC. Would you need to explain why you looked for a missing child? Would they have not looked for her had the police gotten there earlier?

Here we see, now, the indictment of police. This shows a need to shift blame. First, "everybody" and now "police."


It began with the weak assertion of contamination of evidence where she was unable to bring herself to use a full sentence about evidence. Then she went to the police in her conclusion.

I think a lot of things should’ve happened differently. Unfortunately the effects were catastrophic.

If the effects were catastrophic, would you only "think" a lot of things should have been done differently? Recall, she used the wording "I know" in the interview. Is this something she does not "know" but only "thinks"? Why the weak assertion? "Things should have been done differently. Unfortunately, the effects were catastrophic."
This would show congruency between the assertion "Things should have been done differently" and the "effects" that followed. This is a subject who appears acutely aware of the controversy around her. She did not search for Madeleine with the McCanns, but "we" searched, highlighting her unity with them.


Here is what Ellen wrote. I appreciate her framing the context.

A former Portuguese police chief, who was involved in the missing persons investigation in its early stages, published a book alleging that Maddie died accidentally while she was left alone with her siblings in the resort apartment, and that her parents covered up the death.

The Mirror interview does not address why no one at the resort had been hired to look after the McCann children if child care workers were available that night, though the nanny did tell the newspaper it was “normal” for vacationing parents to spend time on resort grounds while their children were sleeping in their rooms.


Analysis Conclusion:

The Nanny struggles with her own words. She does not commit to a belief of a kidnapping, and is aligned with the parents. She may possess some information about the McCanns, however, that has brought suspicion to her mind, but does not want to share it.

She does not believe evidence of a kidnapper was destroyed. 


Did YouKill Your Daughter ? - 26.04.2017

Q: Did you kill your daughter?
GM: - No…no…never…and you know, there’s nothing with any logic that could, you know, you’d have to start with why, you know, how, when, who and tha…that’s just simply you know that’s what any these things is there’s nothing to suggest anything so no – that’s an emphatic no.
This is a short portion from a video. The transcripts were posted and the accuracy of the analysis is based upon the accuracy of the transcripts.
update: there is some editing out, making it difficult to get an accurate transcript.
The question was direct: "Did you kill your daughter?"
Statement Analysis of the interviews that the McCanns have given is consistent:
The child was not kidnapped nor missing.
The parents' language made the case simple to follow. Behavioral Analysis was consistent with the language.
Parents of kidnapped children move quickly due to instinct. This happens with or without police intervention.
1. They call out for their child. This is a natural instinct. They cannot cease thinking about the current status of their child and this will come into their language.
2. They will show concern for the immediate needs of the child. In their language there will be questions about her favorite toy, food, care, medicine, etc.
3. They will plead with the kidnapper. They will do exactly what a parent does when someone babysits: ensure proper care.
4. They will accept nothing less than the return.
The language will be dominant.
5. They will incessantly remember some small detail and facilitate the flow of information. They will be impatient with police, searchers, etc.
6. They will not allow for any possibility of anything other than the truth. This is called the "wall of truth" and is very powerful.

They will not entertain possibilities of guilt for themselves. See Kate McCann's embedded confession.
In the case of Madeleine McCann, we followed the parents' words.
People who support the idea of kidnapping will say the words the McCanns refused to say.
Interviewer: Did you Kill Your Daughter?
expected:
a. "No."
This may exist by itself. This would shift the burden of conversational politeness to the Interviewer because the question should be a complete disconnect from reality. This is because the subject will be so far removed from the possibility that he or she will allow the silence to push the interviewer to find another question or rebuttal. There is an "indifference" to accusations because it is not true.
Yet, even further here, we have seen cases where one can say "no" because the subject did not directly cause the death.
In one case, a man said, "I did not kill her" because he had injected his girlfriend with an unintentionally lethal dosage of heroin. The drug killed her, not him.
Yes or No questions are not powerful questions. Yet, in this case, the IR felt the need to ask and we are able to analyze the answer.
In "yes or no" questions, investigators often count every word after the word "no" as unnecessary.

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

Unexpected:
a. Avoidance
b. Sensitivity to the question
c. Need to persuade
Gerry McCann -"
Q: Did you kill your daughter?
GM: - No…no…never…and you know, there’s nothing with any logic that could , you know, you’d have to start with why, you know, how, when, who and tha…that’s just simply you know that’s what any these things is there’s nothing to suggest anything so no – that’s an emphatic no."
Let's look at his answer:
Q: Did you kill your daughter?
GM: - No…no…never…and you know, there’s nothing with any logic that could, (?) you know, you’d have to start with why, you know, how, when, who and tha…that’s just simply you know that’s what any these things is there’s nothing to suggest anything so no – that’s an emphatic no.
We begin with "no" and count every word added to it, weakening the response.
"no" is repeated;
"never" is unreliable as this was a single specific event.
Never is used to span indefinite or lengthy time.

This is the biological father regarding a single event that took place at a specific location, date and time. "Never" seeks vagueness.
Not only is it technically "unreliable", it is most unexpected here.

a. "And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know."
First notice the avoidance of the simple word "no" making the question sensitive to him.
Even after years of a public accusing him of killing her daughter the expectation remains that parental instinct will deny death and hold to still recovering her.

b. "you know" is a pause, showing our second indicator of sensitivity to the question. This actually speaks to the need to consider what to say rather than the word "no" alone, which would then put the interview burden upon the interviewer to deal with the denial.
The blunt "no" is used by several:
1. The actual innocent use it. This is especially important in the context of biological child.
2. Those who do not wish to facilitate the flow of information will use it when they are deliberately practicing short answers. See 911 call of former police chief Will McCollum for an example of "pulling teeth" to get information.

c. "you know" is not only avoidance of "yes or no", and a pause for time to think, it is also a habit of speech that arises when a subject has acute awareness of either the interviewer and/or the interviewer/audience (TV).
What do we do with a habit of speech?
We note what words provoke it and what words do not.
Here, the simple "yes or no" question has produced sensitivity indicators which means that the question of killing her is sensitive.
He could have said, "no", even if they had blamed the sedation or accident on the death, yet it may be that the subject is considering himself as ultimately responsible, as a father.

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

Here, we may consider that the subject might be considering his own culpability in her death, even if unintended as the language indicates.
The sensitivity continues to this question:
"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know...
"you know" is repeated. This question is to be considered "very sensitive" to him.
Now: "And you know, there's nothing with any logic that kids could, you know...
"there's nothing" goes immediately to proving his innocence, rather than denying any responsibility for Madeleine's death.
This is a signal of self preservation and explains the need to pause and the increases in sensitivity:
he must protect himself rather than deny.

"There's nothing" (what does "nothing" look like?) is now qualified:
"with any logic"
Rather than deny killing his daughter, he now employs as a distraction, motive.
An innocent has no need to explore motive, true enough, but so much more when we consider context:
He is using energy to defend himself by refusing to deny, but by claiming it is not logical. Yet, the broken sentence indicates self censoring.
Instead of saying "no" and allowing the wall of truth to leave it there, he avoids a denial and introduces the word "logic" where he should have complete linguistic disinterest.
Even if he had been arrested, this would be something his attorney would argue while he, the innocent, would be focused upon negotiations and pleadings with the kidnapper to:
a. return Maddie
b. feed her
c. give her her favorite ______-
d. share information with the kidnapper to comfort Maddie
e. express the utter impotence that inflames parental instinct.

Maddie was three.
This means he had, from the beginning, rocked her to sleep, held her to comfort her, relieved her distress in changing diaper, making her warm, etc, and had kissed and bandaged her falls and cuts.
Suddenly, in a kidnapping, this is all stolen from him. It causes traumatic frustration in un fulfilled parental instinct. It can cause mental health issues.

Consider the ancient wisdom about the mother bear robbed of her whelps.
Parental instinct is powerful and creative.
It is also missing from the language of the parents.
Question: How could this be?
Answer: Acceptance of Madeleine's death.

It is in death's acceptance that the instinctive frustration is extinguished --and even this takes time.
The language of parents who have lost children to death reveals this frustration. They feel guilty for not being able to intervene any longer in their child and it takes time to process and resolve into acceptance.
Even mothers who have found their children dead will often "rub" them trying to warm their bodies, and cover them with a blanket to "protect, shield and dignify" the child. It is heartbreaking.
Falsely accused of missing children care little or nothing for accusers, articles, personal insults; they just want their child back. "just" being the operative word: the other issues pale in comparison.
Here we see the priority of the subject come through in his answer:
Rather than denial, he indicates that he has explored various explanations in logic.

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

Consider this statement in line with his wife's statement about normal and routine where things "did not" go wrong. This was likely a reference to sedation.
If you've ever had a fussy sick child, you were glad to have medicine that alleviated the symptoms and helped the child fall asleep. It is in everyone's best interest.

Now consider an anesthesiologist as a professional and listen to the interview.
"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know...
It is not just "logic" but further exploration of "any" logic. This is to broaden a personal defense rather than deny according to the question.
"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know...
Any logic that "could", in regard to the question of killing his daughter. This speaks to the application of "any logic" in the future/conditional tense.

He is addressing defense proofs in a scenario that does not exist. he is not in court and...
his child is still "missing" and in someone else's hands, allegedly, according to the narrative.
In what could have been a very boring question, we find a pattern emerge:
The need to persuade rather than truthfully report.
This is the theme of his answer.
He begins with a diversion to become argumentative in a position where no argument is needed.
He does not move towards Madeleine linguistically (as expected) but is in "self" mode, specifically in motive or evidence.
Rather than deny, the sensitivity continues.
This is an abundance of words that are employed rather than the single word "no."
You would have to start with why?
He wants to know what "you" (interviewer/audience) thinks of motive.

Q. Why would he want this?
A. so he can attempt to rebut it.
This affirms consistency of unintended death by negligence. The focus is upon self, not the denial and not the child.
After "why" (motive) he now continues:
How?
This is the methodology that he addresses rather than saying "no."
When?
This is the time frame of Maddie's death that is concerning to him.
Who?
This is to answer the question "Did you...?" with a question, "Who?"
What does this mean?
Beyond the obvious "answering a question with a question" that parents of teenagers know all about, he is signaling that "did you?", singular, is insufficient.
This is an indicator that both parents were in agreement with the sedation, neglect and cover up, and have been since.

And there's just
simply, you know, no answer to any of these things
Here he presents the questions and tells us in passive voice that there are "just simply, you know, no answer", which is singular.

There are answers.
"just simply" is to make a simple conclusion from one who has, still, refused to answer the question.
"just" is a dependent word indicating he is comparing "simple" to "complex" (or something that is not simple).
This comes from not a single question, but a series of questions:
1. Why?
2. How?
3. When?
4. Who?
The order is important.
None of the questions has to do with kidnapping. All are presupposing that Madeline is deceased.
It is interesting to note that "who" comes after "how" and "when." This makes "who" at the bottom. "Why?" is first.
– there's nothing
to suggest anything.
Here the question is about killing his daughter, not about how she was killed.
It is not about when she was killed.
It was not about who killed her.
It is about "you"; with "Did you kill your daughter?"
He introduces, in his answer, other questions which not only avoid the denial, but also avoid any assertion that Madeleine was "taken" from them by a kidnapper.
This is not part of his verbalized perception of reality, nor has it been.
From the beginning, they used language that indicated acceptance of her death.
As parents, they showed no linguistic concern for her well being under a kidnapper, when asked.
This is not because they are uncaring but it is because they knew she was not with a kidnapper and she was beyond the workings of parental protective and provisional instincts.
He now gets to the answer:
So no –
The "no" is conditional. He answers, "Did you kill your daughter" by a conditional response:
Since he has no answers as to "how" and "when" he therefore ("so") issues "no" but immediately weakens it with unnecessary emphasis:
that's an emphatic 'no'."
He even employs the word "emphatic" as a need to persuade.

Analysis Conclusion:
The question "Did you kill your daughter" is given enough sensitivity indicators to conclude:
Deception Indicated.
This indicates parental responsibility. He is not one who has utterly divorced himself from it. This should be understood in light of being a father:
His daughter was supposed to be in the hands of a stranger, yet as a father, he gave no linguistic concern for her well being, nor attempts to retrieve her.
By the time he gets to a denial, he has already given us an abundance of information, particularly, that Madeleine was never "missing" and "alive" via the presentation of questions.
The questions are designed to divert, but the specific questions chosen reveal his own thinking.
Even when deceptive people speak, we must listen as their words reveal content.
Here, his words reveal careful consideration to potential criminal litigation against him rather than assertion of both innocence and the kidnapping of the child.
This is consistent with the McCanns' statements throughout the years, as well as their media campaign and attacks upon those who refuse to believe them.