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)

16 - La disparition de MMC - Peter Hyatt



Sherlock saw the man using binoculars

Statement Analysis - Peter Hyatt



This will be a series of analysis articles to answer the question : Was the original analysis correct ? In analyzing the interview done by the McCanns, the criticism that it was done after a significant passage of time is appropriate. That time had passed, allowing for processing of information and its impact of language was taken into consideration in the original analysis. The defensive posture of the parents was also noted, in particular, in the "weighting" given to sensitivity indicators; the degree of sensitivity reduced, yet it did not alter the conclusion. But what of the very first things the McCanns said when they reported that Madeleine was kidnapped ? Would these statements affirm the analysis, deny the analysis, or remain indifferent or "neutral" towards it ?
The analysis of the interview conducted by Richard Hall concluded "Deception Indicated."

The content analysis showed 4 dominant points:
1. That Madeleine was not kidnapped.
2. That Madeleine was deceased.
3. That Madeleine died in the apartment.
4. That the McCanns conspired together to conceal her remains.

With these four points of conclusion we look at the early statements of the McCanns to see if the language shows:
a. A kidnapping did take place
b. Urgency for Madeleine's recovery from the kidnapper or kidnappers.

This will be in a series of analysis articles.
We begin with the first released statements, as read by Gerry McCann. From there, we will cover more of the statements, including analyzing the transcripts of interviews and televised appearances.

14 May, 2007 BBC News 10pm
Words cannot describe the anguish and despair that we are feeling as the parents of our beautiful daughter Madeleine.
We request that anyone who may have any information related to Madeleine's disappearance, no matter how trivial, contact the Portuguese police and help us get her back safely.
Please, if you have Madeleine, let her come home to her mummy, daddy, brother and sister.
As everyone can understand how distressing the current situation is, we ask that our privacy is respected to allow us to continue assisting the police in their current investigation.

We begin with an expectation: a child has been kidnapped and the biological father is going to speak about the kidnapping. We do not view this statement as the "free editing process" where the father is speaking, freely, for himself. In this expectation, we do expect him to speak for himself (personal) and for him and his wife, using the pronoun "we", but in a prepared written statement, he is speaking for both. Therefore, the pronoun "we" is expected and not to be considered weak. When one should be speaking for oneself, the pronoun "I" is expected. As parents of teenagers know, when guilt is present, the pronoun "we" is sometimes used to share guilt, or to 'hide in a crowd' as if "everyone was doing it, Mom!" to alleviate the burden.

Context: Madeleine is just under 4 years of age, and has been kidnapped.
She is with her kidnapper and the parents are left with parental protective instinct stifled : It is "unknown" what Madeleine is experiencing now. This is to bear the unbearable for parents, while stymieing (contrecarrer) the father's ability to "make it ok" for the child. After hearing the uncertainty of what Madeleine may be experiencing, we expect to hear a plea for her return, made directly to the kidnapper. Although it can sometime creep into the language, we hold to the expectation of priority : Madeleine's safe return and not a focus on self. That their child is in the hands of a stranger is unthinkable and the parents' concern is focused solely upon what Madeleine, currently with a stranger or strangers, is going through.

Words cannot describe the anguish and despair that we are feeling as the parents of our beautiful daughter Madeleine.
Where one begins a statement is measured in statement analysis as priority.
The statement begins with what the parents are going through. This is noted now, as the priority of the parents : not an alert to the world that Madeleine has been kidnapped, or a direct plea to the kidnapper to return her. The statement begins with "self." This is not expected in a kidnapping.
We have, first, the parents' suffering but not what Madeleine is experiencing, nor a direct statement to the kidnapper. This is consistent with the recently published analysis where the focus and attention, including the number of words, is upon the McCanns themselves, with no concern for Madeleine. This brought to the conclusion that, versus the parental instincts, Madeleine was 'beyond help', that is, deceased.

We now listen for a direct plea to the kidnapper. Recall in the interview that they said they "knew" Madeleine "had been taken" (not "kidnapped"), so there should be no equivocation. The passivity of "words cannot describe", which is also in the negative, tells us : the parents are restricted by what they can say as to their own emotions. Humans do not like to lie about their own emotions. If they are, indeed, scared over being caught in a lie, this is not something they wish to express, therefore, they make a statement that tells us what they cannot do.

We request that anyone who may have any information related to Madeleine's disappearance, no matter how trivial, contact the Portuguese police and help us get her back safely.

This avoids speaking directly to the kidnapper. This is also a peripheral statement; that is, not "to you who have taken Madeleine from us..." nor is it information about the kidnapping. It is any information "related" to, not the kidnapping, nor even abduction but to "Madeleine's disappearance." There is no statement of belief that Madeleine has been kidnapped but now introduces the mysterious "disappearance." They do not seek information about the disappearance only "related to", which is to show : The statement not only distances itself from a kidnapping, but to any information about the kidnapping, the kidnappers and Madeleine's state of being.

The statement literally distances itself from:
a. kidnapping
b. obtaining tangible information about the kidnapping or kidnappers.
c. forensics regarding Madeleine's recovery. There is no concern for what Madeleine is going through, no pleading to take care of her, nor even a description to help the public spot her:

She will not be seen by eye witnesses because she has "disappeared". Disparaître, c'est cesser d'être visible.

Please, if you have Madeleine, let her come home to her mummy, daddy, brother and sister.
The word "if" is not expected in a kidnapping case but keep in mind, the statement allows for her not to be kidnapped, but "disappeared", that is, no longer seen visibly.
Pourquoi "si", GMC ne peut s'adresser ici qu'au ravisseur, pas à quelqu'un qui pourrait avoir Madeleine, on ne sait comment.
This weakens the assertion that Madeleine was taken, with the simple word "if", allowing for other possibilities into the disappearance of Madeleine.
Although this is a minor point, "let her come home to her mummy, daddy, brother and sister" is to add in the young twins. It forms a 'crowd' that is consistent with their inability to speak for themselves in the originally analyzed interview where they even spoke each others' "mind" and "emotions." The desire for plurality is often a signal of guilt.

As everyone can understand how distressing the current situation is, we ask that our privacy is respected to allow us to continue assisting the police in their current investigation.
While parents of kidnapped children want the most possible media coverage, this statement, while avoiding commitment to a kidnapping, wants the opposite: "our privacy." This is explained as needed to "continue assisting" the police. The word "continue" is weak unless there has been an accusation from police that they have not been doing what is not needed to be said: assisting police. This is a weak statement and should have been unnecessary.

The need to explain "why" they wish to be left alone, without being asked is very sensitive. This means that they anticipated being asked, "Why would you want to be left alone?" because parents of kidnapped children seek as much media exposure as they can possibly obtain. This is a very sensitive point to them. That it is so sensitive is measured against the absence of a single word that expresses concern for the victim.

This continues the theme that began with the opening words : it is about them, their well being rather than the child's, and now their well being to continue by not being scrutinized by the media. They want their privacy because, as the statement begins, words cannot describe what they are going through. As this statement was made shortly after reporting that Madeleine was kidnapped, the void of concern for Madeleine in the face of protective capacities and instincts of parents suggest that Madeleine is, at the time of this statement, beyond parental concern.
She is deceased.


Analysis Conclusion :
The statement's priority is the parents' well being; not the child. The parents do not want to do what parents of kidnapped children do: talk to the press.
Parents of missing or kidnapped children often fight for "air time" to highlight their child's plight via media: it is the way to facilitate the child's safe return.
Madeleine's current state with the kidnapper (s) is not addressed.
The statement does not commit to a kidnapping, gives no description to help people locate her. Therefore, the priority that is identified in statement analysis is affirmed; it is the parents' well being and not the child.
The statement shows the author (writer) does not believe the child was kidnapped.
This statement affirms the original analysis conclusions above.
The statement began with the priority: the parents and it concluded with the same, actually wording against the recovery of the victim.
They do not linguistically 'commit' to a kidnapping and since she is "disappeared", there is no need to describe her appearance to the public.





The disappearance of Madeleine McCann continues to draw strong interest in the UK and the United States. The case is in headlines today, with more investigations into child sex rings. In the original analysis, the conclusion was "deception indicated" and in content:Madeleine died in the apartment and the parents conspired to cover up the unintended death by hiding her body. This information came directly from the parents. This is the sole source of information : the words of the parents. But since this interview was years later, and since time for processing information impacts language, what about statements and interviews made immediately after reporting Madeleine kidnapped?
This is the second in a series of articles of analysis of the statements made in the immediate aftermath of reporting her "taken" from their apartment in Portugal with the question: Will the earlier statements affirm or contradict the analysis conclusion? Here is the 2nd statement made by the McCanns shortly after they reported her missing. Will this statement affirm the original analysis? Will it affirm the analysis of the initial statement? Or, will they now tell us that Madeleine has been kidnapped, and give the public the tools it needs to recover her?
Objection: police may have helped prepare the statements.
Answer:
1. We analyze the statement itself; this is a basic principle in statement analysis.
We also look for additional authors (it is not here), particularly with law enforcement "lingo" to enter into the statement. This would be seen in "height, weight", etc.
2. If police had assisted, we would likely see a direct plea to the kidnapper for Maddie's return and care, and we would see a description for the public to help find her.
May 5, 2007 - We would like to make another short statement related to Madeleine's disappearance.First of all we would like to thank everyone here in Portugal, the UK and elsewhere for all your support during this extremingly... extremely difficult time for our family.We are pleased that the family liaison officers from Leicestershire are now working closely with the Portuguese Police, and in keeping us informed. We have no further information regarding the investigation but appreciate the significant efforts everyone is making on our behalf.We would again like to appeal for any information, however small, that may lead to the safe return of Madeleine.Finally we would like to thank the media for respecting our privacy especially that of Madeleine's little brother and sister.

The first statement released showed a priority that did not include kidnapping, or recovery of the victim. This showed agreement with the original analysis of the interview. Here is the 2nd statement made by the McCanns after reporting their child, Madeleine, kidnapped.
We would like to make another short statement related to Madeleine's disappearance.
In the language of the statement, Madeleine has not been kidnapped; she has "disappeared." This distances the statement from the assertion of kidnapping. Please see analysis about the window in original. Next, we note that not only do they avoid a commitment to kidnapping, changing it to "disappearance", we find further distance to it by seeking to make a short statement that is only "related to", not about, the "disappearance." From the statements, we should not say that the victim is kidnapped because the parents will not. We now see the introduction of a numeric, with "first", calling our attention to priority:
First of all we would like to thank everyone here in Portugal, the UK and elsewhere for all your support during this extremingly... extremely difficult time for our family.
1. The priority is in thanking everyone; not in the kidnapping.
2. The order has "Portugal" first. Recall that Portugal police are first responders.
3. This is called the "ingratiating factor" where guilty parties wish to "make peace" with law enforcement, the public, or anyone who might question them. With the numeric, this "public relations" message is the priority; not the victim.
4. This continues with the suffering of the family, while avoiding what the victim may be experiencing.
"We are pleased that the family liaison officers from Leicestershire are now working closely with the Portuguese Police, and in keeping us informed.
Parents of a failed recovery rarely show "pleasure"; instead we have displeasure due to the failure of the police to locate the victim. The family liaison officers and police are not working together : the family liaison offers are now working "closely" (unnecessary) "with" police. The word "with" between people shows distance . The unnecessary emphasis of "closely" combined with the use of "with" between people show the psychological distance. No word of concern for what the victim is experiencing in the hands of kidnappers. We have no further information regarding the investigation but appreciate the significant efforts everyone is making on our behalf. Here we have a very strong signal of guilt, found in truth. They are pleased and they appreciate... the failure to locate Madeleine. We find this in the language of guilty parents of missing children--they are grateful for the failure to find the victim.
We would again like to appeal for any information, however small, that may lead to the safe return of Madeleine.
The distancing language continues. This is something they "would" again "like" to do, rather than do it. Here there should be two things:
1. A direct conversation with the kidnapper... pleading for Madeleine's treatment and return;
2. A direct description to the public at large to spot Madeleine
Parents of missing and kidnapped children seek to gain as much media exposure humanly possible and become panic stricken when media attention dies down:
Finally we would like to thank the media for respecting our privacy especially that of Madeleine's little brother and sister.
The McCanns have repeated their call for less media attention.

Analysis Conclusion :
The second statement made after Madeleine was reported missing affirms the original analysis. We cannot say that Madeleine McCann was kidnapped or "taken", as the parents will not say so. They express no concern for Madeleine, further affirming that the victim is beyond parental concern.
The "ingratiating factor" is the priority of this second statement: they wish to be on "friendly terms" with those who would investigate and be suspicious of them. This is another signal of guilt. The parents were not truthful about what happened to Madeleine and continue to indicate knowledge of her death.
If Madeleine was kidnapped, particularly by a sex trafficking ring, the parents' parental instincts would be evident. Instead, they direct us to Madeleine's death, that they said took place in the apartment in Portugal.



Les faux- amis



Les citations proviennent d'un entretien avec R. Bilton (BBC News) qui a eu lieu le 7 août et est transcrit ici.
For the parent of a kidnapped child, there is no "acceptance" of a cadaver dog. The innocent parent will even chide police for wasting time on that which is impossible.
C'est exactement ce qu'ont fait le MC. Sont-ils innocents pour autant ?
Innocent parents become more and more frustrated with police failure to locate their missing child and this enters their language.
En l'occurrence, les MC ont appris ou plutôt ont eu confirmation de leurs craintes vis-à-vis de la PJ lors d'une réunion informelle avec le directeur régional de la PJ et le chef de la répression du banditisme où ceux-ci ont clairement déclaré qu'ils ne croyaient pas à leur histoire. La seule posture possible, en termes d'image, est de paraître en excellents termes avec une police qui avance et les tient au courant.
 
"Ingratiation" in Statement Analysis
We have seen the "ingratiating factor" in statement analysis where a guilty person "makes friends" with police, or even with journalists, so as to reduce the suspicion and be seen in a positive light. This can even be used to read the public who may end up in a jury pool.
For innocent parents, there is a very different linguistic disposition.
Regarding cadaver dogs, we expect a rebuke from the parents, appropriately polite, but with some expected elevation of 'tension' within the language. Since, in their position, Madeleine was kidnapped, we continue the expectation of language following this powerful belief.
GMC : Its an encouraging thing that um they are looking at all possibilities and being very thorough and err its an excellent example of collaboration, between both the British and the Portuguese police...working together ultimately to try and solve the case of Madeleine and whats happened to her.
The father calls this unacceptable development "encouraging" and then praises police ("excellent") for failure to locate his kidnapped daughter. He then gives us the "conclusion of the matter." For innocent parents, there is only one conclusion : the safe recovery of Madeleine from the kidnappers. For McCann, it is something different, however : working together ultimately to try and solve the case of Madeleine and whats happened to her.
a. to solve the case
b. to learn what happened to her
Missing from the biological father's words is the safe return of his daughter. Police would likely have guided them to not chide nor insult the kidnappers, so we do not expect the parents to show anger towards the kidnappers; instead, gentle and respectful pleading for her safe return and for her care, today, by them. This is absent from the father.
Question: What do you make of the word "ultimately" here?
Answer: The law of economy coupled with the speed of transmission of thought into words means that an additional word takes more effort. If this additional word (one in which the sentence is still complete should it be removed) is also an "unnecessary" word, the information contained therein is deemed "doubly important" for the analysis. The word "ultimate" speaks to one that arises above others. This one word tells us that the speaker is aware of 'other' workings by police, including investigating the parents. He recognizes that there are goals or results from the investigation and that the ultimate goal is not the safe return of Madeleine but "solving the case." ("the case", itself, is to depersonalize what happened to Madeleine, by the biological father. This is why I have added the word "biological" as it highlights just how much distance he shows from his own assertions). It suggests that the speaker, here, is acutely aware of alternative goals other than "solving the case." It is not about "bringing Madeleine home safe from the kidnappers" but solving the case. His daughter is not a kidnapping victim in the hands of strangers; she is a "case" in his language. This is coupled, now, with priority and the praising of police while they have failed to locate Madeleine.


It is also consistent with the priority shown by each statement of the McCanns: their own well being, and not the well being of the victim. The Ingratiating Principle in statement analysis is common in statements by guilty parents. This can even be seen in the US' use of "911 calls" where the guilty caller begins the call, not with the emergency, but with a 'friendly greeting' and attempts to 'ingratiate oneself' with those responsible for investigating self. There are many examples of this and if one uses the search feature on 911 calls, the ingratiating that guilty parties do will bring up a number of examples.
We see this theme continue:
Kate: Yeah, I mean we've got an excellent relationship with the Portuguese Police and we need to keep that link um and the flow of information has been great actually, its been very reassuring.
The subject begins with an agreement, "yeah" but then is flagged for the ingratiation in a rather extreme manner : "we've got an excellent relationship with the Portuguese Police" is:
a. unnecessary. What innocent parents of a kidnapped child would have anything but a relationship?
b. sensitive : "excellent" relationship.
This is to not only ingratiate "us" (plural) but to use exaggerated language ("excellent") where it should not even be addressed.
Question: What causes this?
Answer: Although the need to be seen, by the public, is dominant (priority), rather than pleading with the kidnapper and giving the public a description of what Maddie looks like, we must consider that this statement has been produced from knowledge that from within the Portuguese Police department there exists those who do not believe the McCanns. This is something that generally does not make the press, but based upon this language, it is very likely that the McCanns have first hand knowledge of some investigators' doubts or suspicions. Please note that "some investigators" could also be "all investigators."


There is an instinctive reaction by police when they hear public praise where no success has been realized. It does not 'sit well' with investigators. They cannot help but ask, "Why are these parents praising us for not finding their daughter?" The ingratiating often has the opposite effect of what was intended. It increases suspicion and could increase resolve. A missing child is a very personal traumatic event. Even while innocent parents are standing together, speaking for each other, they often move immediately into the first person. After all, no one else is the father or mother of the victim and it is something very personal, as it triggers all the instincts within parents. In the analysis thus far, the McCanns have shown the use of the plural in the realm of guilt. Please note that this is similar to what we hear in school children's language when caught doing something inappropriate. There is a desire to 'share' guilt, and 'spread out' responsibility, psychologically believing this will reduce it. In the ingratiating factor, guilty parents have an almost compulsive need to convince the public that they are "close" to police. This is done as to say, "See? See how much information the police are sharing with us? This proves that we are not suspects!"

GMC : We very much know that you know, they like frank information and its much easier for us to deal with when they do that and um we were well aware that these developments were going to happen. We were informed in advance but naturally this length of time we're desperate to find Madeleine. Thats the key thing. Of course um its difficult but we expect the same thoroughness and be treated the same way as anyone else who has been in and around us. I mean we wouldn't expect it any other way. We're not naive err but on numerous occasions the Portuguese police have assured us that they were looking for Madeleine alive and not murdered.. being murdered and I don't know of any information that has changed that. Of course, the information and the way the investigation's going is about thoroughness and making sure that everyone is as confident as possible..that...that is the case um Kate and I strongly believe that Madeleine was alive when she was taken from the apartment. Obviously what we don't know, is what happened to her afterwards, who has taken her and what the motive is and we are desperate to find that out.
Here we have a need of Gerry McCann to promote himself and his wife as not being suspects. They have an acute need to tell the public, not a description of Maddie for her safe return, but that police told them, on friendly terms, that cadaver dogs would be brought in.This is likely true, as police may have sought for a confession by the parents and can be a useful technique. It is interesting that he says police are looking for Madeleine alive and "not murdered." Madeleine was not murdered and this may have come as a direct response to police questioning that Madeleine died from an unintentional death. In 2011, they introduced "fall" to the language. It would be an appropriate strategy on the part of police to suggest to them that they tell the truth about the unintended death.  
Mais la police a fait cela !
Question: What about possible sedation?
Answer: I covered sedation in the original analysis. If this is accurate, it would prohibit the McCanns from confessing. Here is why : The charge of death by neglect (leaving her unattended while having dinner) would have been strongly debated. However, toxicology that showed Madeleine with some form of sedation (parents commonly use benadryl and cough syrups, but these are medical doctors and the mother is an anesthesiologist ) would have elevated the charges.They would have faced :
a. criminal negligence and attendant charges
b. loss of medical license
c. loss of custody of the twins
Note next that the norm, or baseline for Gerry and Kate is to use "we" and "us" throughout. Souvent Kate corrige I en We (not just me btw, us...). As this is their baseline, Statement Analysis notes any deviation from this. Any deviation from the norm is going to be elevated in importance.
"We" is used to show unity and/or cooperation. Note the change as also going against the "Law of Economy" where brevity is noted within a sentence. This means that there is a change of reality for the subject (Gerry) at this point in the statement:

Kate and I strongly believe that Madeleine was alive when she was taken from the apartment.
The change from "we" here is powerful. Remember, pronouns are instinctive. The ability to eject the "we" from the statement is powerful and we note that it is at the precise moment when Madeleine was taken from the apartment. To understand what emotional power can eject "I" or "we" from a statement, consider this short analysis on Hillary Clinton. In training, I prove that pronouns are instinctive by asking for volunteers to tell truthful stories from...not a week ago, but more than 20 years ago. They may struggle with detail, but not with pronouns. Pronouns are used by us millions of times. We are, therefore, highly efficient at their use. If a pronoun is "lying" you may indicate deception. It is the only exception to indicating deception by a single word.
Note the need to persuade rather than report truthfully:

Kate and I strongly believe that Madeleine was alive when she was taken from the apartment.
Even in deception, we get elements of truth. People do not like to lie directly and often 'pare' words to avoid such. This is why 90% of deception is from missing information but the choice of wording also keeps this internal stress in mind. "Was taken" = Passivity: not only avoids saying "kidnapped" but also may show partial, or "pared down" truth : she literally was taken from the apartment. This part is true. Even as some press reports stated that the Portuguese police believe Madeleine died as a result of falling down stairs, to this, the element of sedation should be considered. A premature awakening from sedation from a "compact" person would leave the child disorientated and at high risk.

Kate: and as Gerry just said (inaudible) Police said they are looking for a living child and they have said that a lot.
"A living child" is not "an alive Maddie" or anything personal. Although this may be using the language of police, (parroting) it is expected from a biological parent the "overruling" of depersonalizing Madeleine to a "a" anything...she is "Madeleine" and she is "alive" because she was "kidnapped." This indicates the mother's own need to depersonalize her own daughter.



Analysis Conclusion

Deception Indicated. The statements made by the McCanns shortly after Madeleine was reported kidnapped or "taken", affirm the original analysis. The priority that was seen in 2011 and today, is the same priority that was seen in the Spring of 2007: The McCann's own self preservation. This priority predicted the campaign of self promotion that they would undertake.
The original analysis:
1. The parents are deceptive
2. Madeleine was not kidnapped
3. Madeleine is dead
4. Madeleine died in the apartment in Portugal
5. Madeleine's parents conspired to hide her remains
To this we see:
The priority of self preservation continues;
The need to be seen as working alongside police rather than suspects;
The utter void of any parental or even common concern, for what Madeleine is experiencing in the hands of her kidnapper. This continues to affirm : Madeleine was not in any need for parental care because she was 'beyond' help.
The parents continue to praise police for not finding Madeleine.


It is the "unknown" that innocent parents fear about the current status of their kidnapped child. For the McCanns, there is no such element.
The McCanns have guilty knowledge of what happened to Maddie, and that they were, and are, deceptive, is something for "Statement Analysis 101" learning. It is valuable, but it is not difficult.
Learning the actual details of what happened is more challenging but anyone who is trained in analysis will be able to use this case to practice. I like to present basic analysis to experienced criminal investigators, instructors and others. This allows me to entertain any objections from those with many years experience. This is something I do routinely. I intend on doing so in this case. I may add a chapter to the course on the McCanns, and perhaps, entertain the idea of a book.
To others...a reminder to use caution in reading "analysis" where sometimes it is undisciplined or seeks to prove an objective. This is not "Statement Analysis" even though it is presented as such. I have read some very errant "analysis" on the web, not only for this case, but for others, too. The lack of disciplined application eventually brings error and our science into disrepute. A number of UK budding analysts, investigators and journalists have signed up for training. Within a month or so, I think you'll see commentary on this case from some very resolved commentators.
It is sad, however, but a reality that abusive parents caused the death of their child, howbeit unintentionally, and took to lying to the public. Yet, from this, justice may be realized not only for Maddie, but through the work of those in training, including journalists, justice for other victims may surface.
These are those fueled by this case with a desire to learn, at any age and in any profession. I respect and admire it. This would take a tragedy and bring forth good from it.


From KMC's book, "Madeleine" : She was relieved that it was only the dogs. They could discredit them. [Not worried at all that it was perhaps her daughter's body that the dogs were alerting to? Not distraught that Maddie may have been killed in the apartment by those famous burglars in PDL who steal kids? ]

Today Carlos had advised me not to answer any of the questions put to me. He explained that this was my right as an arguida and it was the safest option: any responses I gave might unintentionally implicate me in some way... On the other hand, I was very weary and at least repeating 'no comment' didn't involve engaging my brain.
On the 'dogs' videos: I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science.
Gerry was uneasy about [the deal] being made public...
Like me, Gerry had been relieved by the inadequacies revealed by the sniffer-dog videos.
The McCanns dedicated their lives to protecting themselves. Everything they have done is self protection and self promotion. I think they've become very familiar with the idea of exploitation. If something arises, it must be answered, to protect self. It has never been about Maddie; not from the very beginning. They are lying about what happened to her. There is one thing they can never protect themselves from, however.
Their own words.


 
A. Behri