Wednesday, December 7, 2016
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."
"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. See DeOrr Kunz for samples as he heaped praise upon those who failed to find his son.
"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.
Statement Analysis by Peter Hyatt
No comments:
Post a Comment