Clarence Mitchell - "There was no evidence of a break-in"

Initially, the McCanns CLAIMED that their apartment was LOCKED and that an abductor had broken into the apartment and damaged the shutters when they were jemmied open. The McCanns had phoned their family and friends to give their version of events and told them to spread the word to all and sundry. Newspapers, radio and television picked up these reports and therefore broadcast them as if they were factual reports. However, there was NO VISIBLE SIGNS of a break-in according to John Hill who was the Mark Warner complex manager. There was NO EVIDENCE, according to the police and the PJ, of any break-in. Much later, even Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns media spokesman, confirmed to the world that there was NO EVIDENCE of a break-in.

McCanns CHANGED story because SHUTTERS were NOT 'jemmied'! (Video)

However, the McCanns have never made any public statement why they LIED about a break-in. It has to be said, it is plausible that the McCanns LIED to cover up their own INVOLVEMENT in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.

It is plausible that at 10:00pm, before she raised the alarm, Kate McCann OPENED the apartment window. It had been cleaned the day before. Kate was asked whether she had touched the window, she claimed that she had not. However, only KATE'S FINGERPRINTS had showed up on the window during the PJ fingerprint testing. 

Portuguese police files/ Fingerprints

Once again, the McCanns have yet to provide an explanation to refute this evidence against them. Not only is there NO EVIDENCE OF A BREAK-IN, there is evidence against the McCanns that they have LIED TWICE in relation to the break-in and setting the scene to look like someone had broken in.. It must be plausible that the McCanns are involved in the disappearance of Madeleine, and their attempts to blame someone else is suspicious to say the least.

One of the most disturbing things about this case i've found, is the way the McCanns kept changing their STORIES of how the event that FATEFUL night unfolded. When the break-in version started to crumble, the McCanns then CLAIMED they had left the apartment UNLOCKED. So instead of an abductor breaking in to the apartment, he simply walked in through the UNLOCKED patio doors and supposedly CLIMBED out of the WINDOW! Surely it would have made more sense to WALK OUT the SAME WAY? But, there also needs to be an explanation for the OPENED WINDOW. It is plausible that the McCanns were DESPERATE to keep ahold of the ABDUCTION THEORY and ADAPTED it later to fit in with the police findings. In my opinion, once the break-in story was REJECTED the ABDUCTOR story should also have been REJECTED, then this would have left the McCanns with NO EXPLANATION for the disappearance of Madeleine.

What Is An Embedded Confession?

Statement Analysis

Sunday, December 4, 2016

In this article, I will attempt to explain, briefly, what an embedded confession is.  

The topic is complicated, so I can only give a short synopsis so that better understanding of the McCann case may be obtained.  It is not a topic meant for a single lesson or single article; it is more complex. 

Shortly, I will publish the analysis of the interview by the McCanns that was the topic of Richard Hall's documentary in which an embedded confession is identified in the conclusion of the analysis.  

For those who were unable to enter the chat room, this written version will address some of the questions posed that I was not able to get to, as well as those who had questions, but weren't able to type fast enough to get the question entered.  

But, by conducting a 2.5 hour review of the analysis and reading questions, comments and disagreements, as well as viewing the work of other analysts on this interview, I am able to address some of the disagreements or objections that have been addressed.  This scrutiny is helpful.  

Then, we look at other interviews and statements of the McCanns to learn:

Will these other interviews, particularly those closest to the date of Maddie's reported kidnapping, affirm the analysis, or conflict with the conclusion?

First we must understand what an embedded confession is, and how it is to be understood.  

An embedded confession identified as such is rare.

"This is ridiculous!  You guys think I stole the money! "  


Most of the encounters with embedded confessions show two designations:

1.  It is not an embedded confession

2.  It may be an embedded confession.

From amateur analysis the former is mostly highlighted while the latter is expressed generally by professionals who recognize that the embedded confessionappearance is only classified as a possibility or probability.

It is necessary to encounter many statements that present themselves as embedded confessions in order to build a reference point in order to construct an analysis conclusion.  

If we are not familiar with many examples of possible embedded confessions, we have no reference point from which to judge the quality of such, and are left with little above guess work.  

This experience must include examples of potential embedded confessions where the subject went on to confess or admit to the alleged crime. 

"I can't believe you said that I am using drugs."  

Next we can quantify those who appeared to embed confessions and went on, not to confess but went on to fail a polygraph.  

Then we move one step further:  those who made a possible embedded confession, did not polygraph but had their case adjudicated with guilt of some level, as well as those who were found guilty by a jury or in a bench trial. 

To add to this complication, we may then view unreliable embedded confessions who also later were proven guilty whether by confession or adjudication. 

This happens and is why "unreliable" must not be reinterpreted because although the analyst was correct in this case where the unreliable embedded confession was followed by guilt, this analyst will be incorrect on the next case, likely sooner than later. 

Hence, the reference point for embedded confessions must be a data base of such.  Without study of such, analysis can be reduced to educated guess work. Although success levels will be strong, they will not be at or near 100%, which is our standard.  The only accepted errant analysis report is from contamination.  

Contamination is when the language of another 'contaminates' the language of the subject.  There are a number of examples in the blog that you may search on.  

One in particular case I have highlighted is a statement submitted by law enforcement for analysis in a murder case.  

I sent it back stating it was "contaminated" by a prior interview.  

The investigator denied interviewing the subject before he had him write out the written statement and sent it back for analysis. 

I returned it again stating that the language shows strong indication that the subject is answering a specific question posed to him before the written statement.  

The investigator admitted asking this question.  Perhaps he was 'testing' the analysis and there are cases in which a contaminated statement can be analyzed, but it is rare.  

I keep a contaminated statement for the purpose of advanced training in which the analyst will come to one of two conclusions:  either the subject was robbed by a prostitute or the statement is contaminated.  The truth is that the subject wrote this as a witness statement, having nothing to do with prostitution but had just finished a fascinating conversation with the police officer about prostitution prior to the written statement, hence, what was on his mind came out in his words, making the witness statement so unreliable that it needed to be discarded.  

Regarding the Embedded Confession, we begin with a definition:

An embedded confession is when a guilty subject forms the words of confession within the free editing process; that is, when he is freely choosing his or her own words.  

To discern this:  

1.  The internal dictionary of the subject must be examined,  and the understanding of the the speed of transmission in language (Statement Analysis 101 is a perquisite for the analyst).  To discern an embedded confession, one must have:

a.  A basic understanding of statement analysis 
b.  Experience in analyzing embedded confessions 

This experience must include resolution.  Resolution is when we later learn whether or not the embedded confession was genuine; that is, they study embedded confessions where the case's resolution proved the analysis to be correct.  

The subject's internal dictionary must produce the embedded confession. 

Therefore, the source of wording must be learned.  

It is critical to understand what the "free editing process" is within language.  This is when someone is producing their own words:

Notion

The "notion" is the idea.  

The notion must be transitioned into language.  

If the notion is common, the translation into language has few options.  (parroting reduces options down to a singular option).  

The more variables produced in the transition of notion into language, the greater the reliability.  

The notion, or idea, must transition into language.  The subject (speaker) who has many choices will increase the reliability of an embedded confession if he or she chooses unique language.  

*If the subject introduces new words, the reliability increases dramatically.  This is something to consider in the McCann case.  

2.  What is not an embedded confession:

"The police said that I set the fire."

Here, the words "I set the fire" are ascribed, directly to "the police said."

This is not an embedded confession.  It is to use the language of another.  

This identifies who made the statement and that it was communicated in the words of the police, with the word "said."

It is not, therefore, an embedded confession.  

This does not mean he did not set the fire and herein lies an error of the amateur who claims it is an embedded confession:  should he be found guilty, the pattern now is claimed by the amateur which all but guarantees that his guess will prove future analysis incorrect. 

It is not categorized as "this may be an embedded confession."  It is said that it is not an embedded confession because it is the language of the police. 

"The police said that I set the fire and I used kerosene."  

Here, if the word "kerosene" was not used by others (police/fire), but is introduced by the subject, the introduction of a new word, "kerosene" completely changes the classification. 

"The police said I shot him and took his wallet."

We must now examine what, specifically, police said.  If the police did not ever use the word wallet, it means the notion (armed shooting robbery) has now been transitioned to words by the subject, who has introduced "took" and "wallet" where they were not used previously, making this an embedded confession.  

Although this may seem 'overly simple', it not only happens, but it may have relevancy for the McCanns.  

We must learn the Transitional Process.  It changes a notion, or thought into specific language.  

                                       Notion Into Language 

"You think I am cheating on you!"

Here is the next example of what is claimed to be an embedded confession.  The subject uses the words "I am cheating" but ascribes the "notion" to "you", the person in the conversation.  

This may be an embedded confession and the person may have cheated, but it is not to be deemed anything above the status of unreliable or "may be" by the analyst.  

We do not know if it was produced in the free editing process (a) and secondly (b) it is common language that brings "notion" to "language" without having many choices.  

"You think I am falling in love with someone else..."

Since "cheating on" is so common, and may have been used in the argument, was "falling in love" also part of the linguistics?  

If husband had not said to wife, "you are falling in love with someone else!", her statement that includes these words should be of great concern to the husband.  "Falling in love" is not as common as "cheating on", and only the couple will know if this notion (falling in love/emotional commitment) has been part of their vocabulary.  

Remember:  statement analysis recognizes that long term marriages cause husbands and wives not only to use each others' language, but literally to "enter into" the personal subjective dictionaries of each other, to a point (perhaps after 10 years or so) where they even share a single dictionary.  (After many years, people comment on how a couple 'looks alike.'  This is similar to the sharing of a single dictionary but is in facial expressions.  As they share a single internal subjective dictionary of words, they also mimic each others' face expressions, training the facial muscles.  They do, actually, begin to resemble each other because of this.  Remember, "notion" (idea) not only transitions into language, but into face expressions (body language) just as it does into hand writing.  

Parroting Language 

Parroting language is 'low stress.'  It is easy to repeat what another says.  This is true in denials and in lies. This is why "yes or no" questions are so unreliable. 

"Yes or no, did you kill your daughter, Madeleine?" is answered by the denial, "I did not kill my daughter, Madeleine."  

This is unreliable. 

It does not mean it is true, and it does not mean it is deceptive.  It means that we classify it as unreliable because it is not reliable as parroted, though if it was produced in the free editing process, statistically, it would increase in strength.  If followed by "I told the truth", it is 99.9% (+) reliable.  It is something that de facto innocence often produces, while guilty parties will delay making this denial.  (see "Reliable Denial" in the search feature)  

The unreliable denial is deemed as such because:  

It was not produced by the free editing process.  

3.  What is an unreliable embedded confession  

4.  What 'may be' an embedded confession and why professionals classify it as such

5.  What is a reliable denial and why it is rare

a. Confession by Pronoun as separate classification
b. Introduction of language essential.

The Unreliable Embedded Confession:

One that identifies two factors:

a.  the source of the notion 
b. the transition 

a..."newspapers said that I am guilty" identifies "newspapers" as the source

b.  "said" identifies the transition into language.  

"think" may or may not be an embedded confession because it does not specify the transition into language "says" but still allows for it as possible. 

In the McCann embedded confession, note what we have:


I suppose what’s been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. 


We need to identify two things:

1.  The source of the notion of death
2.  The transition into language (who says so?)

1.  The notion is that Madeleine died and is not kidnapped.  Therefore, in order for this to not be an embedded confession, we must identify the source.  Who said this? Or, Who thought this?

Question:  Where do we find this source?
Answer:    In the subject's language.  

This is where we look.  

Even in the "obvious" (which would be that Madeleine is dead and not kidnapped) we look at the details that the subject provides.  

After we find the source of the notion, we look for

2.  The transition from idea (notion) into words.  

Question for us:  What words did McCann use to indicate the transition into communication?

This is critical. 

He began with the technical "weak assertion" withe the words "I suppose."

This is a supposition.  He begins by telling us what is on his mind (the notion) and now tells us the genesis or origin of the notion.  

Have police told him this?
Have newspaper journalists accused him?
Social media?

Listen to him. 

He begins with "I suppose."  He does not say "police are saying", or "the public is saying" or even "social media is reporting..."

He "supposes" is to tell us that what follows is his supposition or thought.  He does not attribute it to anyone.  (1)  

This is similar to "I think..."  The common example that seems to help is this:

"I locked my keys in the car" is strong, while
"I think I locked my keys in the car" is weak; appropriately so if uncertainty exists.  

"I didn't shoot the man" is strong, while, in context,
"I don't think I shot the man" is weak.  

Remember:  the brain tells the tongue what to say in less than a microsecond in time.  

Here, he begins the notion's source with uncertainty.  In other words, he does not even know if what is to follow is 'truly' said of others.  

This is point (1) of weakness. 

2.  "purported" is a more intelligent word than the simple "says" or even "reported."  He is not saying "it is purported" (which is weak enough) but he only "supposes" that this is "purported."  This is point (2) of weakness. 

There is no specific source being quoted.  This should alert the analyst that what follows may be an embedded confession because there is no specific nor even general source cited. 

Notion

The notion, or idea, is that they are not telling the truth about Maddie being kidnapped and she is either "out there" (rumors of being sold into child sex ring) or deceased. 

Since he avoids the source, the notion should be as bland or general as possible.  Any single detail within the notion being transitioned into words must, therefore, come from his personal subjective internal dictionary.  

This is key. 

When we "suppose" , we allow for someone else to "suppose" something else.  This is the point of weakness.  

"Suppose" is the same thing; he is only speculating, yet, the article, "the" addresses a very specific "ludicrous" issue.  If he does not quote someone else, the language is now his own.  When one says “you say I killed her” it is not an embedded confession.  Yet here, he only “supposes” what is being purported.  The passivity of such conceals any singular source, such as a definitive police officer or news paper or journalist. 

In the larger analysis, you will see that he adds in "passivity" to the equation.  Passivity seeks to conceal.  This adds to the conclusion.  


He does not quote any specific person nor article nor even agency.   

We have no transition. 

Devil in the Details

When one attempts to portray the notion and gives additional information, it is a strong signal of experiential knowledge.  Like the subject who introduced "kerosene" in the language, solidifying the embedded confession, listen to the details and the words introduced by McCann:


I suppose what’s been purported  from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body.




Not only do we have "suppose" and "purported" but we have this coming, not from the UK, nor social media, but from "Portugal" as a country.  Note it is not Portugal police that this notion or idea arises, but just "Portugal."

He then gives us his own transition into wording:

"That Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body."

1.  Madeline died.  This would suffice a general notion of disbelieving the kidnapping and he would have been better off just stopping there, but in less than a microsecond of time, his brain told his tongue to include the very location of death. 

His point is not that Madeleine is dead or deceased but the location of death is specified, in his own language, with the introduction of the word "apartment."

Were the people of Portugal actually (verbally) saying that Madeleine was dead, or were they going as far as to commonly report that she did in the apartment?

He produced the location of death; from his own internal, subjective dictionary.  

Next, he continued on with even more details. 

He took the notion of death and specified, in language (transition) the location of her death.  Not only is he affirming that Madeleine is not kidnapped but dead, he is adding to the detail to tell us where she died. 

2. Then he addressed motive:   "accidental", which is a death that it not intended.  

He introduced the protective motive that what happened to Madeleine was not a kidnapping, and it happened in the apartment, but, don't look at them too harshly, because it was an "accident."

First he acknowledges "death", which could be considered "maybe an embedded confession" because "death" is the general expectation of not believing a kidnapping, but he brought in the location of death and the motive being unintentional. 

Yet he is still not done transitioning an idea into communicative language;

not only is she dead;
not only did she die in the apartment;
not only did we not mean for it to happen, but...

4.  I was part of the cover up; and

5.  So was my wife. 

"we hid the body." 


This is an embedded confession in which he takes a notion, and gives it specific details including motive and conspiracy.  

In fact, it is an overwhelming embedded confession because of the details:

a.  location 
b.  motive
c.  conspiracy
d.  cover up 

What is stranger than this is that this then allowed his wife to "add" to the "ludicrous" notion that has just been transitioned into words by Gerry McCann.  

Yet before that, we go back to the embedded confession and judge the structure:

I suppose what’s been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body.

"Madeline died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body" use:

*strong past tense verbs;
*Madeleine's name (which is not something they did regularly, making its use even more important) 
*No additional language
*No qualifiers. 

For the analyst, this embedded confession is deemed very reliable on its structure.  

Another detail is transitioned from "notion" to linguistics, not by the people of Portugal, or the press, or social media, but by the subject:  

You know, when there’s an immediate [inaudible ] it’s just nonsense. And if she died when we were in the apartment or fell and di...why would we ...why would we cover that up?

Kate McCann:  


It gets even more ludicrous that we’ve obviously hidden her somewhere incredibly well where nobody’s found her ..

The notion began with "these people are not telling the truth about kidnapping" to which they took this notion:

1. Refused to assign it to anyone
2. Used no communicative language 
3.  Added specific details, in their own language, in a reliable structure. 

Statement Analysis has concluded "deception indicated" by the McCanns. 

If you ask me my opinion on what happened to Madeleine, I would answer that the truth lies within the words of the people that were there.  

What has Gerry and Kate McCann told us in their own words?

1.  That Madeleine does not provoke protective parental instincts in them. Madeleine is beyond their parental help.  
2.  That they have no need to use the word "kidnapped", nor to call out to negotiate to the kidnappers. 

why?

3.  Because Madeline died. 

They also gave us the specifics:

4.  Location of death:  Maddie died in the apartment. 

5.  Motive:  They did not mean this to happen.  It was an accident or unintended death. 

6.  That she did fall, too, and

7.  That they hid her body so well that it is not likely to be found and the searching can go on, in their words, "forever."

This is a general lesson in Statement Analysis and the "Embedded Confession."  It is condensed to a single article and it is based upon decades of research and upon many statements worked through by analysts, including those with known conclusions.  

Having experience with embedded confessions and studying them is the only way to build a reference point of both understanding and of discernment.  Otherwise, it is just guess work; most often subject to emotion and not science.  

This is a good example in what an Embedded Confession actually looks like, and how the many claims of such are not accurate.  

An idea is expressed with no source, and is transitioned into language by the subject, not the source, where additional detail is given.  The detail is also given in a technically reliable form.  

Parental Protective capacities are instinctive; articulated thousands of years ago by Solomon, and known to us acutely experienced.  When our child falls, we have a need, deep within us, to make things well again. If we had to watch, incapable of helping, it would trigger a deep sense of "impotency", or weakness that would not only frustrate us, but would frustrate us for as long as our child needed our intervention.  

When the parents of a kidnapped child show no linguistic impotency it is because there is no need for intervention for Maddie. 

If you wish to formally study Deception Detection, our course on Statement Analysis is offered to be taken at home, listening to lectures and submitting work in for correction.  

Please visit Hyatt Analysis Services for more information.  

Statement Analysis  

Join us on Facebook