Madeleine milestone: Amaral agrees “some things we did weren’t right”

As mainstream media in the UK continues to churn out thinly-disguised ‘rehash stories’ on the world’s most famous missing person, here in Portugal the media circus has been much more demure as we approach the date on which exactly 10 years ago three-year-old Madeleine McCann simply vanished.

No wild exclusives pointing to new “prime suspects” or landmark television events, rather a backward view at a case that may have been set up from the very beginning to remain an eternal mystery.

Keeping an incredibly low profile since his double victory at the Supreme Court in the tortuous legal battle with Kate and Gerry McCann, former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral has finally given interviews to journalists working for the Cofina group, which publishes Sábado weekly magazine, and ‘people’s daily’ Correio da Manha.

And, for reasons that have nothing to do with the insults regularly thrown at him by British tabloids, the quiet-spoken, reserved 57-year-old agrees there were some things that from the outset Portuguese police did not do right.

“I should not have allowed us to be put under pressure”, he told CM’s Sunday Magazine, adding that when the McCann family finally left Praia da Luz in September 2007, the British police that had come over to assist the Portuguese investigation also left - leaving the “sensation that they were only here to protect the couple”.

Amaral said that another mistake came in the way “the group of Brits” now known as the Tapas 7 was included in on meetings with the PJ, “to know what was going on”.

“I went to one of the first meetings and decided that I would never do that again”, he explained. “In normal conditions, in an investigation like this one, they would have been straight away considered suspects”. Instead, the way the group was brought into developments “prejudiced the investigation”, he said.

“There is an issue that the Portuguese police have to start adopting in these (kind of) cases”, Amaral added.

“Instead of leading a question and answer interrogation in which the person (being questioned) is relaxed, waiting for the question to answer, it would be better if they adopted the way of the FBI: “Here is a pen and paper, and you are going to write down, in your own time and words, everything that you did, where you went, who you were with, etc., from the moment you got up to the moment the day ended”.

The current form of interrogation used by Portuguese police “could lead people, and indicate where we (the police) want to go”, he explained.

Over various pages in both Sábado and CM, Amaral was given time to revisit his ‘politically incorrect’ theories, reasons for coming to them and suggest other lesser known ‘mistakes’ - like the failure to check CCTV cameras on the road in which an Irish family said they saw a man carrying a child in pyjamas down towards the sea.

By the time investigators realised the sighting might be crucial, the CCTV images had been recorded over.

The “Smith sighting” as it has become known could be one of the most crucial moments in the evening of May 3 before Madeleine was reported missing - yet the family never returned to Portugal to make formal statements because, in October 2007 “Amaral was removed from the case after talking to Diário de Notícias”, explains Sábado.

And here, Amaral says came another major mistake.

“I should never have retired from the PJ”, he told interviewers, stressing that instead he should have “written and published the book” (Maddie: The Truth of the Lie, which led to years of “brutal” litigation with Madeleine’s parents) as a member of the PJ Judicial Police.

“We were just too honest”, Amaral concluded. “And we paid for it as a result.

“For example, we sent forensic material to a British laboratory, when the testing could have been done at a Portuguese laboratory, so that we would not be accused of manipulation in the final result.

“We were naive and too diplomatic”, he said - adding that in his opinion, the ‘abduction theory’ adopted within days of Madeleine’s disappearance is a “lack of respect” to what should have been an “objective investigation”.

“If the investigation ever reaches its end and if it can be proved that the parents had nothing to do with it, then fine”, Amaral stressed - much as he has always maintained. It is simply the fact that no other hypothesis other than abduction has appeared to be allowed consideration (click here).

But while Amaral ‘returned to Praia da Luz’ to give his view of the 10 long years since Madeleine vanished, the missing girl’s parents gave an interview to the BBC in which they insisted they will be appealing the Supreme Court decision that should have handed the former police investigator back his assets, after eight years in which they were ‘frozen’.

Gerry McCann explained that what he called “the last judgement” - the ruling that upheld Amaral’s right to freedom of expression, and refused to accept the McCann’s insistence that they had been considered innocent in their daughter’s disappearance - is, in his opinion, “terrible”.

“We will be appealing”, he told the national news service.

The Daily Express suggests the couple plan to appeal “all the way to the European Court of Human Rights”, though there is still no certainty that this can be done - particularly as Supreme Court judges Roque Nogueira, Alexandre Reis and Pedro Lima Gonçalves released their 75-page ruling making references to tenets set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In other words, Amaral’s ‘win’ relied heavily on three judges’ interpretation of laws that the ECHR has been set up to protect.

natasha.donn@algarveresident.com


Photo by Bruno Colaço for Sábado which carried a six-page spread on "The Inpsector's return to the scene of the crime", while CM's title for the anniversary edition was "The dead end where Maddie McCann is hidden"


Portugal Resident

Join us on Facebook

10th Year Anniversary

Kate & Gerry McCann - 10 Year Anniversary Madeleine McCann 

Also available to watch on our youtube channel

here

Maddie: The Enigma, an in-depth report by CMTV

29 Apr 2017 


Video transcript (trailer) - Ten years after Maddie's disappearance, Gonçalo Amaral returns to the crime scene. An exclusive documentary with new clues and unprecedented footage. Maddie: The Enigma, an in-depth report by CMTV.

José Carlos Castro (CMTV News Anchor) - Gonçalo Amaral says that there was far too much diplomacy and even servility towards the British in the Maddie Case. These statements were published in this week's Sábado magazine, they are part of the documentary Maddie: the Enigma to be broadcast by CMTV next Monday to mark the ten years of the English child's disappearance.

Cut to footage from the report, unknown voice over - Gonçalo Amaral has returned to Praia da Luz in the Algarve to reconstitute the steps of the disappearance of Maddie McCann. Ten years later, the former Judiciary Police inspector has no doubts whatsoever that there was too much diplomacy and servility from the Portuguese authorities towards the British. This disclosures were published in this week's edition of Sábado magazine and are also part of the documentary Maddie: the Enigma that is going to be broadcast next Monday on CMTV.

Gonçalo Amaral, footage from the report - "The failure as I told you comes from this, it started immediately, nearly twenty-four hours later after that happened we had the (British) ambassador here and that is when the great political pressure starts. (...) It seems that we still have a certain submissiveness before the United Kingdom. (...) We sent the samples that were collected in the apartment to the English forensic laboratory when it could have been done in a Portuguese laboratory so we wouldn't be criticized, so no one could say that we had manipulated the final results, so Portugal wouldn't be called into question because in essence those were English authorities, those were English suspects, so we asked them to check the samples and the reality is that we were naive."

Voice over - Gonçalo Amaral was in charge of the Maddie case however he was dismissed of the post of coordinator of the Judiciary Police of Portimão after he criticized the performance of the English police.

Gonçalo Amaral - "What should have been done at the time and wasn't, was that the parents who were in fact responsible for the safekeeping of the child should have been suspected from the start, with what that entails and is necessary for the investigation namely the interception of telephone calls, surveillance, etc, of the parents but also of their group of friends, because we don't know, suppose for a moment that when that group of friends go to the apartment the child was still there, we have no idea if that happened or not."

Voice over - Gonçalo Amaral believes that Maddie's body was placed inside the casket where the remains of a British woman were, a coffin that was cremated later. This thesis emerged (from a statement) in December 2007 after three shadowy figures were seen entering the church with a bag.


Extract from CMTV night news programme, broadcast on April 27, 2017 

CMTV                           

Join us on Facebook

McCanns vow to fight Gonçalo Amaral in the European Courts?

by Joana Morais 10 hrs ago

McCanns exclusive interview to the BBC | Photo: Joe Giddens/PA

"It seems increasingly clear that McCann case is no longer about what happened to a little girl, but an attempt — some say cover-up — to absolve "upstanding Brits" of any responsibility, conveniently blaming Portugal, the poor man of Europe, for a botched investigation and overall ineptness." - Chris Freind, 2013

On what is said to be an exclusive interview to be broadcast today by the BBC (for an undisclosed amount), the McCanns vow to take Gonçalo Amaral to the European Court of Human Rights, because “the last judgement is terrible”. True to their character, their blatant disregard for freedom of expression, constitutional rights and vindictiveness levelled at the former inspector of the Judiciary Police knows no bounds. 

No one can forget that Kate McCann once had this to say about the former inspector: "He [Gonçalo Amaral] deserves to be miserable and feel fear." No one can also forget that the money that was donated to fund the search for Madeleine has been used to pay for a relentless PR campaign against the former inspector, but also against the Judiciary Police, against the Portuguese institutions and authorities since 2007. That same money donated by the caring and concerned public world-wide to the search fund turned into a legal fund used to attempt to silence the former inspector, numerous newspapers in Portugal and abroad, TV channels and anyone who would dare to present, factually, a thesis that didn't meet the McCann's criteria - a criteria that is based on the image the couple wishes to project to the world. The fund was also used to at least once pay for the McCann's mortgage and in detectives that were far more experienced in dealing with corporate spying, in mediocre rent-a-cops, some of which attempted to exert pressure in the PJ officers working in the case and it is alleged that some have even created fake leads and unexistent connections to dead little girls, victims without a name, only to sustain the abduction thesis, wasting police time and resources.

Unlike what the couple alleges in this BBC exclusive and has done in numerous other interviews along the years, the investigation in Portugal was archived, mainly, due to the lack of cooperation of the British authorities (ex. refusing to send financial information) and the McCanns' friends unwillingness to cooperate with the Portuguese police, when for example, the crucial step of doing a reconstruction, in situ, with the whole group was refused because "it wouldn't have media benefits" i.e. it wouldn't be televised. And also because even before the McCanns were constituted as arguidos by the Portuguese prosecutors there was an enormous pressure, both political and economic, on the Portuguese authorities to investigate this case solely as an abduction, sabotaging all the other hypotheses the PJ attempted to explore. The English tabloid media distortion that was echoed in the world-media, was then and is now, essentially a calculated PR game to stir nationalistic emotions, to create a xenophobic rivalry intended to belittle the Portuguese authorities and whitewash the couple, this also played a role in the investigation archival.

The fact that the PJ has lost the public opinion battle is largely the fault of their successive national directors, Justice and Public ministers, who since 2007 allowed unscrupulous PR men and hacks to exert an enormous pressure on the PJ officers, their men to be crucified in the media and did not  prevent the re-writing of the facts and events of investigation. Releasing the case files after the investigation was an unusual excellent step but was insufficient PR wise. 

In essence, since the investigation was archived in Portugal the McCanns could have asked their friends, the group nicknamed Tapas seven, to come forward and take part of a police reconstruction, very needed to clarify the many contradictions in the whole group statements, that would also pressure the Portuguese prosecutors to reopen the investigation since the reconstruction could not take place with the investigation archived. That step and plenty other alternatives to pressure for the reopening were never used by the couple nor by their friends. Which begs the question, where are the friends of the McCann couple now, who left Praia da Luz soon after Maddie's disappearance and whose contradictory and polemic statements were never confronted, who never helped in that crucial step that could have helped find or at least establish the truth of what happened to the little girl?

Instead what we were offered a few years later was a farcical reconstruction, a Met police/BBC co-production, in no way different from other misleading re-enactments,  that used actors, including a porn actor, filmed in a coastal village in Spain - a crimewatch that was forbidden to be broadcast in Portugal. More could be said about a police force that seemed to be working in tandem with the media, for the media, that wasted £11 million of the British tax payer's money in nice photoshoots in the Algarve and decided from the start to exempt the McCanns and their group of friends from any suspicion. That onion it seems, was never meant to be peeled. What to say about the fact that the British ex-pat community in Praia da Luz, have never heard about the sexual predator that only targeted white English girls (see Paul Luckman's interview, the editor of The Portugal News to BBC radio), oddly a Met press release that is no longer available online, nor about the recent far-fetched and unverified tabloid story of nannies using rape-whistles in that idyllic fishing village of Luz.

Continuing with the sound-bites published today, it is also untrue the couple has "been formally cleared by the Portuguese". The McCanns have been alleging that they have been exonerated in multiple interviews for years, via their PR people, or unnamed sources. There's no doubt they have tried to use the legal action against Gonçalo Amaral to have some sort of official document declaring that they were innocent, or rather not guilty, of any wrongdoings without ever being tried in a proper court. Both Lisbon Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Justice judges understood the tactical manoeuvre they were attempting and refuted their substantiations. The judges reasonings were made in accordance with the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) and its related case law, and are very clear. It's doubtful they'll even meet the requirements to make an application. It should also be noted that the ECtHR cannot deal with complaints against individuals, so if the McCanns are going to sue anyone that will have to be the Portuguese state.

As to the trolls and fake news, maybe the McCann couple, their family, their unnamed sources, their PR people and also the media that had a role in it should apportion blame for igniting the online vigilantes who have effectively caused the death of an innocent woman and for allowing, since they have never addressed this fact publicly, their followers to stalk, harass, threat anyone who dares to oppose the McCanns' version of events.

____________________________________________________________________


The BBC interview, transcript available here 

                     

  
Joana Morais       

Join us on Facebook

Sedation

Freitag, 28. April 2017

From the rogatory interview of Fiona Payne:

'No, and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn't, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn't, you know, so much as blink'.

From the rogatory interview of Dianne Webster:

What did I see? Well Kate and Gerry, Gerry was absolutely, absolutely distraught, absolute, you know, I mean I’ve never heard a man make the noises he made, err and Kate, Kate was just err you can’t, you just can’t put into words how they were I mean they were just, I remember I went through into the room where err where Madeleine was sleeping and err and she said you know, somebody, you know, she’s been taken because she said that the shutters and that had been open, the window open. Err the twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think there was, they must have been err drugged with something.”

From the statement of Silvia Batista:

At a certain time, after the arrival of the PJ elements, the parents removed the twins from the beds in which they were still sleeping and took them to the first floor flat.  

From a report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation:

Let's see: the media forwarded the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents.

Distant in time Kate's father, the grandfather of the minor, Brian Healy, admits to the press that Kate could have administered some medication to the little girl, Calpol, to help the child (children'') to sleep, contrary to what his daughter Kate had stated.

Kate, through the PJ inspector that acted as 'liaison' with the family  asked why samples weren't taken from the twins in order to test that hypothesis. She knew well enough at that time, more than 3 months later, that such exam would be inviable.

She went further and said that we ' the investigation ' should verify that the kidnapper had sedated Madeleine, to accomplish the action and he had also sedated the twins 'to consummate the act' however she didn't say that at the right moment.


From Service information from Ricardo Paiva to Goncalo Amaralom Ricardo Paivafrom Ricardo Paiva

Strangely, Kate also made several requests, three months after the disappearance of Madeleine, that the police should take blood, hair and nail tests of Madeleine's twin siblings, because, as she said, she remembered that on the day of Madeleine's disappearance, in spite of all the commotion and noise made by the authorities and other persons who were looking for Madeleine in apartment 5A of the OC, the twins never woke up, having been transported to another apartment, they remained asleep, due to which she now presumes that they were under the effect of some sedative drug that a presumed abductor had administered to the three children in order to be able to abduct Madeleine, a situation which Kate refers to being possible according to what she read in a criminal investigation manual given to her by the British authorities, that would have been the procedure of the abductor in the real case involving abduction, rape and murder of the girl.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the above we can be pretty certain that the twins had been sedated that night. Police, staff, friends and even the McCanns got this impression.

The question is who sedated them and why.

A burglar entering the apartment looking for valuables and getting disturbed by three toddlers would not have the means nor the time to sedate three children only to leave without any valuables. A completely implausible theory.

An abductor who had specifically chosen to take Madeleine and not her siblings, which in itself seems to be illogical, might have sedated her to keep her quiet for the duration of the abduction but why take the risk and time to sedate the twins as well? All in a short timeframe with the risk of the parents entering any time for checks. A possible but rather implausible theory. Even if Kate McCann found this theory in some manual given to her by British authorities.

The other theory, which the Portuguese police have followed, is that it was the parents who had sedated all three children every night in order to be able to dine at the tapas restaurant without interruption.

Given their professions as doctors and the general impression of well cared for children plus the fact that at least Madeleine was awake and crying for more than an hour on Tuesday night, according to the statement by their neighbour Mrs. Fenn, this, at least to me, seems implausible as well. 

Especially the twins, who had been at the creche all day without sleeping in the afternoon at just over 2 years of age, would not have needed any sedation to fall asleep properly at night after baths. Even IF Madeleine had been given something to sleep after Tuesday night, I doubt this was the case for the twins.

Which leads us to the fourth reason why they might have been sedated that Thursday night. It might have been essential to avoid them waking up during that night because it was already anticipated that this night would be different and that they were spared the possible sighting the Smith family encountered later that night.

Four theories regarding sedation....

Unterdenteppichgekehrt

Statement Analysis ®

Friday, April 28, 2017

The Danger of Fabrication of Reality

Few people understand how dangerous one who fabricates reality is.  In deception detection, we learn that less than 10% of those who are deceptive, will fabricate reality. 

In live team analysis recently, we covered a statement where rent money went missing. 

The subject was 100% truthful, line by line. 

The statement tested to be "Unreliable" on its Form. 

There was not a single lie in it. 

The team rightfully concluded that the subject (author) had stolen the rent money via their analysis. 

This highlights a very important principle within both lie detection and in life, itself:  90% plus of lies are via missing information rather than the fabrication of reality. 

When we have one willing to literally fabricate reality, we have an unique individual who poses a threat of unknown proportion.  

Lying causes internal stress and the brain becomes quite adept at avoiding this stress.  The stress is not simply due to feelings of guilt, as even sociopaths, who hold no empathy for their fellow man, feel internal stress of a direct lie.  Why?  Because it leave them vulnerable to being caught and accused. 

By what?

By their own words. 

Their own words. 

This is critical in understanding human nature.  We are known by our words via communication, and to be seen a "liar" is not to be seen "lying" but literally to be classified, in total, as a liar.  This is not something the liar likes. 

Out right lies are rare and with the rent money, the analysts, both new and experienced, focused in upon sensitivity indicators and made the only reaonsable conclusion the words would allow:  "Deception Indicated."

In fact, he had stolen the rent money from his two roommates and went out and purchased drugs and some new clothes with it, leaving the living status of the roommates in jeopardy. 

Police asked him to write out a statement and it was very short, so the victims were told, "well, we just don't know..." and no justice was realized. 

This deceptive young man gave indication of not only deception, but the language of addiction.  The analysts spotted this readily.  

Dangerous

When one will lie outright, he is now in the 10% category.  "I didn't do it" when he did, is one thing, but to say

"I took the money and gave it to the landlord", for example, when the subject did not even meet the landlord, puts himself into a new category and it makes him a danger to all around him. 

Those who lie by omission and are successful pose a risk specifically due to their success.  Like a thief at work, $100 success will emboldened for $1,000 theft.  

Yet, when one lies by omission, and continue in this lie, they will experience something similar to the most dangerous fabricator of reality:

desensitization. 

Why is the rarer outright fabricator more dangerous?

For whatever reason, likely rooted in childhood, and fueled by success in deceiving people, the fabricator of reality has overcome the internal stress of lying.  

It is here that we learn:  

There is no bottom.  

They are in this sense dangerous because they are not restrained as others. 

You may predict their next downward step, but you cannot predict the bottom.  Their potential for societal harm is only limited by their opportunities.  

Even immoral people have some restraint, such as fearing being caught, and they still have the restraint of internal stress to hinder just how far they will go with deception. 

When Richard Blumenthal said he was boots on the ground in Viet Nam, he fabricated reality; he never left the United States.   Confronted by his own words, his response indicates who he is. His "core" identity was under attack.  His response is consistent with the lack of conscience.  

  With this by-passing of internal stress, we cannot know how low he will go, and we should not expect any basic honesty.  This means that when prosecuting people for crimes, he would be at high risk to prosecute an innocent if it benefited his career. 

Businesses that do not screen for deception pay a severe cost.  

There are ways to spot this type of deceiver, but there is no way to strongly predict how low they will go; we can only predict the next step downward, and perhaps, the next step, but in terms of the bottom: it does not exist. 

Wall of Truth

Truth is powerful and it is an invisible wall of protection.  

What makes fabricators of reality so dangerous is that they do not have the same restraints as others in society. They will go increasingly further into depravity; they will graduate from lie to lie, crime to crime, inflicting costs upon any and everyone around them.  

If you get in their way, they will go on the offensive. 

Without the wall of truth, the 10% fabricator of reality has a need to silence opposition.  It is far more than just being unable to answer truth, they cannot abide it.  

Need to silence

The lack of any reasonable "bottom" is frightening enough, but when it is combined with exploitation of others, we find they possess a need to silence discussion.  

Without a bottom, we now have the need to silence that is often accompanied by a pseudo-morality, which further fuels the liar into the realm of violence.   We see this in the "anti fascist" socialist movement that uses fascism to silence.  Socialism, itself, must use coercion to accomplish its social goals.  When the "virtue signaling" begins, we have a combination of:

a.  Deception that needs to silence communication 
b.  Intrusion of hormonal increase (emotion) 
c.  violence

The "science" march was a political march, not a science march, and its theme was singular and the opposite of science:  silence opposition. 

Anything that needs to silence scrutiny is scientifically indefensible, hence the need for coercive silence.  Combine this with hormonal increase (virtue signaling) and the power is increased. 

Add in male testosterone age 18 to 30 and the result can be violence that increases in both intensity and scope.  

Someone wants to do you bodily harm because you disagree with him.  

When one claims, for example, that a man is a woman, the absurdity, itself, can only be defended by coercion.  Therefore, if you go to the delivery room and your doctor says,

"It's a boy!"

the only contrary argument would be to attack the doctor as a "bigot", "racist", "phobic, nazi" and so on, as is the popular result of identity politics today.  Classify someone to avoid using logic. 

Add in virtue signaling and testosterone and this can lead to violence.  In untreated mental health issues, it is even worse.    

Yet, those who have long recognized that one who sees something that is not is in need of mental health intervention, suddenly, in just a few short years, now defend their position by attacking discussion. Here you see even the defenders acknowledge the mental health issue justifying why one must watch his words around the sufferer of sexual dysmorphia:

The defenders are the actual insulters. 

To claim a man is a woman is a fabrication of reality.  Where once professionals treated such as depression, and later dysmorphia, politicians have made it a "civil right" and has led to the same results of all identity politics:  division.  

The lie brings loss and destruction.  

Today, would any mental health professional dare attempt to treat the dysmorphia?

Yet, the 40% suicide rate remains. 

Taking the same logic, what of the dangerously underweight teen who "identifies" as overweight? 

Is is "respectful" to indulge her lie or should she receive help?

We are not better people or "morally superior" for maintaining a lie.  Only politicians tells us that we are.  


Politicians join in to exploit with the new claim:  "hate speech is not free speech."

Question:  Why is it so important that you change your belief and say that a man is a woman?

Answer:  Because it is not true.  It must be coerced, one way or another, because there is no wall of truth.  

This is why liars like the McCanns must keep up the pressure and have dedicated  their entire lives to this "fight."  It is not a fight for Madeleine, as many note; they rarely dedicated words to her.  It is about them.  

People dedicate websites, not to disprove the McCann analysis but to impugn the analyst.  Recently, it was "he is making money off a dead child."

What does that mean?

If a journalist covers a story and gets a promotion for a job well done, and the story is a dead child, is he making money off of a dead child?

Besides...isn't Madeleine "kidnapped"? 

Free speech was part of our fabric as hate speech against tyranny.  It is, in its historical sense, hate speech.  

Lies must be defended by violence because it is not truth, and, the restraint of lying as taboo is not only removed, but lying now becomes "morally" correct.  This is to increase fuel towards violence. 

Danger:  Deception + Emotion + Faux Morality + Testosterone 

Young males see the videos of black hooded attackers and they see this as exciting.  It appeals to violence but it is violence that is now "justified" by false morality.  If a male wanted to be violent but was reluctant due to his upbringing, the false morality allows him to overcome the resistance. 

Once he is in the crowd, mob psychology takes over and we see the cowardly professor hitting someone in the head, then hiding.  

We can laugh when Al Gore said air conditioners led to the creation of the Islamic State (they certainly laugh) but he is a politician and politicians are adept at separating you from your money for their causes.  

Yet, even a few years ago, few Americans would have ever called for the end of free speech, defining "hate speech" as anything I disagree with.  
It is  dangerous because it has no restraint. It is outright fabrication and with this restraint removed, it is now combined with emotion (moral narcissism or virtue signaling).   Remove restraint and you get violence.  This is why the fascist protesters wear masks.  

Human desensitization.  Fuel with false morality and the end can be dehumanization for the purpose of bloodshed.  This was the argument in the French Revolution, The Marxist Revolution, Nazi Germany, and so on, and the bloodshed was severe. 

Those who maintain a lie will be desensitized similar to the outright liar.  Eventually, the maintained lie will lead to offensive strategy, seeking to harm others. 

Example:  McCann threats as the lie is perpetuated for 10 years.  

Why the need to silence via lawsuit?  Will any of these suits bring their child back? 

Context is Key 

The context is a "missing" child.  If saying, "I don't believe their story" resulted in being terminated at their job because they have been portrayed as child killers, perhaps, professionally they would need protection. 

The context is that they have been building a movement on a lie, and cannot let it go.  

No loss of income like a tv personality falsely accused.  

Those who say they do not believe the parents will not impact the issue:  Madeleine. 

The need to silence is the  indicator of weakness.  

Lance Armstrong sued people of out of business, and destroyed lives and reputations.  Why?

Because they told the truth.  

The list of victims is unknown.  Even in his sport, what of those who rode clean and were cheated out of lawful competition? What of those who lost endorsements in their country because they could not keep up with him?

Liars take their toll on society and the more lying becomes acceptable, especially when disguised as morality, the greater the overall impact.  This is the essence of "third world banana republics" in the insulting language:  they are corrupt.  

Language is the currency. 

Deception is counterfeit currency.  


An acceptance of lies leads to destruction.  In Ferguson, the police officer told the truth about what happened, and eventually, witnesses came forth to say, "there was no 'hands up; don't shoot', yet an entire racist movement is underway, well financed and even received in the White House, based upon a lie.  Police officers have died, particularly in 2016, because of this false narrative that came from the top, beginning in earnest in 2008.  

The spouses and children will never be the same.  



Anti-cheating and sportsmanship lessons were once given to children to help establish an inner point of resistance to the corruption of lying and cheating.  

When you have someone who has overcome the internal stress of lying working for you, he will not "steal" from you; but he may "reimburse" himself, or even use the language of Marxism:

He will "redistribute the wealth."

There is no bottom.  

This form of theft is at the heart of the socialistic ideology:  successful people owe those who are not successful and if they disagree, we will coerce them.  This is what we are seeing today in America, and it is based upon a lie.  

The successful did not get their by hard work and sacrifice, they had to steal. 

The unsuccessful did not get that way by government disincentive. It was a vast conspiracy to hold them down.  

These absurdities are lies in which politicians exploit and use to create violence.  This is why politicians want to control the internet. 

Truth stands upon its own strength.  The "need to persuade" from a liar is incessant.  

If you do not believe him, it will continue to pester. 

If you still do not believe him, the very weakness of a lie will force the only method of acceptance possible:

Coercion.  

In any circumstance, none of us knows how low a liar will go. 

Even those who may have once been honest, who will not yield from their lies, will only become more and more desensitized due to their lies.  

Some comment with, "they actually believe their own lies."

No, they do not. If they did, it would not show up as deception in language and in their behavior:  

If they did, they would have no need to attempt to coerce through pressure, through law suits, or through violence.  

The McCanns show a willingness to destroy others careers and lives through threatened suits. 

Yet, would winning a suit bring back Madeleine?

If she was their cause, they would not care who did or did not believe them.  

They spent their energy attacking others and their focus upon their own selves. 

Why?

Because Madeleine was never "missing."  

They have lied by omission but the same pattern of desensitization is active.  

This is evident from their own words, and has been consistently remained the same, for a decade.  

Expect the increase in offensive attacks to continue.  It is their life.  Searching for Madeleine was not in their language, nor in their labors.  

For them, maintaining a lie has become an industry.  

Peter Hyatt

Join us on Facebook

Statement Analysis ® - Peter Hyatt

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).  

Video (26 Seconds duration)

IR:  Did you Kill Your Daughter? 

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.

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.  

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 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. 

Peter Hyatt

Join us on Facebook