McCann Case: David Payne Statement Analyzed
Was Madeline McCann moved in a bag? David Payne was asked about this.
Taken from David Paynes rogatory statement, answering a question about the 'bag'. He insists Gerry didn't have one.
1485 "What about a kit bag' Would they have a kit bag with them?"
Reply "Err he certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a
squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn't have anything that I
would call a kit bag from days when I played''
In the SCAN technique of Statement Analysis, as taught by Avinoam Sapir (LSI SCAN) we recognize that each individual has a personal, subjective, internal dictionary and it is the work of SCAN to "decode" this.
For example, in teaching interviewing, I ask people to write down what comes to mind when I say the word "boy" aloud.
This word would appear to be quite simple, and not in need of definition nor clarity. Not so.
Here are some of the responses to the word "boy":
1. Newborn at the hospital
2. 21 year old adult in the military
3. 8 year old in Little League
4. 25 year old who has "failed to launch"
Note the distance between in the ages alone! This is why SCAN does not "interpret" one's words, but seeks to enter into the subject's own personal dictionary. Exempt from this principle are:
Pronouns
Articles
Objective Time on a Clock
Pronouns are instinctive and highly reliable for guidance. When one says "we", we know that the one was not alone, for example.
Articles are also instinctive and are reliable: "I met a man and he drew the gun on me..." Uh oh.
Therefore, a follow up question (or two) is necessary to allow the subject to interpret for himself. This is critical in the topic of human sexuality, as President Clinton has well exampled.
"I was making love to her" spoken in 1945 means something entirely different than the exact same words spoken today.
We now need to know what a "kit bag" is, especially since it comes from a different culture. The subject, himself, gives us some help:
Err he certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag or a, you know,
The word "certainly" indicates sensitivity about having a bag. "Certainly" indicates that he wants us to accept something without question. We do not.
Next, we note that he does not say that "he" did not have a bag, only that he did not have a "great big" tennis bag. Follow up questions:
What kind of bag did he have?
Did he have a tennis bag?
Was it a small bag?
Was it a big bag, but not a "great" big bag?
We use the subject's own words and get him to clarify for us.
For him, it is not just a bag, and it is not just a big bag, but a "great big bag"
The words, "you know" are a habit of speech, and like any habit, we note when it arises and when it does not. It shows an acuteawareness of the presne e of the Interviewer or the audience. I use it when I get a bit nervous before a crowd, for a variety of reasons, but especially when bringing forth a principle that I know will be initially resisted. The Reliable Denial, when in the presence of law enforcement students, is one such point. Jaded from street interviews, it is difficult to get them to accept this phenomena because it appears too simple. I understand. I trusted Mr. Sapir's judgement because I was so impressed with his work, that I presupposed it to be true. Thousands of interviews (not hundreds) has only confirmed his genius for me, and the high level of reliability of this principle.
err I mean I used to be a
squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn't have anything that I
would call a kit bag from days when I played''
As parents of kids over than 7 know, where there is a "that", there is a "this."
"I didn't do that, Mom!" means that the child did something. Just not "that", and a follow up question will show what it is the little boy did!
"The teacher said you ran after Sally Sue and pulled her hair!" "I didn't do that, Mom!" is true enough: he didn't run after her when he pulled her hair: she was standing right next to him.
The repetition of being a "squash player" is sensitive, as he uses it as a way to persuade that he would know what "that" bag looks like. I believe that they did not have a squash bag which would be "that", but this indicates that they did have a bag ("this") which is, as a "semi professional" can attest to!
Note that "certainly" is repeated, further weakening his assertion. He is deceptive. He is truthful that they likely did not have the same bag he had when he played semi professional squash, but his purpose of persuading us reveals his own weakness. The bag may have been very close to a squash bag ("when I played" is even further weakening) and likely some squash players today use it (just not when he played!).
This is a bit of "linguistic gymnastic" stretching of words, which belie the need to stretch. Simple truth would have looked like this:
"They didn't have a bag."
If he is not able nor willing to say this, we won't say it for him. Next comes the admission that there was a bag, but before we leave the statement, did you "follow the pronouns" in your analysis?
He went from "he" to "they."
Oops.
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you
know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn't a big tennis, you
know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.'
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that,
it would have been just purely, if they had anything''
The subject is cutely aware that the inference is not putting a tennis racquet in the bag, but a small child. His repetition of "tennis racquet" (as seen in repetition) allows us to know that he is not plainly speaking of what he knows.
Peter Hyatt
No comments:
Post a Comment