Forensic linguistics -

I thought the same as you Tigger. And if we all know nothing, what is it that Clarence knows that he's not sharing? His phrasing here reminds me of his "there'll be an innocent explanation" for whatever the police may or may not find. How does he know this? It implies something could be found, that there is something to find, but that he would explain it away and that would be that, no more questions asked.

For someone who has made a living out of being a spokesperson, he has a very poor way of expressing a point. Bottom of the class.

Peter Hyatt of Statement Analysis did some on the McCann case, only based on very rudimentary early statements. He concluded: guilty knowledge ...

With her comments about her dreams, is this a guilt thing and is Kate trying to hint / lead people to where Madeleine is - it's now 'safe' to find her and bury her properly? The "cold grey slab" comments makes me think about the church and graveyard, or that's she's in a rock crevice somewhere. Am I being too simplistic, watching too many crime movies!

"He (GM) then went on to contradict Dr Paiva's evidence that Kate had seen Madeleine on a hillside in a dream. He said: "I'd like to make it absolutely clear that Kate has never had a dream that Maddie has been buried somewhere, and I don't know if something's been lost in interpretation, but that didn't happen – not with those words, that's for sure.

These is close, those is distancing, for there to be a those, there has to be a these.
This is close, that is distancing, for there to be a that, there has to be a this

It is important to gerry that he tells us that did didn't happen not with those words.

Anything in the negative is sensitive.

That didn't happen, not with those words, means  there was a this did happen with these words

If it wasn't with those words gerry, what words was it with?.

Qualifiers are words that when removed do not change the meaning of the sentence.
Qualifiers weaken a statement rather than strengthen it.

He doesn't want to make it clear, he wants to make it absolutely clear, which is weak.
Never does not mean did not.
Never is only applicable if you have been asked have you ever...?
He cannot say kate did not have a dream about Madeleine being buried somewhere and he cant say it, I can't say it for him.
Notice he doesn't specify where Maddie was buried as per the cream, only that Maddie was buried somewhere, deception by ommision making it sensitive.
I would be looking at where they went  and when, the hillside is sensitive given they would run to the top of the hill went they went jogging.
It is well known that killers often return to the scene of crime or the dump site to either check if the remains have been disturbed in some way, to relive the crime or to gloat.
How better to check on the remains than by jogging past them every day in plain sight, the same as some killers hang around a crime scene once discovered.

What would the something be that is lost in translation?
Kate and gerry both speak english, what is there to be lost in translation?

How does he know what kate dreamed?
It is interesting to note he uses Maddie rather than Madeleine given they have been telling the world from the get go it was Madeleine and not Maddie.
When there is a change in language there is a change in reality, is the change warranted?
Maddie buried, Madeleine alive?

tigger wrote:Clarrie would be a natural for a remake of Faulty Towers. 

As would the McCanns in an episode titled 'Don't Mention The Dogs'  

 I made this observation on another thread but the opportunity to revive it here was too good to resist.

Hobs wrote:
What would the something be that is lost in translation?
Kate and gerry both speak english, what is there to be lost in translation?

How does he know what kate dreamed?
It is interesting to note he uses Maddie rather than Madeleine given they have been telling the world from the get go it was Madeleine and not Maddie.
Unquote


Isn't that distancing as well?  E.g. Robert come here! When Bobbie has done something wrong. Robert when it's bad, Bobbie when he's good?


Re Fawlty Towers: Mitchell as Manuel:  ' I know nozzing..'

And re the Dogs.... I think we got away with it so far .. but 

Exactly Tigger.

A change in language is a change in reality.

Is the change warranted? when does it change and is it consistent?
   Interpretation not translation

"He (GM) then went on to contradict Dr Paiva's evidence that Kate had seen Madeleine on a hillside in a dream. He said: "I'd like to make it absolutely clear that Kate has never had a dream that Maddie has been buried somewhere, and I don't know if something's been lost in interpretation, but that didn't happen – not with those words, that's for sure."

I have no doubt that if it were in his power to do so GM would dominate and dictate his spouse's dreams, but all he can do is deny the existence of any which do not accord with his interpretation of how those around him should think and those which he cannot translate into any language which is meaningful to him. 

In the heat of a Portuguese summer, the most effective way of disposing of a small body would be to leave it naked  in an isolated place where insect and bird activity will destroy flesh and organs within a week or so, with the bones being carried off to diverse places by the local fauna.  

Placing the body on a slab of rock would have the advantage of preventing the proceeds of putrefication seeping into underlying earth, leaving an area of ground which would take considerably longer to re-establish itself than the time taken for the corpse to fully decompose.    

I suspect the incompetent mastermind wishes he'd had the balls to opt for that course of action instead of wrapping the pyjama-clad corpse in a pink blanket, placing it in a blue canvas bag, and burying it, or weighting the bag and dropping it into the ocean from a catamaran, both of which can be the source of nightmares for those fearful of discovery.

Watch at 1:08 when Kate says "obviously" she is always thinking about Madeleine... a very obvious head shake as she says that between 1:08 and 1:11. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9oX6a3uKTs

From the Gazettadigital article on the Channel4  documentary 2009 'Madeleine was here'


Kate Says Far Too Much
The most interesting facts to emerge from “Madeleine Was Here” are the opening shots of Kate McCann describing how she discovered that Madeleine was missing and how she knew “straightaway” that she had been “abducted”. This, and the Oprah Winfrey show, were the first occasions that Mrs McCann provided any detail and reliable sources suggest that Kate McCann’s cameo was a last minute alternative when the sequences filmed of Miss Donovan had to be cut.

Kate McCann
I did my check at about 10 o’clock, went in through the sliding patio doors, and I just stood actually and I thought all quiet and to be honest I might have been tempted to turn round and I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we'd left it and
Comment
The tone of her voice is spookily rhetorical: permission seeking rather than being confident and assertive. Forensic Linguistic analysis shows that words such as “just”, “actually”, and “to be honest” in historical narratives are usually associated with deception.
What appears to be superfluous information about entering through the patio doors is very important because it pre-empts questions about Kate McCann not seeing the open bedroom windows as she walked past them to enter the apartment through the front door. In his original statement to the PJ, Gerald McCann said that his wife had entered the apartment through the front door.
Forensic Linguists also recognise the importance of thought processes. Liars frequently introduce these, unnecessarily, to give themselves time to think and to avoid commitment. Kate McCann refers to a lot of thought processes, mainly when addressing to topics directly related to the critical events on 3rd May 2007. Under stress, Gerald McCann pulls his right ear lobe
Mrs McCann’s observation that “the door…. was open much further than we’d left it” was supposedly the reason she decided to check further. Yet at the time she had every reason to suppose that Matt Oldfield or Gerald had opened it when they carried out their checks. Thus her thought process is not consistent with the circumstances and are possibly drawn from imagination (usually untruthful), rather than from memory (usually truthful)
Further if the abductor had “jemmied” the shutters, as she, her husband and relatives originally stated, it is most likely that the door would have been blown closed before Kate McCann’s arrival at 10.00pm. Further, how could the curtains be static if the window was open and a wind blowing? Mrs McCann’s story does not stand scrutiny
In his Channel 4 interview, Matthew Oldfield implied that when he did his check at 9.25 (which if Jane Tanner’s evidence is correct was after the shutters had been jemmied, the window opened and Madeleine taken) the bedroom door was wide open (he told the Leicestershire Police it was 45 degrees open) and he could see the twin’s cots from the lounge-hallway area. He says nothing of seeing the curtains flapping wildly, as they must have been if the window was open.
The dynamics of Madeleine’s bedroom are such that if the door was at less than a 90 degree angle the strong draught (from a 17mph north by north-west wind blowing that night) would have blown it closed or caused it to oscillate: if the angle was greater than 90 degrees the door would have been blown open against the wall. But in all cases, it is inconceivable that the curtains would not have been seen flapping wildly during the whole time the window was open.
The bottom line is that if the draught was sufficient to blow the curtains – “whoosh” -when Kate McCann opened the door, they could not have been still when Mr Oldfield made his check or when she first looked into the room.

Kate McCann
I went to close it to about here and as I got to here it suddenly slammed and as I opened it … it was as I suddenly thought I would look at the children and I saw Sean and Amelie in the cot and then I was looking at Madeleine's bed, which was here, and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking is that Madeleine or was that the bedding
Comment
“I went to close it” is what is known in forensic linguistics as a “non-action” and is therefore questionable. The change of tense (from past to present) within the same sentence is not consistent with a truthful recall of a past event from memory.
Is it likely that the twins would not have been woken by the slamming door or that Gerald would have heard nothing if he had been standing on the pavement right outside the apartment?

Kate McCann
I couldn't quite make her out and it sounds really stupid now but at the time I was thinking…. I didn't want to put the light on as I didn't want to wake them and literally as I went back in the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn
Comment
Self deprecating phrases such as “it sounds really stupid” or “I know you won’t believe this” are frequently associated with deception. Again note the switch to the present tense and the superfluous word “literally”. But more important is the phrase “went back in”. According to her statement she had not previously entered the room. Again imagination seems to be playing its part

Kate McCann
Were closed….. Whoosh…. A gust of wind just blew them open… Cuddle cat was still there and her blanket was still there and I knew straight away…. She'd been taken…. You know
Comment
When she reconstructs the “whoosh” of the curtains, Mrs McCann is standing outside the room, yet her previous words imply that she was inside the room when this happened. Such discrepancies – between oral communications, body language and proximetrics- are usually a classic sign of deception

There are also occasions when KM speaks with an Australian inflection - that's making a statement sound like a question with your voice pitched higher at the end of what you are saying - which is perfectly normal for an Australian but strange for a Brit to do and not something particularly Liverpudlian.

I think this might also be worth taking into consideration with forensic linguistics.

aquila wrote:There are also occasions when KM speaks with an Australian inflection - that's making a statement sound like a question with your voice pitched higher at the end of what you are saying - which is perfectly normal for an Australian but strange for a Brit to do and not something particularly Liverpudlian.

I think this might also be worth taking into consideration with forensic linguistics.

I notice that Aquila, it made me wonder if perhaps she had spent some time in Australia. Or perhaps she just watches Home and Away a lot   

candyfloss wrote:

aquila wrote:There are also occasions when KM speaks with an Australian inflection - that's making a statement sound like a question with your voice pitched higher at the end of what you are saying - which is perfectly normal for an Australian but strange for a Brit to do and not something particularly Liverpudlian.

I think this might also be worth taking into consideration with forensic linguistics.

I notice that Aquila, it made me wonder if perhaps she had spent some time in Australia.  Or perhaps she just watches Home and Away a lot   

It's unlikely to be Prisoner Cell Block H.  

candyfloss wrote:

aquila wrote:There are also occasions when KM speaks with an Australian inflection - that's making a statement sound like a question with your voice pitched higher at the end of what you are saying - which is perfectly normal for an Australian but strange for a Brit to do and not something particularly Liverpudlian.

I think this might also be worth taking into consideration with forensic linguistics.

I notice that Aquila, it made me wonder if perhaps she had spent some time in Australia.  Or perhaps she just watches Home and Away a lot   

She either picked it up in NZ or it's a constant quest for reassurance, I reckon.

Dee Coy wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

aquila wrote:There are also occasions when KM speaks with an Australian inflection - that's making a statement sound like a question with your voice pitched higher at the end of what you are saying - which is perfectly normal for an Australian but strange for a Brit to do and not something particularly Liverpudlian.

I think this might also be worth taking into consideration with forensic linguistics.

I notice that Aquila, it made me wonder if perhaps she had spent some time in Australia.  Or perhaps she just watches Home and Away a lot   

She either picked it up in NZ or it's a constant quest for reassurance, I reckon.

Quest for reassurance?

Who needs reassurance when stating facts? - especially facts that are about the moments leading up to finding your daughter is missing?

Are you being serious?

aquila wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

aquila wrote:There are also occasions when KM speaks with an Australian inflection - that's making a statement sound like a question with your voice pitched higher at the end of what you are saying - which is perfectly normal for an Australian but strange for a Brit to do and not something particularly Liverpudlian.

I think this might also be worth taking into consideration with forensic linguistics.

I notice that Aquila, it made me wonder if perhaps she had spent some time in Australia.  Or perhaps she just watches Home and Away a lot   

She either picked it up in NZ or it's a constant quest for reassurance, I reckon.

Quest for reassurance?

Who needs reassurance when stating facts? - especially facts that are about the moments leading up to finding your daughter is missing?

Are you being serious?

Completely serious. I believe Kate to be the weaker party - completely in thrall to Gerry. Gerry will have given her hell about the dream incident, for example, and I'm sure he waxes lyrical to her about every gaff she makes. He, of course, can do no wrong. Look at the way she clutches him to his obvious irritation and gazes cow-like at him like she did at Everton.

If they are living a lie, the stress she will be under will get greater as time progresses. Gerry, as the mastermind, thrives. She doubts, I believe, and is terrified of doing or saying something that will send the whole house of cards collapsing.

Questioning encourages a response, a nod or word of encouragement. "Yes, Kate". "Of course you're right", etc, are the replies she's trying to encourage, I believe. An upwards inflection to form a question does the same thing. She's looking for the acknowledgement that people are agreeing with her. She's looking for reassurance.

All my opinion. I would add also, that after living in Liverpool for some years, I came home and people commented on my tendancy to do the same thing. It is a common habit in Liverpool. But I think Kate was always insecure about the situation she finds herself in, and it's getting worse.  

Humble opinion, and all that.

Dee Coy wrote:

aquila wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

aquila wrote:There are also occasions when KM speaks with an Australian inflection - that's making a statement sound like a question with your voice pitched higher at the end of what you are saying - which is perfectly normal for an Australian but strange for a Brit to do and not something particularly Liverpudlian.

I think this might also be worth taking into consideration with forensic linguistics.

I notice that Aquila, it made me wonder if perhaps she had spent some time in Australia.  Or perhaps she just watches Home and Away a lot   

She either picked it up in NZ or it's a constant quest for reassurance, I reckon.

Quest for reassurance?

Who needs reassurance when stating facts? - especially facts that are about the moments leading up to finding your daughter is missing?

Are you being serious?

Completely serious. I believe Kate to be the weaker party - completely in thrall to Gerry. Gerry will have given her hell about the dream incident, for example, and I'm sure he waxes lyrical to her about every gaff she makes. He, of course, can do no wrong. Look at the way she clutches him to his obvious irritation and gazes cow-like at him like she did at Everton.

If they are living a lie, the stress she will be under will get greater as time progresses. Gerry, as the mastermind, thrives. She doubts, I believe, and is terrified of doing or saying something that will send the whole house of cards collapsing.

Questioning encourages a response, a nod or word of encouragement. "Yes, Kate". "Of course you're right", etc, are the replies she's trying to encourage, I believe. An upwards inflection to form a question does the same thing. She's looking for the acknowledgement that people are agreeing with her. She's looking for reassurance.

All my opinion. I would add also, that after living in Liverpool for some years, I came home and people commented on my tendancy to do the same thing. It is a common habit in Liverpool. But I think Kate was always insecure about the situation she finds herself in, and it's getting worse.  

Humble opinion, and all that.

That's quite a lot of empathy for Kate McCann isn't it?

Isn't she Madeleine's mother? Isn't she supposed to speak with truth/clarity/authority about the moments before she discovered her daughter was missing? (especially in a bespoke video by friends known to the McCanns where there was no pressure).

Of all the Liverpudlians I know/have known/worked with I've never noticed an Australian inflection but then again I've never known a Liverpudlian to say they made their first foray to the supermarket on holiday.

aquila wrote:
That's quite a lot of empathy for Kate McCann isn't it?

Isn't she Madeleine's mother? Isn't she supposed to speak with truth/clarity/authority about the moments before she discovered her daughter was missing? (especially in a bespoke video by friends known to the McCanns where there was no pressure).

Of all the Liverpudlians I know/have known/worked with I've never noticed an Australian inflection but then again I've never known a Liverpudlian to say they made their first foray to the supermarket on holiday.

Recognition of a behaviour does not equal empathy. I do not pity or understand Kate. Please do not presume to label me with inaccurate presumptions plucked randomly from thin air. My comments on her questioning way of speaking were made in reference to her generic behaviour, not merely one video.

As for your experiences of the Liverpudlians you have met, obviously I cannot comment, nor would I presume to attempt to understand your reference to Kate's 'foray' comment given that it is written in her book, considered and approved, and not spoken spontaneously in a live interview, so seemingly has little relevance to this.

Dee Coy wrote:
As for your experiences of the Liverpudlians you have met, obviously I cannot comment, nor would I presume to attempt to understand your reference to Kate's 'foray' comment given that it is written in her book, considered and approved, and not spoken spontaneously in a live interview, so seemingly has little relevance to this.
Unquote

As far as such phrases as 'foray' go - I'm afraid that all we're doing is analysing the ghost writer.

Lots of 'facts' in the book that can be checked against the statements and evidence - as far as the ghost writer goes I' m thinking of Mills and Boone, or given the antipodean slant, a scriptwriter from neighbours.
Or it might just be the Big Book of Different Words to Use, i.e. a thesaurus.... 

Its called AQI: Australian Questioning Intonation, and is also very frequently heard in the US, particularly on the West coast and amongst what they call 'Valley girls' (basically the American South West version of Essex girls). It does betray someone unsure of themselves or of what they are saying, and yes is very annoying!

Definitely not Liverpudlian to use AQI. When my Liverpudlian daughter came back from backpacking in Australia and New Zealand she used AQI and we all thought it quite funny. After being home a while, it disappeard. I think Kate just picked it up in NZ.

mysterion wrote:Definitely not Liverpudlian to use AQI. When my Liverpudlian daughter came back from backpacking in Australia and New Zealand she used AQI and we all thought it quite funny. After being home a while, it disappeard. I think Kate just picked it up in NZ.

I have a number of Kiwi friends none of whom, thankfully, are afflicted with AQI albeit they incline to overuse of the word 'awesome'   

As far as can be ascertained,  Kate was last in NZ some 17 years ago long enough, one would have thought, for her to have reverted to her usual manner of speaking had she acquired any antipodean inflexions during the brief period of time she spent there.

With regard to her 'foray' into the world of book writing, Kate McCann would have been best advised to have employed the services of a ghost writer.  As it is, from the few extracts of the bewk I've read, the intense self-absorbtion and crass insensitivity revealed therein suggest she ran it by her spouse, whose inability to grasp how others comport themselves in the face of 'disasters' such as losing a child through one's own negligent behaviour is abundantly apparent to all who possess an IQ above that of a cauliflower - no disrespect to that most versatile of vegetables intended.  

It does not appear to me that KM seeks reassurance per se.  However, IMO there are certain affectations in her speech through which she seeks to elicit sympathy but which, unsurprisingly, have the opposite affect.

I am not really sure where to post this so will place it here. Acknowledgements to Frances Gallagher on the Facebook forum of Lizzy Hideho Taylor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItxJ6LuhStY#t=562

I had to scroll it back to the start. Never seen it before and just made me drop my jaw and blink haha.

Nina wrote:I am not really sure where to post this so will place it here. Acknowledgements to Frances Gallagher on the Facebook forum of Lizzy Hideho Taylor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItxJ6LuhStY#t=562

I had to scroll it back to the start. Never seen it before and just made me drop my jaw and blink haha.

Nina, How interesting it might have been if the interviewer had tackled him right there, saying why did you just smirk when I asked that question?