The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Forensic linguistics -

Page 15 of 18 Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Research_Reader on 13.02.14 8:46

I'd love to speak to some of those who've interviewed them. Would be interesting to hear what kind of 'vibe' they give off. Also, as damning as these interview body-language 'tells' are, I bet theres even more interesting stuff that occurs when the cameras stop rolling.

____________________

Research_Reader

Posts : 259
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 13.02.14 11:17

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7380419.stm

Research_Reader, there's an instance here at 2.40 when they thought they were off camera.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by ultimaThule on 13.02.14 11:34

The famous 'as Brits we're pretty stoical' quote from the tantrum king whose 'stiff upper lip' turns to jelly if he doesn't get his own way.  

Not for the first time I feel OUTRAGED that this conniving, deceitful, duplicitious pair are still at large, and the fact that they remain at liberty to peddle their lies and propoganda is a travesty of British justiice.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by RIPM on 13.02.14 11:50

@Research_Reader wrote:I'd love to speak to some of those who've interviewed them. Would be interesting to hear what kind of 'vibe' they give off. Also, as damning as these interview body-language 'tells' are, I bet theres even more interesting stuff that occurs when the cameras stop rolling.
I was at a media press conference at the war memorial in Rothley in the early days and was chatting with the reporters of ITV and Channel 4 news and neither believed a word the Macs or CM uttered.  However, the fawning of the BBC team was unbelievable, why I had no idea then but I do now.

RIPM

Posts : 106
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by HelenMeg on 13.02.14 12:41

@Research_Reader wrote:I'd love to speak to some of those who've interviewed them. Would be interesting to hear what kind of 'vibe' they give off. Also, as damning as these interview body-language 'tells' are, I bet theres even more interesting stuff that occurs when the cameras stop rolling.
Yes me too...
 I remember that Jenny Murray interviewed KM on R4 in the early days and I wondered what JM thought. It was quite incredible to listen to KM.
I sometimes wonder whether the Scots woman on Daybreak (temporarily forgotten her name) actually believes in them. She sounds quite sincere
when she chats with K and I always find it amazing.  I guess whenever a McCann comes on to a TV / radio program it pulls in a lot of listeners - not sure why .. maybe its a morbid fascination at watching or listening to people who may end up being a 'criminal phenomenon of our time' . IMO.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 192
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Research_Reader on 13.02.14 12:48

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7380419.stm

Research_Reader, there's an instance here at 2.40 when they thought they were off camera.

Interesting, thanks. Whats interesting to me is not so much the fact that they were then apparently smiling and joking as soon as the cameras stopped (so they thought) but that the editor of that news piece decided to show it. hmm

____________________

Research_Reader

Posts : 259
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 13.02.14 12:57

HelenMeg, that's the so-called journalist Lorraine Kelly. Here's a link to a topic about her outpouring of bile about McCann doubters last year.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7995-lorraine-kelly-s-latest-mccann-nonsense-the-sun?highlight=Lorraine

She has fallen for the yarn big time. She was never the brightest star in the sky though; it's more of a mystery why other normally intelligent journalists have done so too.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Research_Reader on 13.02.14 13:00

@RIPM wrote:
@Research_Reader wrote:I'd love to speak to some of those who've interviewed them. Would be interesting to hear what kind of 'vibe' they give off. Also, as damning as these interview body-language 'tells' are, I bet theres even more interesting stuff that occurs when the cameras stop rolling.
I was at a media press conference at the war memorial in Rothley in the early days and was chatting with the reporters of ITV and Channel 4 news and neither believed a word the Macs or CM uttered.  However, the fawning of the BBC team was unbelievable, why I had no idea then but I do now.

Fascinating. Can you recall any specifics that they said?

I'd love to eavesdrop on some of the behind-the-scenes conversations between the straight-talking cameramen or the more cynical and canny journalists after they've seen a live performance of Cirque-de-McCann. 

I'm reminded of the story mentioned here before about the cameramen/photographers in the early days in Portugal saying that they thought KM had walked past them sobbing and craddling cuddlecat(tm) purely for their benefit.

____________________

Research_Reader

Posts : 259
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by mysterion on 13.02.14 13:02

I don`t take LK seriously. She never interviews guests, she "strokes" them. She very rarely critices anything in the fashion parade. I think she just follows the edicts of the entertainment show producer. IMO of course.

mysterion

Posts : 358
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Research_Reader on 13.02.14 13:03

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:HelenMeg, that's the so-called journalist Lorraine Kelly. Here's a link to a topic about her outpouring of bile about McCann doubters last year.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7995-lorraine-kelly-s-latest-mccann-nonsense-the-sun?highlight=Lorraine

She has fallen for the yarn big time. She was never the brightest star in the sky though; it's more of a mystery why other normally intelligent journalists have done so too.

Lorraine Kelly is just an annoying bimbo, but without the good looks. Not so much a journalist, just someone who reads a tele-prompter introducing boy-bands and diet recipes.

____________________

Research_Reader

Posts : 259
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Research_Reader on 13.02.14 13:05

@mysterion wrote:I don`t take LK seriously. She never interviews guests, she "strokes" them. She very rarely critices anything in the fashion parade. I think she just follows the edicts of the entertainment show producer. IMO of course.

I don't usually like him, but I'd love to see Jeremy Paxman in full Rottweiler mode let loose on the McCanns.

____________________

Research_Reader

Posts : 259
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Tangled Web on 13.02.14 13:24

@Research_Reader wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7380419.stm

Research_Reader, there's an instance here at 2.40 when they thought they were off camera.

Interesting, thanks. Whats interesting to me is not so much the fact that they were then apparently smiling and joking as soon as the cameras stopped (so they thought) but that the editor of that news piece decided to show it. hmm

I thought exactly the same thing RR! They dealt a sneaky blow at the end there  laughat 

Tangled Web

Posts : 303
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 13.02.14 13:30

@Research_Reader wrote:
@mysterion wrote:I don`t take LK seriously. She never interviews guests, she "strokes" them. She very rarely critices anything in the fashion parade. I think she just follows the edicts of the entertainment show producer. IMO of course.

I don't usually like him, but I'd love to see Jeremy Paxman in full Rottweiler mode let loose on the McCanns.

Jeremy Paxman? Maybe so, I think I might have plumped for Mrs Merton...   laughat Straight to the point. No messing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj-9lSEBBm0

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by ultimaThule on 13.02.14 13:38

Sadly, Jeremy was muzzled but I have no doubt that in normal circumstances he'd be able to reduce the wee one to a blubbering wreck in 5 minutes flat.  As it is, his distaste for his subject is palpable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvFkXkVn1I

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Research_Reader on 13.02.14 13:41

GM positively beams with delight when Paxman mentioned the media attention they got.

____________________

Research_Reader

Posts : 259
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 13.02.14 13:44

Jeremy's face at 0.58 is a scream! Looks like he's eaten something disagreeable.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Guest on 13.02.14 13:48

@Research_Reader wrote:GM positively beams with delight when Paxman mentioned the media attention they got.
Paxman mentioned his effort to bring in the media. And Gerry's beaming something that doesn't look like delight to me.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by diatribe on 13.02.14 13:48

I don't know about Jeremy Paxman, but I think the late Robin Day would have treated Gerald McCann with much the same disdain as one would accord a turd floating down the Thames.

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by ultimaThule on 13.02.14 14:42

MILLIE wrote:Jeremy's face at 0.58 is a scream! Looks like he's eaten something disagreeable.
At 1.08 when the wee one is stumbling over assuming 'you're taking a devil's advocate postion' Jeremy is off camera, but if we could see his face I suspect it would be saying 'no, you arrogant t**t... far from playing devil's advocate, I simply don't believe a word that comes out of your lying mouth'.

More proof, as if any is needed, that the wee one seriously believes he possesses a towering intellect that can spar with the likes of Paxman and emerge victorious.   It's not surprising his grandiose plans to strut the world stage as a man of gravitas have come to nowt.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 13.02.14 15:51

I don't believe that anyone with intelligence and the ability to form their own opinions would believe the McCanns.

Which rules out Lorraine Kelly.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by tigger on 28.04.14 13:03

Came across this from one of the early interviews - it's from Statement Analysis November 2012 .
Snipped as it's pretty long. (I have the whole article if you want it Hobs - there was a problem with the site?)
It is the McCann's first interview 25/5/07

JH: And then on that Thursday night, Kate, when you
realised that she wasn't in her bed where you'd left her.
Did you think even momentarily perhaps that she'd
just woken up, wandered off of her own accord, perhaps?

The question is directed specifically at Kate.    

KM: Not at all, no.

"No" is sufficient, and the additional words indicates sensitivity.

GM: No, I mean, that, I think, was absolutely certain
but, you know, before you raised the alarm, we double
and triple checked but we certainly had no doubt in our mind that she'd been taken.

This is a very weak answer.  One cannot "think" and be "certain" at the same time.  By saying
"I think" he allows for someone else to "think" otherwise.  To him, it is not only "certain" but
"absolutely" certain.
Follow the pronouns:  He begins with, "no" but goes beyond this answer with, "I mean"
and "I think", which, both broken, at least begin with the pronoun, "I"
in the answer, but then he uses "you know" indicating sensitivity, and then
the distancing language of "you" raised the alarm, only to then switch to the pronoun,
"we."

He began with "I", moved to "you" and then on to "we"
Please note that if he is speaking for himself and his wife, he should, in the least, start
with the pronoun "we" and remain in it, yet even if he turned to "I" (showing a
very strong, personal connection) he could return to "we."   In this case, the pronouns
are very concerning.  Please note that "we" is often used when sharing guilt. To begin with "I"
but to move to "you" and finally "we" gives the appearance of shared guilt.

Note that words like "absolutely" makes "certain" sensitive.  Between the pronoun change and the addition of "think" and "absolutely", the answer is very weak.  

In Statement Analysis, additional words give us information. Additional words are those that can be removed from a sentence with the sentence still working. Here, we have "absolutely" added to certain, showing sensitivity. We do not have, at this point, the reason why it is sensitive; as it could be they are attempting to persuade the interviewer that they were certain she was kidnapped and had not wandered off.

Most parents, upon finding an empty bed, might assume their child wandered off. It is important to GM  that this not be a possibility.


JH: And... and... and was there then frantic activity that night? I mean, I've spoken to even local people who've told me they became aware of what had happened pretty quickly and they were looking around, as well.

This is a very poorly worded question and introduced "frantic activity" to the
language.  Good questions use the subject's own words and avoid introducing
new language to them.

GM: From the minute we discovered she was gone, if you actually look at the actions, our own actions and those of the group are actually, response and the speed of the response from all of us in the group and the Mark Warner representatives was excellent, the alarm and the call to the police went out within 10 minutes and the Mark Warner resort manager, John Hill, had, ... missing child, protocol in place within, you know, half an hour and all of the staff, were contacted... returned to the resort here and the, you know, the local search started, errr... so, you know, in terms of that it was done very, very quickly.

We come upon a highly sensitive statement.  
Note when the habit "you know" arises, as it shows an increased awareness
of the presence of the Interviewer, or of the question.

Because I do not know what took place, regarding media criticism or challenges, I cannot say if this sensitivity is in response to what has already been said. "Actually" is used when comparing two or more thoughts. We don't know what is being compared but repetition is noted as sensitive and we have some words being repeated.

"very very" quickly is weak.  It suggests guilt or guilty feelings at the response time.

This weakness may be in response to prior criticism, or, that it is because the response was not quick.

There is a strong  need to justify response.  It may be due to guilt, or it may be due
to criticism they have heard, but it is present.


Unquote (bolded remarks are comments)

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Tangled Web on 28.04.14 13:54

Asking the McCann's if they thought Madeleine had woken and wandered is a perfectly reasonable and logical question to ask under the circumstances. IMO they can only be certain that she didn't wake and wander if they KNOW what happened to her. They could not say with such certainty that she didn't wake and wander if they KNOW that she didn't. Or, she did wake and wander and that's how she met her demise and they're trying to stop people pursuing this line of enquiry. There is a reason they insist that she didn't but I'm not sure what it is.

Tangled Web

Posts : 303
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Statement Analysis

Post by Wahrheit on 04.05.14 22:23

I've just come across this item on Peter Hyatt's blog. I think he's firmly come down off the fence. 

lhttp://www.statement-analysis.blogspot.de/2014/05/the-mccann-interview-analyzed.html

Wahrheit

Posts : 48
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by HelenMeg on 04.05.14 22:54

@Wahrheit wrote:I've just come across this item on Peter Hyatt's blog. I think he's firmly come down off the fence. 

lhttp://www.statement-analysis.blogspot.de/2014/05/the-mccann-interview-analyzed.html
Really interesting reading that analysis

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 192
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Forensic linguistics -

Post by Okeydokey on 06.05.14 1:24

@Tangled Web wrote:Asking the McCann's if they thought Madeleine had woken and wandered is a perfectly reasonable and logical question to ask under the circumstances. IMO they can only be certain that she didn't wake and wander if they KNOW what happened to her. They could not say with such certainty that she didn't wake and wander if they KNOW that she didn't. Or, she did wake and wander and that's how she met her demise and they're trying to stop people pursuing this line of enquiry. There is a reason they insist that she didn't but I'm not sure what it is.

Yes - their response is not convincing on two points:

A. We know they had the "star chart" at home trying to stop Madeleine from seeking them out within the home when she woke in the night. She therefore had at the time a propensity to wake and seek them out.

B.  Madeline had on their own admission a good 20-30 mins to travel away from the apartment. An infant could easily travel a mile in that time period. So, if they only searched for 10 minutes it seems extremely unlikely they could have covered a square mile, searching all possible hiding places, given most of the searching would have been within the apartment and immediate environs.

So the question is: why do the McCanns want us to believe there was no possibility of her wandering off? The most likely answer is because they have had to focus on selling us a single narrative.

Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 15 of 18 Previous  1 ... 9 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum