The Deception Detective: Statement Analysis Videos

As promised.

How to Analyse an Emergency

58:08 minutes

How Repetition Reveals Lies

1:18:44 hours/minutes

What is Missing from Their Story

1:17:14 hours/minutes

Premiered 4th November 2023



Parents of missing children typically mention certain things in interviews, like unique traits and pleas to kidnappers. Do the McCanns?

Do the McCanns Deserve an Apology

55:24 minutes



Published twelve days ago

Portuguese police recently apologized to the McCanns. Was it warranted? If not, why do it?

How to Spot a Fake Story

52:48 minutes



Published 2 weeks ago

If the McCanns were behind Madeline's disappearance, they'd need an alibi. How do you tell if a story is made up?

How to Interview a Suspect

1:08:59 hours/minutes



Published 2 weeks ago

In his interview with the McCanns, did Piers Morgan accidentally uncover new insights about Madeline's disappearance?

How to Spot Guilty Leakage

1:12:49 hours/minutes



Published 3 weeks ago

Using advanced deception detection techniques, can we uncover the true crime mystery of Madeline McCann? I believe so.

What Really Happened to Maddie

42:26 minutes



Published 3 weeks ago

Can an old interview with Madeline McCann's parents shed some light on what happened to Madeline McCann in 2007? Let's listen for clues.

How to Analyze a Suspect

51:23 minutes



Published 3 weeks ago

Madeline McCann's 2007 disappearance remains a mystery. But this old interview with her parents, Gerry & Kate McCann, may hold some answers.

he uses a bit different style as statement analysis, than peter hyatt. he looks by my impression more for the meaning of the full sentence, less of the pronoun stuff, but it still is there too. 

what i do not like in him, is that he did not take his time to take a good look at the surroundings of the case, but goes with the usa style, of just call 5a a hotelroom, so you get bits in it like she must have died in the room, but not in the bed. in a manner he probably does not even realize there was no hotelroom with beds in the same room, but a pretty on average small self contained apartment with multiple rooms. 

and i do not agree with him, that all english is simply the same english everywhere. the words that people use in a language are under a lot of different influences, cultural, local and endemic habits, standing and the social levels, but also education. people also can use different styles within the same language for different occasions. emotions or being under pressure gives changes too. 

in the netherlands we do speak dutch, well officially in belgium the flemish also do speak dutch. but in day to day lives, we both know it are two languages that did have the same only origin, but we made our own versions of it. if you look to the news on tv, we can both understand the language in both countries  equally and that is all in dutch. but real people speaking dutch is often very different. and words used in speaking can have even gotten a very different meaning. best example is the  neder-dutch popular word for poo= poep, at least on my side of the border, in belgium, it is the part of your body you sit on, always good for some hysterical moments when that gets misunderstood. when in belgium being politely invited to drop your poo on the chair. 

i have the same experience with german, there is quite a variety within the german border itself, but take it on to austria, nord east belgium, nord east french, switzerland and northern italy, they all do speak german, but all in different styles and wordings. 

and england, wales, scotland, canada, usa, hong kong, ireland, south africa, all have made it all with some little , sometimes a bit larger differences. often not even so much that words get a true different meaning, but just another load inside a meaning. pronouns are often flawed to its common use in nominal english. and dialect words can sound spoken the same for something that is not the same in basic english.

he gets in one of the video's to coupling a theory about probably left in the ocean of the body, because he includes only the meaning of surface to belonging to water. but if you are from an area of mining, surface would easily can or do mean something just above ground level. 
if someone is in woodworking or grew up in a family of woodworkers, surface could for them be more equal to an even reflecting surface, like a worked on flat piece of wood. where i live, we have a lot of water, even in the grond, 40 to 60 cm in and you see it. so surface would mean for me indeed mostly a reflection to water. 
still we use it for both in my area. 

and many people do have also dialects reaching in, certainly when there getting emotions in, or become under pressure. we have quite a bit heavy form of dialect in my area, that is even very different from the one i grew up with, and it shares a direct border even. a lot of people start out in pretty sound and clear common dutch, but when they grow a bit in their conversation and loosen up, the forget that so easy. and we do see the faces of the people who keep hanging on only to not be seen as rude, but getting confused by the minute.

we made one time a movie about the area and a good old friend would tell about his rare work, after taking it 3 times, we decided, we could put just subtitles. we had no problem to understood him, never had, but the rest of the world never would have understood anything after his third word. 

i think you have to know what speaking pattern a person really has and uses in specific circumstances, if you put such a heavy burden on these words. 

also, i think you cannot use guidelines, even when the fbi uses them for 911 calls, on the first communication in public, from people who at that moment had already people who had given advise in hoe to handle it.
a first call is a far easier way to accept is as a personal reaction. they are simply not made for this purpose. for that moment. 

i do agree that thanking all and everything including law enforcements of all the help they gave and the searching they did is a big red flag, because as long you have no outcome, people usually never get it in their mind to do that. they only do it, on steering by others, most times a member of the family that thinks it needs to happen, but not from their own mind. because they have still nothing to say thanks for. 

and it was already strange enough, because normally there are officials too, because you have to ask questions to a public. that means the officials could take care to tell you what you can search for, look out for.
and it is much harder on a family of a missing person, to do next to an official body. 

and no one needs a course to understand, it is from the start never been about madeleine as a person, but only the mccanns themselves, at least that was the most consistent line for well over 16 years. 
even the little bits in the book 'madeleine' has hardly meaning and sound quite like they had just to put something in. 

i think this guy will be easier to hear, he is far less technical, than hyatt is.

statement analysis in its basic form, was mostly restricted to be used on written answers to questions. 
so this is far more linguistic=speech analysis than that. 
it is always said it was based on the works of a german william stern. i have found his work done about witness statements and iq testings, but nothing so far to grab the meaning from the word go about statement analysis itself. 

also it is just a tool, it is not what gives all the answers. if answers are truly there we would simply call it a confession. so it can assist from time to time to be used in what are sensitive parts of the whole story. so it can give some indication, and by that feeding new questions, but it is not good enough to see it as a kind of evidence. 
what can become a easy problem, is that you start to trust to much on such tools and forget to put enough effort in finding real facts and from there to look for evidence, that does meet a threshold for being used in court.

onehand wrote:and i do not agree with him, that all english is simply the same english everywhere.

I've always said the same when statement analysis has been under discussion, particular words that Peter Hyatt targeted I use in everyday life all the time - and I know statement analysis is only a tool, a pseudo science.

This is why I say time and time again, to take a single sentence or quotation from a text you lose context, thus it's open to misinterpretation.

I prefer the Deception Detective to Hyatt but that's just a personal opinion.

The subject is however interesting in it's own right, the watcher/listener can make up their own mind as to it's real value.

Deception Detective has a video about the McCann's tonight at 8 0'clock on Youtube.

'What do Innocent Parents Look Like'  

Now that should be very interesting, it's a topic we've all thought hard about over the years with so many McCann appearances on camera.

Perhaps you can upload it here when it's finished Mrs Cake - please, I'm an hour ahead of you so it's not premiered yet

I'll do my best!

Verdi wrote:Do the McCanns Deserve an Apology

55:24 minutes



Published twelve days ago

Portuguese police recently apologized to the McCanns. Was it warranted? If not, why do it?

Where is the alleged apology? Who exactly apologised and how?

Methinks the Deception Detective is being a trifle facetious  all Messrs McCann are fit for is ridicule.

The jester in harlequin pants..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Minus one ..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Verdi wrote:'What do Innocent Parents Look Like'  

Now that should be very interesting, it's a topic we've all thought hard about over the years with so many McCann appearances on camera.

Perhaps you can upload it here when it's finished Mrs Cake - please, I'm an hour ahead of you so it's not premiered yet

I watched this one today as well as one yesterday . He likened the announcement G made ten days after Madeleine was  missing  from her bed  so very much about them ,not  her . He also noted the mention of the funding money was going to be spent on them . It's comforting when you read someone you've never discussed this case with sees exactly the  same things as  yourself because sometimes I have berated myself for being  unsympathetic for the situation they found themselves in . 
 We all know the behaviour some parents put on to make us sympathetic ?  GM  must have thought his cold " businesslike " speech would  work better than tears and pleas. .....did not , for me  tho.  



Too,who could forget  the joyous faces on what would have been her fourth birthday ? 
 Unless they gave her away and they knew she was being well looked after ,  that would be the only thing I could excuse them for but why hide it ,lie and set up a fund?

To announce to the world that you will be concentrating on yourselves is grotesque in its insensitivity; I don't know if any interviewers questioned about  them about it.

it is not wrong to trust a bit on your gut, angel. 

you know with listen to you gut, you hardly ever will make a decision about what you think of someone, it usually simply puts a endless row of questions and doubts in your thinking too, guts are not about a simple yes or no answer at all. 

they are far more a kind of alert system, you have to stop and look back. and it is hard to step over these alerts. 

i am not fond of systems, because in my experience people are very divers, we are just the result of very different very small too very large events, we usually just happen to live through. and i think systems are usable as a basic training aid, but it has to be fed with real people experience too. 

also i for myself like always to have a bit of an outline of the area something happened. and it counts, his reaction to kate when she said in one of the video's she could not talk about details, he lacks basic case knowledge, because yes, that is how portuguese justice works. and i think he did not pick up on that bit because she said, and in itself is is true, but on how she decide to make use of it in that moment, because that was a false excuse to the top. 

and for most people the pausing and going back in what is said makes the better listening, most of us are not often so exactly listening what and how things said. or endlessly playing a video back. 

this guy only learns you how to listen in just a different way. he is a good teacher in that, and he is absolutely not arrogant, has a pleasant voice, even real emotional invested, unexpected for a lawyer maybe. 

he also is much restricted in telling you what it could mean, or has to mean, he has a talent to following up his talking with what are already gut feeling you already have. 

peter hyatt has his own system, what is far more technical, and also teaches in a much more arrogant manner, he has the right earned to be arrogant in that part, i often even like it if you dare to step in your own words. also hyatt is far more into his pronouns, and that would not work for me in a country they are sometimes fully lacking in hours of conversation, and i still had only that too use. 

if you only looked at the video, it is worth to try and only listen, you tube just talk on if you just put another screen open, if you are an automatic looker.

i like myself to only listen, and like it even to do some simple stereotype other thing at the same time. 
i can even seen to look at a face, but can easily block the view out, most of my coworkers found that pretty scary. and it take quite a lot of time to change believing for thinking. 

and it only will be a bother when you always do it, in most daily affairs it is not that important, most lies would simply be the white lie kind, and that is often just functional. 
but when you have to listen to something important being able to filter the text realtime does help. 
and does in not feel comfortable enough just tape the conversation if you can, just ask or tell you do. 
you just can make your own study material. it has wonderful other uses too, because you will find out very early how you came so stupid to say yes or no on moments, and most situation you can get back on a answer in 7 to 10 days. 

it is not even that much statement analysis technique, but just a different manner to listen, most of it all of us do that without knowing doing it at all. it is the origine of what we just call gut feelings. 

and for the mccanns it was never about madeleine, only when they had been adviced to put certain bits in, it comes trained and studied out of them. 
and they never ever have shown to be parents of a missing child, because they never would have to play that at all, because they simply are or at least would have been. most people pick that up, and do not need to mix up their mind when they got in explaining mode. you do not have to learn, you already are a parent of a missing, or otherwise lost child. 

it was only never there, not in the first late evening statement, but they simply never became in that role. 

to angel, would you expect parents who just had the full experience of missing their child, would have to tell you there was no rule of thumb how to be that. 

and did your gut picked it already up, before your mind started rattling about their explanations why that role was not to see? 

usually we would put a lot of excuses in place for such a couple, the shock, all the commotion, in a strange country, such a big experience, we do not like to think nasty about other people we hardly know, and it is about a little child, so who would want to do bad thing with that child. we are usually overly imprinted with the believe that all parents are good, or at least from a good heart meaning well. 

and it is not up to us to seek excuses, or minimizing something, that is their job. but it is very hard to stop doing it, and the result of it, you would stop listening. 

so the best work this guy does is how to being able listen with true focus on what is said, and not so much the meaning, but the intention. the meaning is for me always of lesser importance, but why they say it, and mostly it will be to make you believing you. and by listen with true focus you can escape that. 

you will find out, they hardly ever have answered to the question itself. but they use all and everything to hide they do not want to give an answer, and very often because they can not answer because they do not know the answer themselves. and they need even very long time before they found an reusable earlier experience to fit it for a bit. 

i think this guy is a bit too much in the sedative stuff, the story does not need it as a necessity, it is not a deal breaker and there are simply little drugs available to explain it all. it is such a could be, but it have not, so for me that still has a big question mark.

Guts aside, I think most of us have got a bit of speech analysis within our perimeters of natural instinct - I know I have, words speak volumes even if you can't see the writer/speaker.

Messrs McCann thought themselves to be very cunning by allowing the man, Gerry McCann, to be their official spokesman - the big voice whist she, Kate McCann stood beside looking like a scared little lost child. All eyes are on Gerry McCann, he is the big noise to be heard - even the few times Kate McCann gets the green light to say a word or two, oh how she mumbles and grumbles and tumbles over her own words. Inarticulate springs to mind.

The interview could be talking of the serious issue of nosy pesky dogs and she would sit there trying to articulate tales of feeling safe and all the support they are receiving - I wish I had the time the patience and the ability to run through all their appearances before the camera to effect a public persona analysis. Taking each appearance individually, it's striking how she falters very little from the rehearsed script of her own muddled mind and the feigned expressions chiselled on her face - her husband's reactions to her performance is palpable.

I find that more interesting and more revealing than trying to analyze speech alone - statement analysis is too variable for accuracy or reliability. How the parent's (in this particular case) interact before the cameras speaks volume to me but you have to take your eyes off the big noise, Gerry McCann in this instance, and concentrate on the little woman by his side - how she looks and what she says and how she looks to her husband to do the dirty work on their behalf tell a lot of home truths about the way they have manipulated the investigation and public opinion in their favour.

The second televised press release used by the Deception Detective at the start of his narrative is a very good illustration of my point, watch how she behaves during that press release on 14th May 2007.



The quality of the video is rubbish but you can get the gist.

i would love to see that guy doing his thing on the video of uncle john. that very early one, he almost was jumping up and down on the chair at home. 

i never have seen so much enthusiasm in any other video of the family of a missing child.

this one, in the green chair.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

i do not mind if you call it natural instinct, or gut feelings, or others call is good listening. it all does work, only you most times have to get snapped in, that little alert in your mind, that tells you wait a minute, what is happening here. human behavior is not so very unique others can not see through it. okay some never do, and would not be sensible enough to pick up large signs. but that are exceptions. 

but we most times do not start listening and looking at people with the idea, they must be there to mislead you, so most give people a chance to just be good people. and most people are good people, most of the time. 
but also with the people who listen to their inner alert, that snap in a moment, still like to give excuses. we usually do not start with being suspicious, and it is often very hard even to really bring back the exact moment, you got that first snap. it is okay, to only realize you have the snaps after 3.

and i do not think you have to learn to catch the snaps, but you can learn a different way of focus on them. it only results in hearing them earlier. if you can leave out the almost auto filling stuff away, and only hear the words spoken it is much easier to get what is said. and it is no longer really an opinion, but just the spoken words they use. they just say them, so that forming an opinion with your mind working overtime is no longer needed. that auto back filling we use to find out if the person in front of you is good enough, or wants something bad from you. and i say mind, but you decide very quickly with all your senses feeding your mind with all you can pick up in that. every time another person get near you, you do that automatically, very handy too, only we are civilized, a nice word for robbing us from old very useful opportunities. 
we are all inborn xenofoob to others humans, and the natural response from that are still there, flight, fight, freeze or fawn. knowing people well makes it often more difficult.

and a lot of that is still there in all of us. and we always keep a fair bit of it at hand when we listen and look to other humans. and most human behaviour you will have already seen in some variations in other circumstances. and as soon as people start hiding things in their words and often also in their body language, you can pick that up. to lie is just a form of hiding something. 

the other thing is, people talk in patterns, what they say is painting the picture, and many people are able to walk with them through that painting of the picture, and because it is a pattern, your mind gets upfront of what you hear, so if the picture gives an expectation to drive over a path, and they say there was a tree, you get also a snap. because trees usually do not grow on paths you can drive on. or when you ask a question, you already have expectations of the possible answers and you get something very different, you will get a snap too.

being civil is just putting extra hurdles in that. normally you do not want things getting nasty, so you accept quite a lot. so most snaps will just be put through all these ugly little questions in your mind. and most times it is just easier to make up a result that you can accept, and you do not know why they did that. but it is much easier to give it a fix. and most people simply have not a endless list of bad things to hide. 

but if you want to get why they say things forget civil. just go for the real deal. that is also the meaning of the table in an interviewroom, because you are no equals, no pals, you are opponents. so if you really want to get their words just set yourself against them as an opponent. they have to tell you. with a video, you do not have to think about questions to ask, or how to ask them. just listen what and how they tell you. 

and after you get that first session in, take a piece of paper and a pen, and think about what you expected to hear in that moment of time, you only heard about a little girl missing on a holiday, somewhere south. 
make that picture as a little pencil sketch in your mind. what would you expect to hear. could be anything.
like what is her name, how does she look, how old is she. have they any idea where she could be, who has done it. and be careful with the its, one or two is okay. it is identity in timboektoe, it is nothing and can be anything.
and listen again. you will see that it would not matter at all, if you put 3 questions on your paper, or 5 , or 10.
these people would not have given you any clear answer at all. 

they do not tell you they have a daughter, her name is madeleine and is missing. no they talk about 2 daughters and get a missing daughter in but not our, or my daughter madeleine, who is missing. 

and video after video, they ask you for help. you have to look for her, but they do tell you no coherent information about what person you have to look for. they cannot say it. they can not say, what is not there, they are so busy with hiding what they do know, they forget to tell you what you have to believe. 

with one exception the ma nina promo van kate, but that was just training and guidance, because the pr brigade forgot they never did it by themselves, and had probably heard comments about it. they are just planting complete woods in how they say it, to hide they simply can not say our, or my daughter madeleine is missing. they do try, but hoppa again new tree in the picture. 

we all use these skills daily, every time we communicate with others we do, we do not often know we do that, it is just because we are humans, and humans do it, animals do it too by the way, only in a form that work better for their species. 
but it has a lot of noise on the go. the mix of entertainment and information on the same telly is not a plus. modern papers en e-news like to do the same. you are so often shown the fake world of entertainment, you take that in your mindset, when you start watching news. if it is important, they will talk more about it later, and you immediately lower your threshold for how much focus you have. influencing is no new idea of only this century. 

but when you just single out a specific video, and a guy like the deception detective keeps asking you to focus. it gets way easier. he does not learn you skills, he learns you to focus, you already have the skills, they are only a bit rusty of daily civil living. children can do it often much better, because they are lacking in being civil. 

and do not look or listen for lies, but go for hiding stuff, you often do not have to lie to do that. 
lies work only if you have a very good memory, or believe it yourself, and that takes some time. 

that guy is right about body language, that is very easy to learn, it are not new ways to present your body, but it is quickly to learn to do it on purpose. and most video's are not of enough quality to pick up the very small gestures that can betray you. it is much easier to trick another human using it, than an animal. 

that people are supposed of having the habit they tell you by their choice or use of words what they hide or what they have done, still is under debate, science has still no consensus about that, and it is not usable in a court as evidence at all, so i like to skip that bit, in an investigation you want to know exactly what happened and who did what, suspicions are not sound enough on their own. thinking stuff is not enough, you must show it in court. 

another thing, because you can not be sure what people hide or why they hiding stuff, there is also still a big chance they try to hide something that is not part of the case at hand. in this case the circumstances are pretty narrow, so there is less of hiding on other matters to expect around the parents. 
and it will never be more than one of many tools an investigation can make use of. and it works on certain groups of people absolutely not. and there are always jokers around too. it always will be teamwork, of people and tools.  

the original basis behind statement analyses was also on the written answers on specific questions, and the people could scratch things out, but not take them out. also most of that work was done only on students.
i would advice use officers, if it works in the senior bunch you have hit gold. they lets us try a new kind of lie detector, it is still not on the market. even that was teamwork.

The only person who I've seen show any emotion and shock over Madeleine's disappearance is Gerry's mother.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

kate her parents too, in the 3 part documentary for a chilean tv company i think.

most talking is done by mrs. healy, but mr. healy was already of bad health. but there is true emotion in both. 
and even there i had the strong impression, it was not about a living child anymore. hope does usually show, even if it is only false hope. 

so it was nice to see the grandparents did really care about madeleine.

if you look at the mccann siblings, it is only business and just fight. and from the start, and when there was nothing to fight against at all. 

the most criticized parts at the start and still is, is they left young children to fight for their own, and if you tell that yourself to the public, you do not have a reason to start fighting against it, because the public got it from your own words, you can not say it, and fight against the criticizing, if you want your public to believe you spoke the trust. and when got out they not only told they left them on their own, but even left the door open for bad things to happen. they choose their own fun over their kids.

there can not be a return to an innocent state after you tell what you did. 

and that is beside how truthful their words are or can be. because that is a very different aspect.

most people still have not read the files at all, and are still in bad parenting criticizing mode. but in reality that is only the mccann explanation. if you take the first statement to the police, you cannot unread or unknow that both are capable of telling hard core lies. 
there was no keeping up appearances for a public, no influencing the media in that part of the case. 

so both did not only choose to tell the world, they choose after a lot of consideration even, it was no spur of the moment decision at all, as we a bit later have been told, they tell us the thought about it and still choose to place their own fun time over the duty of care too their kids. 

they told it all by themselves, no mix up of words in the media, directly from their mouths to their public.

but wat is not common ground for parents of a missing child, that have no direct hand in something very different that happened to that child, is their fight about the timeline. and they declared a massive act of war in that department. 

and for me that is telling a lot. they got out with all these words about, no guidelines for dummies in how to behave as a parent of a missing child. but you do not need guidelines at all, because simply become and are that kind of parent when the child is missing. and if that is different, you cannot know. 

so if something very different happened they never can know how to show yourself, with also the emotions and feeling, because it would mean, you are not a parent of a missing child at all. you can never know it. 

and the fight of the timeline was already in place before the pj got there. it was no reaction to the pj, about what they said, did, or did not. 
and parents of a missing child do not know if their child will be found. and it is something that happens on a daily basis, most never grow into cases at all. they leave only some notes in the day register of a police station. and because most children are found soon, it is very rare it takes longer than 24 hours for a child under 12. and even rarer if it is a very young child under 6. 

so there is actually quite a lot experience by police officers from being near parents who became instantly parent of a missing child. and yeah, it starts often already quite chaotic and all possible emotions are there, but what all have in common is that child, their child. even getting barking mad shouting they would kill them when they got back home. but within a second they get into the bad things that can happen, the what ifs. 
and the next second you usually see care for that child back, it must be hungry or thirsty, too cold or too hot, and for the bad things, they are hardly ever very specific, they start to think in these possibilities, but would not dare to think it into details, because if you can really speak about it, it can happen, remarkable how many people see speaking out bad things is asking for bad luck. 
if there is open water, they would not dare to say what if it drowned, they simply stop could he/she be in the water. same with traffic, like busy roads, railways, industrial sites, you hear the start of a dual question and a possibility, but they always stop that line. 

a lot become even quite aggressive, they do not want to talk too you, you have eyes and that means you can look and that is what they want, they do not care about the information you need for looking for a specific child. they need help, and you look you could help, so their task is getting you to do exactly that. 
in most cases the parents are the first who actually already looked for the child, it is easy to get others to help. under 6 all adults are usually more easily getting into looking to, because we all know of many risks are there in that age group, the group 6 to 12, others go more in the child is far more independent, so in stead of just starting a search, they ask questions, could he be with a friend. maybe he is just playing in the next street and forgot the time. under six can be quite adventurous too on their own, as soon as they can move on their own, even crawling can be enough to get out and about. but in common we do keep more eyes on the under 6. 6 to 12 have a call of nature to separate of home much easier. 

and because children are so easily good be missing, people use their own experiences with other children and their own memories of childhood, when looking. but the first groups have also more panic mode, so they are not often in the right focus. 

so it is very common, that quite a large group is looking, but a child just walks through them back to home. 

most parents in the fresh state of becoming the parent of a missing child, will hate your guts, because you do not want them looking. first because you need to get too the information, but also, it does help no one to find their own child badly injured or worse dead. parents have no fear at all for their own dead child's body, dead or alive, it will be still their child, so besides they could do without the emotional aspect of such an experience, they ruin your possible crime scene. dead people never do look very nice, and you can understand, that is not a memory you want a caring parent have to keep in their memory. 

but parents of a missing child do no longer are civil, it is usually a unruly mix of mad and sad, al over and over, mad about the child, themselves, parents of a missing child do not go into talking bad parenting skills right at all. they know they are not been the good parent in it, missing a child is failing. you cannot change that with words of care for them. 

and even people who just lost the sight of their child, experience that same. usually described as being in a snap moment out of this world, you do not feel ground under your feet, you do not feel air or sky. and your brain will get a full reset mode. all kind of bits and pieces of visions that are entering a brain on the same time. and your mind is just going by instinct, but has not yet chosen if it would fight, flight, freeze or fawn. 

but it is hard to find a parent and even carers who not have experienced it. the choice their brain made after that first onset of chaos can be very different, and most can have multiple experiences that resulted in just another kind of reaction in behaviour. 

kate would not have had a problem, if that was also her experience, she simply could talk about that. 

missing is very different from a child that died. missing also resolves in hope, it has no definite answer, so hope is automatically there. a child that died is a definitive answer, a state that never can be changed to another. so there can no longer be hope, there can be just not want to know it, to not wanting to believe it is final. but your mind knows it and can not unknown it. 

only in quite unique cases, and usually there is a case of already existing mental health problems, people can fool themselves, and keep a kind of caring for a body that is dead. usually very sad cases too. still such cases already had a setting in social behaviour that could hide it for others. also people who do that, are not lying or hiding with intent. 

so if you look back to kate mccann, she never really showed hope in her telling, her words, i or we have to think she is still alive. and that is different, that is a decision, not an emotion you can show. 

and i think even deception guy, is falling for the innocent woman syndrome. even when he thinks kate must have given a sedative and has guilt about that, he still does it. 

if you look in what both had to loose, that is pretty equal. and i think they just blackmailed each other to keep both in the game. and that was mostly only important for the first week, because by then they already reached the point of no return. both would have lost everything. one could not have told that story without active agreement and intent of the other. 

and gerry already had started to build in little things, he just got out on the right time, but he had to remind kate it was time to check. he let it be up to kate to let matt do a check. and there are far more little bits. 
much later the dreams of kate and gerry who just blew the of the table. little scraps are so much more damaging. if kate even had wanted to step out of line, he would have hanged her to dry. i have no doubt about that. 

that they both can still keep up in it, and the behaviour in the first weeks, and the impression i got from kate i think an accident, with a result they had both no direct hand in, and that could easily had happened if they had been there in that moment, but would change nothing in the result of the accident, a child that died, would fit in both their personalities and behaviour after they hide that part. 
they both have no guilt to show, i think if there was an outsider in it, that would be different, because it would still have been their decision to give access and let it happen as a result. a unknown outsider, well they left no room for such a person to enter in their stories told. 

also the absent blaming others is not there, not on one of the tapas, jane and matt, david who organised the trip, mark warner for not telling safety, that only entered much later and in no serious tone. 
but blaming the unknown abductor was easy. but they forget to write the abductor in their back story. 

kate is pretty good in playing out not real emotions, but i think she is very bad in hiding the real ones.
and mostly that together is why i like to look again for something that just happened at that thursday evening. something happening earlier is for me still on the table, as only because time means you can organizing more, not always better, but easier to hide stuff in plain daylight. 

that kate never had accepted it when a finger even started to point to her , to imply she had a direct hand in the death of madeleine is for me telling too. not only how she reacts, but she always gets into fighting mode. 
and that is why i do not think kate was one who sedated madeleine and made a mistake. 

and again, males often miss a lot of woman behaviour, but if kate would have net up with other females during work, at least half of them would use the story against her. and not in a nice way. that she could go back during covid, is easy, no medical personal was not hiding in scrubs and masks, that not only are used for protection against a pathogen, but end also a lot of small social behaviour very well. 

so i cannot see much reason that only if kate made a mistake in sedation, she would no longer work in her field. she was only a gp, so not even that much chance to make mistakes in dosages.  most handywork will be for a nurse and a recipe will have to go through a pharmacy. also the class of medications is far lower than in a hospital setting. 

certainly after i did a lot of reading up about forensic research in decomposition and dog work. i do not see it needed to have the obligation of a body that was there for over 90 minutes. 

and hiding the death of your own child is of course not fitting under terms as normal or common behaviour, so why would they are normal in all other things. their story is not sound at all, and to make it work, they also have to back track a lot. so i think there is a chance it became a mix of things that did indeed happen, but are retrofitted just on another moment. and they are not good at that, so it gets weird.

Only a few days after the case of Madeleine became known, I saw a snippet of a journalist speaking to members of Gerry  McCann's family. I say his family, because of Scottish accents. I don't know what was said to them, but the woman (there were two people) said    "well, what were they supposed to do? Stay in every night?" - or words very much to that effect. I thought   the entire family to be horrible, and still do. I doubt that it's possible to trace that piece of tv now and I can't remember which channel it was shown on. The couple were standing outside a house, if I can remember rightly.