'Eyes for Lies' still sure the McCanns are innocent

by **Tony Bennett** 08.10.11 18:51

'Eyes for Lies' is a blog run by an American lady, a psychologist or analyst of some kind, who proclaims that she is an 'expert in deception'. She even runs training courses in how to spot lies.

She has posted many useful articles analysing those who have lied in public and one of her most penetrating observations IMO was on a TV interview given by Robert Murat days after he famously won his £600 grand in the High Court of Justice in early 2008. We've quoted from it extensively in one of our articles about Robert Murat.

As the result of a recent TV items about the McCanns on Australian TV, she made this pronouncement yesterday:

]http://blog.eyesforlies.com/2011/10/mccanns-speak-out-in-australia.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EyesForLies+%28Eyes+for+Lies+Blog%29

QUOTE

I continue to support the McCanns are innocent and uninvolved in the disappearance of their daughter.

To read my thoughts on this case, click on the labels below and scroll down to read the posts in reverse chronological order.

UNQUOTE

Labels: Gerry McCann, Kate McCann, Madeleine McCann, missing pesron, Robert Murat

++++++++++++++++

23 days after Madeleine was reported missing, 'Eyes for Lies' made this observation:

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Madeleine McCann's Parents
by Eyes at 11:23 AM

QUOTE

A reader made the following request:

"you [sic] may have heard of a case of a missing child from the UK called madeleine McCann [sic] the parents of this child have not come under suspicion for her dissappearence [sic] from the authority but many many members of the public are perplexed by their actions and statements.

here [sic] is the link to the only formal interview they have given since may 3rd when their child dissappeared [sic] i thought it may intrest [sic] you and i would love to hear your views"

Sky News Video Link

I think the McCanns are perplexing people right now because of their lack of emotions outwardly expressed in this video. I also believe many people are judging the McCanns on their poor judgment call to leave three children unattended, alone in a holiday apartment. Both of these together, perhaps, are generating suspicion.

I believe the McCanns made an awful mistake in leaving their three children unattended, even if they were sleeping, and the McCanns checked on the children every 30 minutes. But they did it. They didn't think through the ramifications of their actions. I think all parents have made poor judgment calls to varying degrees over their life as parents, it's just that few parents get stuck with such devastating results.

For the McCanns to live with a mistake of this proportion is monumental and life changing - if they accept the fact that Maddie may never come home again. It's devastating, but why aren't they acting devastated?

For some, this may raise a red flag. For me, it does not.

What if the McCanns haven't accepted the outcome that Madeleine will not come home? What if they are choosing instead to live in the belief that she will be found--that if they try hard enough, they will be able to bring her home? Believing that Maddie will come back to them would lessen the pain--in every respect. It would take away the focus that their mistake may have cost their precious daughter her life.

Would that account for their behavior? I suspect so. I am sure the pain of that last thought is so overwhelming, it could destroy someone's life. Denial is a powerful coping strategy for survival.

When I watch the McCanns speak, I see genuine emotions supporting the situation, their actions and words. I do not see anything that is out of character for someone who is choosing to focus on only one outcome: the safe return of Maddie. While their emotions are not worn on their sleeves, they are clearly there. There is genuine sadness, feelings of pain, loss and duress, yet there is a stoic optimism that they are clinging to, perhaps to protect themselves from the devastating reality.

When I watch the two parents, they are motivated people. They are doers and goers. They are optimists and believe in the good of people. They were trusting people overall, and they didn't walk around in the world with the belief it was a dangerous place. They weren't people who lived in fear. Instead, they looked at the odds and assumed they'd be just fine - that they would be fine, if they took the basic precautions. I am sure they assumed the likelihood of their children waking up and getting out of their cribs was remote. They just never thought someone might abduct their daughter - a thought they may regret for the rest of their lives.

As a bystander, when we are not directly involved and it is not our child, nor our circumstance or our pain, it is easy for us to look at all of the potentials. But when our heart is entwined in the matter, and the horrific outcome only moves to devastate your life, it's not so easy to look at the worst-case scenario. Many people instead go into denial.

I understand and trust the McCanns are honest, caring people who are paying a horrible consequence for failing to safeguard against every worst outcome of their actions.

To read all of my opinions on the McCanns, click on the labels below and posts will come up in reverse chronological order.

Labels: Gerry McCann, Kate McCann, Madeleine McCann, missing pesron, Robert Murat

UNQUOTE

by Guest 08.10.11 19:47

Somehow I don't think that anyone will get hurt in the rush to enrol for this person's training courses in how to spot lies!

'Eyes for Lies' still sure the McCanns are innocent 595373

'Eyes for Lies' still sure the McCanns are innocent 595373

by **PeterMac** 08.10.11 21:09

Is not being 'in denial' the same as a lie - told to yourself by yourself ?
"...perhaps to protect themselves from the devastating reality....
But when our heart is entwined in the matter, and the horrific outcome only moves to devastate your life, it's not so easy to look at the worst-case scenario. Many people instead go into denial."
She is implying very forcibly that the "Devastating reality" is that Madeleine is dead and that the McCanns cannot face up to that.

by frank zappa 08.10.11 21:24

Only in America would a business like this survive.

by Shibboleth 08.10.11 23:33

This person also claims that Robert Murat is "guilty". I think it is a lot of old rubbish. Like the Brian's Dreams person, he was very quickly exposed for a fraud.

by Guest 09.10.11 8:26

We have a poster on here whose signature is about real eyes and lies, but I cannot remember who she is now. I wonder if it is that same person?

by happychick 09.10.11 8:29

Stella, there is a blog where the header says "Real eyes realise real lies". Two different blogs I think.

by Guest 09.10.11 20:34

I read eyes' blog for a time. Even posted in the comments about Kate's different versions of her first entry in the room. Whoosing curtains etc. also as juulcy. I was at first impressed bij her trackrecord, but very disappointed that she did not analyse the things Kate and Gerry say the same way she analyses other suspects. It seems as if she treats them differently. Although she claims to just "know" when someone is lying, she actually analyses what they say, like Dr. Martin Roberts does.

by Joss 09.10.11 20:45

I have read the "Eyes For Lies" blogs, and the opinions of this so called "expert" in being able to read deception with people involved in a crime. I take it with a grain of salt, and is just another persons opinion. The thing with most of these cases is that no one really knows exactly what the truth is, and some people can be very convincing. And sometimes even so called experts can be wrong, and nothing is 100% accurate all of the time.

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 09.10.11 21:08

Stella wrote:We have a poster on here whose signature is about real eyes and lies, but I cannot remember who she is now. I wonder if it is that same person?

Are you trying to say that's me? That's ludicrous! 'Eyes for Lies' still sure the McCanns are innocent 50899

by Guest 10.10.11 8:27

Daisy wrote:
Stella wrote:We have a poster on here whose signature is about real eyes and lies, but I cannot remember who she is now. I wonder if it is that same person?

Are you trying to say that's me? That's ludicrous!

Arh !! Daisy, yes, I remember now. We have so many new posters, I could not remember who had that signature, which you have to admit does use the same words. big grin

I take it, It's not you then? sarcastic

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 10.10.11 12:13

Stella wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Stella wrote:We have a poster on here whose signature is about real eyes and lies, but I cannot remember who she is now. I wonder if it is that same person?

Are you trying to say that's me? That's ludicrous!
Arh !! Daisy, yes, I remember now. We have so many new posters, I could not remember who had that signature, which you have to admit does use the same words. I take it, It's not you then?