Forensic linguistics -

Tigger wrote:
Good point Alyoyo, Gerry has also said once that is was important that Kate continued to believe Madeleine was abducted. continued?
I think she knew full well what did happen, but it was the only way she could keep going? With this myth backed up by the media and family and friends, it would surely have been easier for her.
Is that why she could sleep well - fooling herself that the worst (death) hadn't happened? That's why she so happily offered the suggestion that she'd be in someone's house or with a paedophile? Because both those options were better than the truth? unquote.


quote:
aiyoyo Today at 9:30 am

Exactly!
"continued to believe" "have got her back" all suggest they knew exactly what happened and knew she isn't coming back.

The "have got her back" is something he'd processed in a compartment in his brain before he came up with that contrived answer - it was neither spontaneous nor natural.

Also the bits "we will think about it" and "about what happened got to me as well.
What is there to think about in that scenario?
In that scenario, he should be grateful they got her back, alive, and making sure the perpetrator rot in jail, and not be thinking about whether or not to forgive the abductor on condition of various factors or on what transpired?
No matter what transpired the child is damaged. If their shoes I will never forgive the perpetrator, unless I am on death bed and knowing my child turns out OK adult despite the traumatic experience.

No parent of missing child will give that kind of answer in a detached void of emotions and calculative manner. The answers to the "mystery" (or should I say "baffling" ) Madeleine's disappearance are all in their forensics language. It's better than their inconsistent witness statements IMO.

BTW, it a "mystery" why the mccanns continue to have ID watch this forum now that the Yard are scrutinising them, their days of controlling people's freedom of speech is probably (likely) numbered. And when the tide turns they're going to have to pay back what they exact from others. unquote.

Quite so, alyoyo, a totally unrealistic answer. In the first place, the abductor/paedophile/whatever may have perpetrated similar crimes before and one should make sure that he could never do so again. If abducting Maddie was his first crime, the same still applies, it must never happen again.
It's almost of if they are running a parallel scenario in their heads, where it appears they do not know the person who took her 'away'.
As Dr. Roberts points out: 'It's has been taken away from me', makes me part of the transaction. To have something taken away from me, I have to be there to have this happen. Whereas 'it's been taken away' on its' own doesn't imply involvement of the owner.
So Kate may not know the person who did this, but Gerry might or a friend of a friend of Gerry might. Which makes their statement neither the truth nor a lie.

Miraflores wrote: (snaffled from topic The Pope speaks IVF)
Extracted from the link above [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Vatican Radio: "Susie Hodges from Vatican Radio. What lessons do you give
to other parents that have to go through this appalling experience?


Gerry McCann:
"I... We hope and pray that no-one ever does go through it
again. Errm... I
think... I hope that, if it does happen, that there will be some
template, errr... from what we
have done, as our
extended family, that will help raise the awareness for any other
missing children and it's possible tosuch cases. Having
spoken, errm... to peop... you know, errr... people around us, then stayed strong and taking control even
of small things because you feel totally out of control in those first hours and taking control
of this... of this smallest decisions helps you cope and think rationally and influence things around you and that, I think,
is the most important thing."

Totally out of control in those first hours - no wonder he reported a 'disaster' to the family. I would not describe losing a child to an abductor a 'disaster' - that's how I would describe something risky that I'd planned, going 'disastrously' wrong. A disaster implies several things going wrong at once, interacting with each other. The Titanic was a disaster - the iceberg, the speed, the lack of lifeboats, design faults all coming together.
Losing Maddie wasn't the disaster he was talking about, a number of things had already gone wrong, he had lost control - that was the disaster.
The rest speaks for itself, advice is: taking control of even the smallest decisions will enable you to influence things around you - we're still not talking about Maddie here, we're only talking about how Gerry feels - that is the most important thing.

Which shocked parent under that sort of circumstances has the mind set to take control of every small little things when their mind can no longer function properly from the shock of it all; and a troubled mind is not the best to think rationally, let alone control anything.

Normal people are usually at a lost at what to do and that is why family and friends' help,support, and advice are invaluable.

It's so WEIRD that Gerry says people should use them as template, as if talking about a prototype for designs, and not a lost child.
It's another one of those WTF moments.

[quote="aiyoyo"]Which shocked parent under that sort of circumstances has the mind set to take control of every small little things when their mind can no longer function properly from the shock of it all; and a troubled mind is not the best to think rationally, let alone control anything.

Normal people are usually at a lost at what to do and that is why family and friends' help,support, and advice are invaluable.

It's so WEIRD that Gerry says people should use them as template, as if talking about a prototype for designs, and not a lost child.
It's another one of those WTF moments.[/quote)



How could I miss that?
If your child is abducted by a paedophile - here's what you do - the McCann solution in one easy package with interactive CD rom.
A template! Grrrrr.

tigger wrote:Miraflores wrote: (snaffled from topic The Pope speaks IVF)
Extracted from the link above [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Vatican Radio: "Susie Hodges from Vatican Radio. What lessons do you give
to other parents that have to go through this appalling experience?


Gerry McCann:
"I... We hope and pray that no-one ever does go through it
again. Errm... I
think... I hope that, if it does happen, that there will be some
template, errr... from what we
have done, as our
extended family, that will help raise the awareness for any other
missing children and it's possible tosuch cases. Having
spoken, errm... to peop... you know, errr... people around us, then stayed strong and taking control even
of small things because you feel totally out of control in those first hours and taking control
of this... of this smallest decisions helps you cope and think rationally and influence things around you and that, I think,
is the most important thing."

Totally out of control in those first hours - no wonder he reported a 'disaster' to the family. I would not describe losing a child to an abductor a 'disaster' - that's how I would describe something risky that I'd planned, going 'disastrously' wrong. A disaster implies several things going wrong at once, interacting with each other. The Titanic was a disaster - the iceberg, the speed, the lack of lifeboats, design faults all coming together.
Losing Maddie wasn't the disaster he was talking about, a number of things had already gone wrong, he had lost control - that was the disaster.
The rest speaks for itself, advice is: taking control of even the smallest decisions will enable you to influence things around you - we're still not talking about Maddie here, we're only talking about how Gerry feels - that is the most important thing.

thank you for moving this here tigger....i didn't know how to.. it was indeed a lot of waffle when the answer to a q about what he had learned from the experience should have been a simple dont leave young toddlers alone for hours on end...

but the waffle does as i highlighted have a central issue......control, control, control. as you say, all about Gerrys agenda if you look closely and dont take the control statement at face value.

This is copied and snipped from:

Re: Kate's new book- to debut in Spring!
    russiandoll Yesterday at 11:31 am

well I wonder if this little snippet will be edited out of the paperback version. I doubt it......and I find it most interesting.
snipped
This should be moved to forensic linguistics, will try to copy there, as the statements of the tapas bunch and especially the couple do show how the truth will do its best to leak out despite attempts to control what comes out of your mouth.
snipped
Kate’s account (page 75):

"Then a lady appeared on a balcony – I’m fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived – and, in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf. I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point."

Now, this is bizarre, very bizarre. You are making a point about what you perceive to be an inadequate response to something significant. This relates to a verb...to steal. Someone has been stolen, and not just any old someone, a beloved child.
The analogy I and most logical people would expect here would include the same verb. And as the book is being written well after the event, there is time to reflect and edit and change the wording of this paragraph. Even if this had been taken from her diary which she started to write shortly after May 3, for her book, would a different more appropriate analogy not have sprung immediately to mind.....and if not straight away, after a read -through of the draft.

Why not keep the same verb and write for example......" almost as if she'd just been told my watch/passport/money had been stolen, and not my precious daughter ".
Why a can of beans? why falling? why falling off anything? The analogy I 'm making from her bringing in the verb to fall... is that she is speaking about a trivial falling incident as opposed to a significant one. The change of verb in this particular paragraph centred on THE EVENT, and reactions to it in the immediate aftermath, is of extreme significance imho.
She has clearly, when writing this paragraph, the image of falling in her mind and makes a very strange but telling analogy imo.......
Maybe Madeleine McCann fell sometime during that holiday, fell off something she had climbed or tried to climb onto, maybe a kitchen worktop using a chair, maybe the balcony. And if this did not lead directly to her death then she sustained a catastrophic head injury which over hours or days killed her.

Unquote

Reading this again: trying to think how I would react if say someone had stolen something of mine.
A neighbor saying condescendingly (I like the class gambit here - plummy accent - so not honest-to-goodness Liverpudlian or Glaswegian accents)
'what's going on?'
'They've stolen my handbag!
'Oh, I see'
'It's not nothing, not like a a teapot has fallen to the floor..."

No, it doesn't come naturally - I wanted to say they've stolen my best handbag, with everything in it. Had to search and search for a falling teapot. You just want to carry on with the same verb.

I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf. I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point."

Strange analogy. Even a fishmonger can speak better; and this woman (Kate) is supposed to be a Dr. Can anyone believe that?

Most normal people would have said something like this: My daughter is missing, gone, disappeared or I have lost my daughter.
"stolen" is a weird word to associate with a lost animate object. That is usually used with inanimate object.
Her analogy is so out of this universe - you would imagine normal people to say : "almost as if she'd been told that I had lost a cat or a dog
or something like that.

One minute Kate was referring to an animate object (her daughter) then using an inanimate object (a tin of beans) as analogy is very weird.
She cant even string a proper sentence without heaving and sighing so I wonder whether she uses a "ghost" writer.

Aiyoyo has got there before me. The word "stolen" in respect of a human being makes me cringe. I wouldn't use it for a cat or a dog either, only for a material object like a car or jewellery.

Children are not possessions!

I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf. I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point."

Maybe Kate was thinking of beans because she was worried about cancelling her pending online grocery delivery ..... According to Janet Kennedy, Kate called her on 4 May to sort out a delivery arranged for the 5th... so they weren't as completely non functioning as they like to make out....

Quote from the Churches media Conference 11 June 2008 where Janet Kennedy and Clarence Mitchell are being interviewed :

I mean I know that the morning after it happened I -- Kate, you know, had phoned me because -- this sounds terribly trivial -- but they were due home the next day and she’d booked an online shop. I won’t give the name of the -- of the company -- of the supermarket -- and, you know, she sort of wanted something to be done about it. So I just went up to the house, you know, and erm -- to sort that out. And, you know, I just wasn’t prepared for the media interest at the house itself.


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

Jean wrote:Aiyoyo has got there before me. The word "stolen" in respect of a human being makes me cringe. I wouldn't use it for a cat or a dog either, only for a material object like a car or jewellery.
Children are not possessions!

But as a member of the family said "Nothing of value was taken."

PeterMac wrote:

Jean wrote:Aiyoyo has got there before me. The word "stolen" in respect of a human being makes me cringe. I wouldn't use it for a cat or a dog either, only for a material object like a car or jewellery.
Children are not possessions!

But as a member of the family said "Nothing of value was taken."

No one knows how much they drank during the day.
Kate filled up on N-Z white at the appartment. She said.
Tapasniks filled up on God-knows-what-and-how-many at the Tapas (since april 28th) It was said.

Maybe the C2O5OH clouded their capacity to phrase correctly?

Is there a thread on their supposed intake since arrival?
Am I alone in suspecting that the enormous amounts of booze proferred are pure fiction, a camouflage for goings-on?

Advocatus, Please don't post irrelevant information. There is a topic on the drinks if you care to search. I will not post it up, you'll have to find it for yourself.

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



In this inteview with Dermot Murnaghan, I have always felt that Kate feels she is being unfairly lined up and singled out for criticiscm(1.02)

I can't believe that she and Fiona "shouted something short and to the point" to Mrs Fenn, in their "outrage".

So Kate's beloved child had just been abducted by a paedophile (or so she wanted the world to think). So the reaction of her and her pal is to bawl at a possibly confused old lady who was asking what the matter is? Not to ask if the old lady heard or knew anything???

Portia wrote:
Maybe the C2O5OH clouded their capacity to phrase correctly?
Am I alone in suspecting that the enormous amounts of booze proferred are pure fiction, a camouflage for goings-on?

Late at night and after a wine or two - -
C2H5 OH

It's the double bonds, you see. C2O5OH not possible. Just like the abduction.

juliet wrote:I can't believe that she and Fiona "shouted something short and to the point" to Mrs Fenn, in their "outrage".

So Kate's beloved child had just been abducted by a paedophile (or so she wanted the world to think). So the reaction of her and her pal is to bawl at a possibly confused old lady who was asking what the matter is? Not to ask if the old lady heard or knew anything???

I wonder why they didn't immediately say to Mrs Fenn, have you seen or heard anything? Oh well, Mrs Fenn is no longer here to give her version of events so it's safe for KM to say anything she likes. Why she would feel the need to bawl at the woman shows a character trait imo. Mrs Fenn was elderly and to receive the news that a child had been 'stolen' !!! would have imo certainly been confusing. Mrs Fenn obviously didn't respond in the way Kate seems to demand as appropriate/her right but then again neither do the people on this forum. As for a tin of beans falling off a shelf that's the weirdest comparison.

I don't think this happened at all, according to Mrs. Fenn, she asked Gerry what was going on. He then told her 'a child' had gone missing. In her statement she said she was surprised that he didn't tell her at that point that it was his daughter.
She offered to phone the police but was told it had already been done.

I don't think Gerry asked her if she'd seen anything either. Although at a later date he visited her - probably to find out if she did see anything - I doubt whether he asked her if she'd seen the abductor. He may have been worried about other things 'out of his control' that evening, as he so clearly stated in the Vatican interview. (a few pages back)

The whole of Kate's narrative re Mrs. Fenn is made up to make her look like an uncaring, upper class bitch.

tigger wrote:I don't think this happened at all, according to Mrs. Fenn, she asked Gerry what was going on. He then told her 'a child' had gone missing. In her statement she said she was surprised that he didn't tell her at that point that it was his daughter.
She offered to phone the police but was told it had already been done.

I don't think Gerry asked her if she'd seen anything either. Although at a later date he visited her - probably to find out if she did see anything - I doubt whether he asked her if she'd seen the abductor. He may have been worried about other things 'out of his control' that evening, as he so clearly stated in the Vatican interview. (a few pages back)

The whole of Kate's narrative re Mrs. Fenn is made up to make her look like an uncaring, upper class bitch.

Since Mrs Fenn is directly above them you would think they would rush up to speak to her to ask whether she has heard or seen anything wouldnt you? surely by then they would have known that their upstair neighbour is a pensioner and likely to be in at that time of the night.

We trust that Mrs Fenn is, indeed, directly above us all, aiyoyo.

kikoraton wrote:We trust that Mrs Fenn is, indeed, directly above us all, aiyoyo.

:flower:

apologies if this is already posted, no time to check :



The 10 Tell-Tale Signs of Deception




The Words Reveal
Paul M. Clikeman, Ph.D., CFE
January/February 2012





[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Suspects
and witnesses often reveal more than they intend through their choices
of words. Here are ways to detect possible deception in written and oral
statements.

The manager of a fast food restaurant calls
the police late at night to report that an armed robber had entered the
restaurant while the manager was alone in the office finishing some
paperwork. The manager said the gunman had stolen the entire day's cash
receipts — a little more than $4,000. The manager had reported a similar
robbery at the restaurant about six months earlier. No other witnesses
were present at either alleged robbery. The restaurant owner learns from
police investigators that armed robbery is extremely unusual in the
surrounding neighborhood. Also, the owner knows that the manager's wages
have been garnished for the last year for nonpayment of child support.
The owner hires you, a CFE, to investigate whether the manager is filing
false police reports to cover his thefts. You begin your investigation
by asking the manager to write a description of the evening's events.

DETECTING ANOMALIES

Linguistic
text analysis involves studying the language, grammar and syntax a
subject uses to describe an event to detect any anomalies. Experienced
investigators are accustomed to studying interview subjects' nonverbal
behavior, such as eye contact and hand movement. Text analysis, on the
other hand, considers only the subject's verbal behavior. Because text
analysis evaluates only the subject's words, investigators can apply it
to written as well as oral statements. In fact, many investigators
prefer to analyze suspects' written statements for signs of deception
before conducting face-to-face interviews.

Text analysis is based
on research originating in the 1970s. Psychologists and linguists
studied the language and word choices of subjects in controlled
experiments and found predictable differences between truthful and
deceptive statements. Susan Adams, an instructor who taught text
analysis (which she called statement analysis) at the FBI Academy for
many years, described it as a two-part process ("[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]"
FBI Law Enforcement Journal, October 1996). First, investigators
determine what is typical of a truthful statement. Secondly, they look
for deviations from the norm.

The following section describes deviations that suggest a subject may be withholding, altering or fabricating information.

TEN SIGNS OF DECEPTION

1. Lack of self-reference
Truthful
people make frequent use of the pronoun "I" to describe their actions:
"I arrived home at 6:30. The phone was ringing as I unlocked the front
door, so I walked straight to the kitchen to answer it. I talked to my
mother for 10 minutes before noticing that my TV and computer were
missing from the living room." This brief statement contains the pronoun
"I" four times in three sentences.

Deceptive people often use
language that minimizes references to themselves. One way to reduce
self-references is to describe events in the passive voice.

• "The safe was left unlocked" rather than "I left the safe unlocked."
  
• "The shipment was authorized" rather than "I authorized the shipment."
  

Another way to reduce self-references is to substitute the pronoun "you" for "I."


Question: "Can you tell me about reconciling the bank statement?"

Answer:
"You know, you try to identify all the outstanding checks and deposits
in transit, but sometimes when you're really busy you just post the
differences to the suspense account."

In oral statements and
informal written statements, deceptive witnesses sometimes simply omit
self-referencing pronouns. Consider this statement by a husband who
claims his wife was killed accidently: "I picked up the gun to clean it.
Moved it to the left hand to get the cleaning rod. Something bumped the
trigger. The gun went off, hitting my wife." The husband acknowledges
in the first sentence that he picked up the gun. But the second sentence
is grammatically incomplete; "I" has been omitted from the beginning of
the sentence. In the third sentence, "something" rather than "I" bumped
the trigger. The statement also contains few personal possessive
pronouns. The witness refers to "the" gun and "the" left hand where we
might expect "my" to be used.

2. Verb tense.
Truthful
people usually describe historical events in the past tense. Deceptive
people sometimes refer to past events as if the events were occurring in
the present. Describing past events using the present tense suggests
that people are rehearsing the events in their mind. Investigators
should pay particular attention to points in a narrative at which the
speaker shifts to inappropriate present tense usage. Consider the
following statement made by an employee claiming that a pouch containing
$6,000 in cash was stolen before she could deposit it at the bank (I
have emphasized certain words.):

"After closing the store, I put
the cash pouch in my car and drove to the Olympia Bank building on Elm
Street. It was raining hard so I had to drive slowly. I entered the
parking lot and drove around back to the night depository slot. When I
stopped the car and rolled down my window, a guy jumps out of the bushes and yells at me. I can see he has a gun. He grabs the cash pouch and runs
away. The last I saw him he was headed south on Elm Street. After he
was gone, I called the police on my cell phone and reported the theft."

The
first three sentences describe the employee's drive to the bank in the
past tense. But the next three sentences describe the alleged theft in
the present tense. An alert investigator might suspect that the employee
stole the day's cash receipts, then drove to the bank and called the
police from the bank parking lot to report a phony theft. (See another
example in "Antics with Semantics" at bottom.)

3. Answering questions with questions
Even
liars prefer not to lie. Outright lies carry the risk of detection.
Before answering a question with a lie, a deceptive person will usually
try to avoid answering the question at all. One common method of dodging
questions is to respond with a question of one's own. Investigators
should be alert to responses such as:

• "Why would I steal from my own brother?"
  
• "Do I seem like the kind of person who would do something like that?"
  
• "Don't you think somebody would have to be pretty stupid to remove cash from their own register drawer?"
  

4. Equivocation
The
subject avoids an interviewer's questions by filling his or her
statements with expressions of uncertainty, weak modifiers and vague
expressions. Investigators should watch for words such as: think, guess,
sort of, maybe, might, perhaps, approximately, about, could. Vague
statements and expressions of uncertainty allow a deceptive person
leeway to modify his or her assertions at a later date without directly
contradicting the original statement.

Noncommittal verbs are:
think, believe, guess, suppose, figure, assume. Equivocating adjectives
and adverbs are: sort of, almost, mainly, perhaps, maybe, about. Vague
qualifiers are: you might say, more or less.

5. Oaths
Although
deceptive subjects attempt to give interviewers as little useful
information as possible, they try very hard to convince interviewers
that what they say is true. Deceptive subjects often use mild oaths to
try to make their statements sound more convincing. Deceptive people are
more likely than truthful people to sprinkle their statements with
expressions such as: "I swear," "on my honor," "as God is my witness,"
"cross my heart." Truthful witnesses are more confident that the facts
will prove the veracity of their statements and feel less need to back
their statements with oaths.


6. Euphemisms
Many
languages offer alternative terms for almost any action or situation.
Statements made by guilty parties often include mild or vague words
rather than their harsher, more explicit synonyms. Euphemisms portray
the subject's behavior in a more favorable light and minimize any harm
the subject's actions might have caused. Investigators should look for
euphemistic terms such as: "missing" instead of "stolen," "borrowed"
instead of "took," "bumped" instead of "hit," and "warned" instead of
"threatened."

7. Alluding to actions
People
sometimes allude to actions without saying they actually performed them.
Consider the following statement from an employee who was questioned
about the loss of some valuable data: "I try to back up my computer and
put away my papers every night before going home. Last Tuesday, I
decided to copy my files onto the network drive and started putting my
papers in my desk drawer. I also needed to lock the customer list in the
office safe." Did the employee back up her computer? Did she copy her
files onto the network drive? Did she put her papers in the desk drawer?
Did she lock the customer list in the office safe? The employee alluded
to all these actions without saying definitively that she completed any
of them. An attentive investigator should not assume that subjects
perform every action they allude to.

8. Lack of Detail
Truthful
statements usually contain specific details, some of which may not even
be relevant to the question asked. This happens because truthful
subjects are retrieving events from long-term memory, and our memories
store dozens of facts about each experience — the new shoes we were
wearing, the song that was playing in the background, the woman at the
next table who reminded us of our third-grade teacher, the conversation
that was interrupted when the fire alarm rang. At least some of these
details will show up in a truthful subject's statement.

Those
who fabricate a story, however, tend to keep their statements simple and
brief. Few liars have sufficient imagination to make up detailed
descriptions of fictitious events. Plus, a deceptive person wants to
minimize the risk that an investigator will discover evidence
contradicting any aspect of his or her statement; the fewer facts that
might be proved false, the better. Wendell Rudacille, the author of "[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]"
(Kendall/Hunt, 1994), refers to seemingly inconsequential details as
"tangential verbal data" and considers their presence to be prime
indicators that subjects are telling the truth.

9. Narrative balance
A
narrative consists of three parts: prologue, critical event and
aftermath. The prologue contains background information and describes
events that took place before the critical event. The critical event is
the most important occurrence in the narrative. The aftermath describes
what happened after the critical event. In a complete and truthful
narrative, the balance will be approximately 20 percent to 25 percent
prologue, 40 percent to 60 percent critical event and 25 percent to 35
percent aftermath. If one part of the narrative is significantly shorter
than expected, important information may have been omitted. If one part
of the narrative is significantly longer than expected, it may be
padded with false information. The following statement, filed with an
insurance claim, is suspiciously out of balance:

"I was driving
east on Elm Street at about 4:00 on Tuesday. I was on my way home from
the A&P supermarket. The traffic light at the intersection of Elm
and Patterson was red, so I came to a complete stop. After the light
turned green, I moved slowly into the intersection. All of a sudden, a
car ran into me. The other driver didn't stop, so I drove home and
called my insurance agent."

The subject's statement contains four
sentences of prologue, only one sentence describing the critical event,
and only one sentence of aftermath. The prologue contains a credible
amount of detail: the day and time of the accident, the driver's
destination, and the location of the accident. But the description of
the critical event (i.e., the alleged accident) is suspiciously brief.
The claimant did not describe the other vehicle, which direction it came
from, how fast it was going, whether the driver braked to try to avoid
the accident or how the two vehicles made contact.

The aftermath
is also shorter than one would expect from a complete and truthful
account of a two-car accident. The claimant does not say which direction
the other vehicle went after leaving the scene of the accident. He does
not mention getting out of his vehicle to inspect the damage nor does
he say whether he spoke to any people in the area who may have witnessed
the accident. A claims adjuster receiving such a statement would be
wise to investigate whether the policyholder concocted a phony
hit-and-run story to collect for damages caused by the driver's
negligence.

10. Mean Length of Utterance
The
average number of words per sentence is called the "mean length of
utterance" (MLU). The MLU equals the total number of words in a
statement divided by the number of sentences:


Total number of words / Total number of sentences = MLU

Most people tend to speak in sentences of between 10 and 15 words (ACFE Self-Study CPE Course, "[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],"
2009). When people feel anxious about an issue, they tend to speak in
sentences that are either significantly longer or significantly shorter
than the norm. Investigators should pay particular attention to
sentences whose length differs significantly from the subject's MLU.

THE WORDS REVEAL


Complete and accurate descriptions of
actual events are usually stated in the past tense and tend to have a
predictable balance of prologue, critical event and aftermath. Truthful
statements generally contain numerous self-referencing pronouns and
include at least a few seemingly inconsequential details. Truthful
statements rarely contain oaths, equivocation or euphemisms.
Investigators should apply extra scrutiny to written or oral statements
that deviate from these norms. Suspects and witnesses often reveal more
than they intend through their choices of words.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], Ph.D., CFE, is an associate professor in the Robins School of Business at the University of Richmond.

Sidebar:

Antics with Semantics


It may happen that you inherit a case
that someone else opened. Besides financial documents, all you have are
the written statements from witnesses and suspects. Can you tell enough
from words alone to detect evasion, lack of cooperation and the intent
to deceive? Yes, you can.

Semantics is a discipline concerned
with the meaning of words and the ways that words combine to form
meanings in sentences. The noun "rock," for example, can indicate a
stone or a type of music. As a verb, "to rock" indicates the action of
causing something to rock (rock the cradle) or to rock oneself in a
chair (rocking on the front porch) or a form of party-time behavior ("we
were rocking last night").

Anytime you interpret someone's words
— during a conversation, or as part of your professional duties — you
are practicing semantics. Here is one example of semantic analysis:

Use of Present Tense when Describing a Past Occurrence

Sometimes
deceptive individuals display a reluctance to refer to past events as
past, particularly if the past event is the subject of investigation.
They refer to past events as if they were occurring in the present. You
should pay particular attention to those points in the narrative at
which the speaker shifts to this inappropriate present tense usage, as
in the following example.

How many times in this written
statement does this person switch to the present tense? What seems
significant about the points at which the switch occurs?

"On
December 15, 2009, in the late afternoon hours, Don L. Harrington, wife
Wanda, and friends Amy Barr, Judy Partin and Myself, Bob Boone, went to
Taylor's to pick up some layaway items. We used two cars because there
was some bulky merchandise such as bicycles and a battery-operated car.
Don had just gotten his paycheck so instead of making a trip to the bank
he would pay the balance of the layaway with his check. Wanda usually
handles the finances, so she had Don's check in her purse. So Wanda
hands Don his check, which in turn he gives it to the layaway clerk. The
clerk look at the check and said that she couldn't accept it but it was
obvious that clerk was inexperienced, because in fact it was the other
clerk working in layaway that told the clerk that she would have to
check with the manager first. So the clerk takes the check over to the
manager, and we all see the manager shake her head ‘no.' By this time
Don sees that he can't use his check, which was a surprise to us because
it was a payroll check instead of a personal check. But instead of
causing chaos, Don decided to pay for it in cash, which Wanda had in her
purse. So Don asked her for the money, gave it to the clerk, the clerk
gave him the receipt, and we went to the back to pick up the
merchandise. In all the confusion, Don thought that Wanda had the check,
and Wanda thought that Don had it, and by this time we had gotten to
Don's house. So Don called ABC Company and told the payroll dept. that
his check was lost."

Bob Boone uses the present tense in three sentences:

"So Wanda hands Don his check which in turn he gives it to the layaway clerk."

"So the clerk takes the check over to the manager, and we all see the manager shake her head ‘no.' "

"By
this time Don sees that he can't use his check, which was a surprise to
us because it was a payroll check instead of a personal check."

It
is remarkable that the switch to the present tense occurs at key
moments in the exchange: as the check is handed over, as the manager
refuses to accept the check and as Don becomes aware he will not be able
to use the payroll check. This indicates the person is sensitive about
those moments.

Often, people use the present tense for past
events when they are rehearsing the events in their mind. It is a device
for keeping things straight. Maybe the person is just being careful, or
maybe he is being deceptive.

As an investigator, you should note
the switches to the present tense, and the point of the narrative at
which these occur. From there, you will decide how to explore the issues
further.

From the topic: Re: Another reading of the foreword of the book - very strange !
quote: Ross at 12:09 pm 17.3.2012

"...there remains no evidence whatsoever to suggest that she has come to serious harm".

I saw this line in a comment here the other day, and it really does leap out. Many people looking at this case want to keep it as a simple 'whodunnit' - a crime, a perpetrator and clues to their identity. But at every turn this simplistic model does not work, there are layers upon layers, deceptions upon deceptions, and despite the best, often dogged and impeccably logical efforts of a number of people, none of us is really any closer to unravelling this whole farrago, and anyone who says definitively 'this is what happened' is doing so as a matter of belief rather than as a result of incontrovertible proof.

As Peter says, this is not a spontaneous off the cuff comment made as a lapse, but something that has been right through the vetting process. The precise words used are the precise words of choice, they have been put there for a purpose. From the simplistic view, this makes no sense at all as it suggests guilt both subliminally and as fact. The use of "remains" on the one hand subliminally suggests a corpse, and on the other suggests the removal of evidence. That phrase implicates the McCanns in at least a cover-up, yet it appears as part of their official narrative. Had the line read "…we've seen no evidence…" neither of those implications would have been injected into the discourse, yet the implicative phrase was the one used.

It is all very curious.
unquote

Too good to miss!

Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!
rainbow-fairy Today at 8:22 pm 27/3/2012

PeterMac wrote:
p. 276 "I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back." unquote

I think this could do with going into the Forensic Linguistics thread.
I know it is supposed to be about the 'cruel abductor' who 'stole Maddie' BUT it doesn't read that way...
Had she written, for example:
"I wanted to kill the bastard who abducted my daughter, leaving us devastated" or the like, fine.
But if you read the passage again, doesn't it sound as though she's talking about somebody she knows?
How can you 'want to kill' 'to inflict maximum possible damage' on somebody who you don't know? And note the emphasis on 'him' - I thought we were told it could've been a 'she'?
To my mind, that passage needs more analysis. IMO, she was very clearly seeing in her mind's eye the person she was referring to - not a nameless, faceless 'abductor' - the anger seems very 'personal' too...
Also as aiyoyo pointed out - why 'the man I loved'? Why not 'the man I love'? If she meant Gerry, then it means she doesn't love him anymore (despite what she says). If she ISN'T referring to Gerry, that opens up ANOTHER can of worms...


Candyfloss wrote:

What does she mean these additional problems. ?? unquote

Can't remember if this is already on this thread, and don't want to go back the full 18 pages

From the interview on the mccannfiles.com.......................

Kate's interview with Women's Hour - 08 August 2007

Kate: 'Well, obviously I kind of looked and double looked and, errm, you know, obviously, there was twenty seconds of, you know, she must be there (laughs). Errm, but there was no doubt in my mind within (laughs) probably thirty seconds, errm, that Madeleine had been taken from that room. I can't go into the reasons why I thought that but it was... no doubt whatsoever. And Madeleine wouldn't have walked out herself. I know that.'

Kate gives an extraordinarily convoluted and inarticulate answer to a very simple question.

Jenny: 'And how will you deal with the guilt that will probably stay with you forever of having left Madeleine alone?'

Kate: 'Well, I have actually come to terms a little bit with... with that, Jenny, I mean, you know... I know the, errm, I know the situation that we were in that night and uh, I've said all along, I didn't feel I was taking a risk. Errm, yeah, I... I do feel desperately sorry I wasn't with Madeleine at that minute when she was taken. Errm, I'd also like to mention I've had so much support from so many people. I've had so many letters and comments sent me.. sent to me from other families, and particularly other mums saying, you know, we have done what you have done a hundred times over, do not blame yourself.'



There are three peculiar aspects to Kate's answer:

What does Kate mean by the phrase 'I know the situation we were in that night'?

Why does Kate say she is desperately sorry she wasn't with Madeleine 'at that minute when she was taken'? She specifically emphasises 'at that minute' when she speaks.

Why does she seek to justify her decision to leave her three small children alone, every night of the holiday, by suggesting that other families had done this a 'hundred times over'? This is surely a ludicrous exaggeration. How many families have 'hundreds' of holidays with their children?

You can listen to the full interview by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Why does Kate say she is desperately sorry she wasn't with Madeleine 'at that minute when she was taken'? She specifically emphasises 'at that minute' when she speaks



Strange thing to say, if KM was with Madeleine at that minute, she couldn't have been taken.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Except that of course "taken from us" is one of many euphemisms for death.
Is Kate actually telling us that she was present when Madeleine died ?
They both talked about not being present 'when IT happened'.

tigger wrote: Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!
rainbow-fairy Today at 8:22 pm 27/3/2012

PeterMac wrote:
p. 276 "I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back." unquote

I think this could do with going into the Forensic Linguistics thread.
I know it is supposed to be about the 'cruel abductor' who 'stole Maddie' BUT it doesn't read that way...
Had she written, for example:
"I wanted to kill the bastard who abducted my daughter, leaving us devastated" or the like, fine.
But if you read the passage again, doesn't it sound as though she's talking about somebody she knows?
How can you 'want to kill' 'to inflict maximum possible damage' on somebody who you don't know? And note the emphasis on 'him' - I thought we were told it could've been a 'she'?
To my mind, that passage needs more analysis. IMO, she was very clearly seeing in her mind's eye the person she was referring to - not a nameless, faceless 'abductor' - the anger seems very 'personal' too...
Also as aiyoyo pointed out - why 'the man I loved'? Why not 'the man I love'? If she meant Gerry, then it means she doesn't love him anymore (despite what she says). If she ISN'T referring to Gerry, that opens up ANOTHER can of worms...


Candyfloss wrote:

What does she mean these additional problems. ?? unquote

I acually had to check the book if that was what she had written.. And it was, she do say the man i LOVED...English is not my first language, but even I learend the meaning and the difference between love and loved...

PeterMac wrote:Except that of course "taken from us" is one of many euphemisms for death.
Is Kate actually telling us that she was present when Madeleine died ?
They both talked about not being present 'when IT happened'.

PeterMac, this is one of the things that hit me when watching the NK interview.

'Taken' is the key word. They do not say 'When Maddie was abducted' nor 'When Maddie was snatched' it is always 'When Maddie was taken'

It may sound trivial, but linguistically I believe it is vitally important.

We know how the brain will resist lying at all costs and whenever possible. It seems that by using the word 'taken' as opposed to 'vanished' - considering that 'taken' has a dual meaning, ie 'died'/'stolen', Kate and Gerry are able to be absolutely truthful; telling us, yet expecting the listener to substitute the meaning for themselves.

I strongly believe that this is the reason for the constant use of the word. It is more comfortable for them, linguistically.

I hope this makes sense

tigger wrote: Re: McCanns oppose proposed libel reforms - with the SUPPORT of the Libel Reform Campaign!
rainbow-fairy Today at 8:22 pm 27/3/2012

PeterMac wrote:
p. 276 "I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back." unquote

I think this could do with going into the Forensic Linguistics thread.
I know it is supposed to be about the 'cruel abductor' who 'stole Maddie' BUT it doesn't read that way...
Had she written, for example:
"I wanted to kill the bastard who abducted my daughter, leaving us devastated" or the like, fine.
But if you read the passage again, doesn't it sound as though she's talking about somebody she knows?
How can you 'want to kill' 'to inflict maximum possible damage' on somebody who you don't know? And note the emphasis on 'him' - I thought we were told it could've been a 'she'?
To my mind, that passage needs more analysis. IMO, she was very clearly seeing in her mind's eye the person she was referring to - not a nameless, faceless 'abductor' - the anger seems very 'personal' too...
Also as aiyoyo pointed out - why 'the man I loved'? Why not 'the man I love'? If she meant Gerry, then it means she doesn't love him anymore (despite what she says). If she ISN'T referring to Gerry, that opens up ANOTHER can of worms...


Candyfloss wrote:

What does she mean these additional problems. ?? unquote

T
Even if given her bewk I wont soil my hands on it...but I'm sure her bewk will be full of things like "these additional problems for me and the man I loved" - it must be because it's written to fit data out there and to fit a certain theory and no real emotion is in it. Any emotion detected is just contrived stuff.