Forensic linguistics -

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:Kate McCann: The Collection

Concerning the child's personality, she is extrovert, very active, talkative, smart and relates to other children with great ease. But she would never go with a stranger.
Kate McCann in a statement to the Policia Judiciaria 4/5/07

"Please continue to pray for Madeleine. She is lovely."
Kate McCann, Daily Express 7/5/07

Q: Tell me about Madeleine. I know her picture, we all know her picture so well and she's a gorgeous, little, smiling image but she is, to us, an image; to you she's a real little girl. Tell us about Madeleine.
KM: Well, she's got bags of character, that's for sure. Errm... She's very loving, caring, she's very funny, very chatty, very engaging. Errm... She has her moments, like all children do, errm... but I do think she's pretty special.
KM: She's loud.
Kate McCann, ITN interview, 25/5/07

Mrs McCann said, smiling: “She likes talking, she really likes role play.”
Mr McCann joined in saying: “She’s very good at that actually for someone so young, she really can talk...considering that she was not even four.
“She likes activity and sport, she’s very active, even at home when we are going for a jog she says ’Can I come jogging with you mummy’?”
The couple looked relaxed as they spoke about Madeleine’s love of swimming, going swimming on Saturdays and of her favourite television programme - Dr Who as well as films such as Shrek and Finding Nemo.
Gerry and Kate McCann, Daily Express 26/5/07

"Madeleine has the first three Harry Potter books and first three DVDs. Like most other children the world over, she loves the stories."
Kate McCann, BBC News 16/7/07

Kate reveals Madeleine had been practising a dance at the club which she was looking forward to showing her mum the following day - "but I never got to see it".
(..) Kate now wears a silver locket round her neck with a picture of Madeleine inside and the words "Tower of Strength" engraved on it. She says a friend gave it to her because "that's what Madeleine was to us, a tower of strength".
(..) Conscious to speak of her in the present tense, she adds: "Despite her small size she just has this huge presence. She brings a lot of joy."
Kate McCann, Sunday Mirror, 5/8/07

She revealed that as she tucked Madeleine into bed that night, the little girl said: "Mummy, I've had the best day ever. I'm having lots and lots of fun."
Kate McCann, Daily Express 5/8/07

In her interview Mrs McCann paints a vivid picture of her daughter as a sociable and funny child.
She said: "She has a lot of personality and her name actually means 'tower of strength'. But she hated it when we called her Maddie - she'd say, 'My name is Madeleine', with an indignant look on her face. I bet she's giving whoever she's with her tuppence worth."
Kate McCann, Daily Express 13/8/07, quoting from the ‘Woman’s hour interview.

K- We had a super week. We came with a group of friends who themselves have children. Ours had more small friends. There was this club for children with lots of activities. They spent there great moments.
G.- Madeleine, in particular, has a lot of fun. One day, she even did sailing with the club.
K- She played tennis.
G- In the evening, adults stood together and the children were on their side. It was fun sometimes to hide and they were pursuing us.
P.M- How was Madeleine during these holidays?
K- She is very intelligent, very sociable and engaging. She loves to talk, she is funny, she has a lot of energy.
G- She is still very active, she loves to organize everything, she is very good in the role-playing. At the day nursery of the hotel, she loved to organize things… For her age, her vocabulary is very good, better than mine! She understands a lot of stuff, she twigs quickly, she is very perspicacious.
Kate and Gerry McCann, Paris Match, September 2007

Kate McCann complains frequently that her children are "hysterical" and says that Madeleine is a hyperactive child who tires her out to the point of despair.
First Post, quoting Correio de Manha 14/9/07

Missing Madeleine would run around 'screaming...shouting for my attention', the mother-of-three said.
In an interview given to a Portuguese magazine before she was named as a suspect in the case of the four-year-old's disappearance, Kate also said the first six months of Madeleine's life were "very difficult" and that the girl had suffered from colic.
Speaking about Madeleine's upbringing, Kate, a 39-year-old GP, told Portugal's Flash! magazine: "She cried practically for 18 hours a day. I had to permanently carry her around."
This period explained "the strong bond between mother and daughter", she said.
Although the arrival of the twins Sean and Amelie shook up Madeleine's life, she accepted them very well, said Kate.
"She managed to deal perfectly with this new reality, although she herself at the time was still a baby.
"The worst thing is that she started to demand lots of attention, especially when I was breast-feeding them.
"She would run up and down screaming in the background, shouting for my attention”.
Kate McCann, Daily Mail 17/9/07, quoting Portugese magazine Flash

“As Madeleine’s mummy I feel in my heart that she is there. I don’t know how anyone could harm anyone as beautiful as Madeleine. I don’t mean her appearance. I mean as a beautiful person.”
The mother of three, who has spoken of her desire to be involved in childcare, became emotional towards the end of the questioning, recorded yesterday, as she talked personally about her eldest child.
“I feel sad and I feel lonely and our life is not as happy without Madeleine,” she said, adding: “I feel anxious she is not with us.”
Asked about the last time she saw Madeleine, she said: “She was very happy and very loving and I know Madeleine was very happy with her life. She is special.”
Kate McCann, Daily Express 24/10/07, quoting from the Antena 3 interview.

And Kate tells movingly how the little blonde girl was more like a best friend than a daughter - and reveals how she tortures herself by trying to imagine how Madeleine looks now she is approaching her fifth birthday.
Kate McCann, the Mirror, 30/4/08

Always referring to Maddie, who is five in May, in the present tense, she describes her as "very loving. She’s a very bright little girl.
"I had days when I’d go to a cafe with Madeleine and we’d go shopping together and she’d say, ‘Oh mummy, I like that top,’ or ‘Oh, I love your earrings, mummy’.
"She’s good company, she’s like my — you know, she’s like a little buddy to me."
"She was great with Sean and Amelie. "Even when they were born, you know she just stepped into the role really well, considering she was only 20 months when they were born, and she wanted to be involved and help. As they got a little bit older, because the age difference was so close, they just played so well together."
Kate McCann, ITV1 documentary 30/4/08

She recalls: “She just very casually really said ‘Where were you last night when me and Sean cried?’ And we immediately looked and said, you know ‘When was this Madeleine, was this when you were going to sleep?’ and she didn’t answer. “And then she just carried on playing, totally undistressed.”
Kate McCann quoting Madeleine in the Liverpool Echo, 30/4/08

rainbow-fairy wrote:

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

russiandoll wrote: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.

Lance De Boils wrote:All very interesting!

Just to go right back to something someone posted about near the beginning of this thread somewhere regarding the timeline. The question was about why "Gerald" was written, not "Gerry". My immediate thought was that there were 2 "Gerry"s. One short for Gerald, the other short for something else eg Gerard, Jeremy. To ensure everyone knew which Gerry (or Jerry) the event on the timeline applied to, the name was written in full.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

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:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

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

On page 7 here is part of Dr. Roberts' analyses on this subject.

quote:
Q (Antena 3): October 2007 "Do you still maintain the hope, that is, genuinely believe that Madeleine is still alive?"

KM: "I do, maybe even more so, I strongly believe that Madeleine is out there, errm... I think she's probably in someone's house. .....snipped ... I feel in my heart really that she's there and I don't believe Madeleine's been taken from us permanently. ...snipped
unquote

I see 'taken' as the word they can use safely instead of abduction. But for me it refers to the third party who arranged the removal of the body. So they were truly not there 'that minute' (because I would think they knew about what time this was to happen) when she was 'taken'.
I think they were not there when the body was removed from 5a. That's what they can comfortably and honestly say. They weren't there. Someone else had the key, or a copy of the key, see earlier pages here.
Or the 'key thing' may refer to a key to the location where Maddie's body was initially kept.

'was taken' is certainly applicable her to the 'passive language' that Russian Doll refers to.

Ribisl wrote:

tigger wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

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

On page 7 here is part of Dr. Roberts' analyses on this subject.

quote:
Q (Antena 3): October 2007 "Do you still maintain the hope, that is, genuinely believe that Madeleine is still alive?"

KM: "I do, maybe even more so, I strongly believe that Madeleine is out there, errm... I think she's probably in someone's house. .....snipped ... I feel in my heart really that she's there and I don't believe Madeleine's been taken from us permanently. ...snipped
unquote

I see 'taken' as the word they can use safely instead of abduction. But for me it refers to the third party who arranged the removal of the body. So they were truly not there 'that minute' (because I would think they knew about what time this was to happen) when she was 'taken'.
I think they were not there when the body was removed from 5a. That's what they can comfortably and honestly say. They weren't there. Someone else had the key, or a copy of the key, see earlier pages here.
Or the 'key thing' may refer to a key to the location where Maddie's body was initially kept.

'was taken' is certainly applicable her to the 'passive language' that Russian Doll refers to.

I always thought the term 'taken' was so imprecise as to be well within their comfort zone and I also believe others were involved in removing the body, hence the pact of silence. I know some of you believe the death predates the 4th but how could they keep a cadaver in their apartment for longer than a few hours without the cleaner finding it or the twins asking some awkward questions about their sister in a bag? And if the body had been hidden somewhere else, how do we explain Kate's reaction on the night of 4th? It makes more sense to me that she actually meant it when she said 'they have taken her' - prior to 10pm from the apartment 5A. Then again she could be a better actress than I give her credit for [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Ribisl wrote:

tigger wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

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

On page 7 here is part of Dr. Roberts' analyses on this subject.

quote:
Q (Antena 3): October 2007 "Do you still maintain the hope, that is, genuinely believe that Madeleine is still alive?"

KM: "I do, maybe even more so, I strongly believe that Madeleine is out there, errm... I think she's probably in someone's house. .....snipped ... I feel in my heart really that she's there and I don't believe Madeleine's been taken from us permanently. ...snipped
unquote

I see 'taken' as the word they can use safely instead of abduction. But for me it refers to the third party who arranged the removal of the body. So they were truly not there 'that minute' (because I would think they knew about what time this was to happen) when she was 'taken'.
I think they were not there when the body was removed from 5a. That's what they can comfortably and honestly say. They weren't there. Someone else had the key, or a copy of the key, see earlier pages here.
Or the 'key thing' may refer to a key to the location where Maddie's body was initially kept.

'was taken' is certainly applicable her to the 'passive language' that Russian Doll refers to.

I always thought the term 'taken' was so imprecise as to be well within their comfort zone and I also believe others were involved in removing the body, hence the pact of silence. I know some of you believe the death predates the 4th but how could they keep a cadaver in their apartment for longer than a few hours without the cleaner finding it or the twins asking some awkward questions about their sister in a bag? And if the body had been hidden somewhere else, how do we explain Kate's reaction on the night of 4th? It makes more sense to me that she actually meant it when she said 'they have taken her' - prior to 10pm from the apartment 5A. Then again she could be a better actress than I give her credit for [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Ribisl, Madeleine was reported 'missing' c 10 pm on 3rd May, not the 4th!

rainbow-fairy wrote:This topic is based on the NK interview - and the statement from Kate McCann that almost literally took my breath away.

During the interview, Kate and Gerry were asked about all the 'nasty headlines'.
Frederik asked 'What was the worst thing you read, what would be the very worst thing?'
K replies 'That she's dead'
Well that seems fair doesn't it? The worst thing you could hear is that she's dead.
BECAUSE - "I'll never hold her in my arms again" or "I'll know she is never coming home to us" or even "Because we'll know we've totally, completely lost her and I can't imagine a world without her"?
Oh no. Not Kate McCann. It was the worst thing Kate could read about her daughter BECAUSE -
"Then there would be no more search"!?!
That is actually what she said. Which is perverse. (If, of course, the 'search' is really about finding Maddie)
'The Search', surely, is what they are doing with the hope of finding Madeleine. So, say she was found alive - there would be no more search. Good thing, right?
BUT she is found DEAD and the reason that is bad is because 'there is no more search'!!! The only way that reads is that 'the search' is actually far more important to Kate than either the positive or negative result of said search!
So what about the search could be so important that she'd be gutted if it ended - the money, perchance?

Maybe tigger would like to copy this to forensic linguistics? I did feel it deserves a thread of its own though.

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

I'm posting this because I came across this again - but forgot that it has some excellent footage of Forensic Linguistic and body language - not to be missed!

tigger wrote:Copied from:

The McCanns’ libelling of others: 1. Martin Grime
aiyoyo Today at 2:41 pm on 14/4/2012


“The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science”. Dr Kate McCann is clearly querying Mr Grimes’ expertise.

If that is lifted from her bewk, then I think it is yet another phrase that should go into the Forensic Linguistic Thread.
Why did kate start to feel relax when the dogs alerted. It does not make sense. An alert means a dead body had been in the car (no matter whose).

More importantly when she said "I felt myself starting to relax a little"- it suggests she was very tensed about the operation? It's a dead give-away she feared what the dogs might find.
Otherwise why should she be tensed? What is there to be nervous about if you're innocent and know without a shadow of doubt there's no way the dogs will find anything in the car.

But hey, this woman was relieved because she alleged the dogs alerted due to cueing. But she conveniently forgot that no matter what, the handler cant force the dogs to bark or to mark.

It's as if kate believes an owner can get a dog to bark each time it smells a stranger walks past a high fencing or closed door, in the same manner they can get they pet bull dog to bite if they dont like to hear what people are saying.
unquote

Nina wrote:And a retrieval from the bottom of a murky lake, why would that clear the McCanns?

alfie02 wrote:

Nina wrote:And a retrieval from the bottom of a murky lake, why would that clear the McCanns?

I think they will be hoping that if Madeleinne was found, there would be nothing to link them to whatever forensics are on her body, by way of abuse as she has been gone for nearly 5 years, so will be virtually nothing to stipulate the cause of death x

alfie02 wrote:

Nina wrote:And a retrieval from the bottom of a murky lake, why would that clear the McCanns?

I think they will be hoping that if Madeleinne was found, there would be nothing to link them to whatever forensics are on her body, by way of abuse as she has been gone for nearly 5 years, so will be virtually nothing to stipulate the cause of death x

Nina wrote:

alfie02 wrote:

Nina wrote:And a retrieval from the bottom of a murky lake, why would that clear the McCanns?

I think they will be hoping that if Madeleinne was found, there would be nothing to link them to whatever forensics are on her body, by way of abuse as she has been gone for nearly 5 years, so will be virtually nothing to stipulate the cause of death x

Hello alfie02, I suppose by this time then they will be hoping there is no forensic evidence to link to them wherever her body might be found.
They just didn't show any sorrow at the prospect of her body laying at the bottom of a murky lake.

PeterMac wrote:There is a skeleton in the caves in Nerja, ca. 40,000 BC of a woman who, it has been fairly conclusively established, died of brain complications from otitis media.
People are still finding more about the cause of death of Tutenkhamen.
The thing they fear most is the finding.
Which is why "sightings" are always good news, and searches in places more than a few metres from wherever Madeleine's remains might be are also good news.
For TM, Tapas7, Mitchell et al. of course.
Not for truth, honesty, decency, or mankind as a whole.