Re: Forensic linguistics -

by russiandoll 22.04.13 15:19

Hi Tigger,
I think a fall onto a tiled floor could prove ultimately fatal, but cannot understand why a child would not be taken to the emergency room had this happened, unless there was something to be revealed which had to be hidden.

I think it is possible that if the children were lightly sedated to ensure sleep,this could have had a catastrophic effect on a child already suffering unnatural drowsiness from a head injury.

I agree totally with your opinions on Kate's motives for including the Mrs Fenn episode in her book. As a linguist looking closely at what she was trying to achieve in this section of her book, I still have to maintain that the worth of the child against an object is the thing she is stressing, hence her anger at the under-reaction from the lady above.
Her words to FP or even under her breath to herself in this context would have been for example
" Anyone would think I'd told the f***ing woman some b*****d had walked in and taken/stolen my bloody handbag [ not my precious child]

There is NO NEED for Kate to change the verb to get her point across. Yet when recalling this event, years later, she does just that.
And out of all the verbs she could choose, she chooses falling.
I can only conclude that something much more precious than a can fell .

by tasprin 22.04.13 15:58

PeterMac wrote:
tasprin wrote:I've never understood Kate McCann's animosity toward Mrs fenn. If Madeleine was abducted, it makes no sense at all. Under the circumstances I'd have thought the first people you'd question would be the neighbours as they may have seen or heard something which could turn out to be helpful. A few years ago I was burgled and when the poice arrived one of the officers said, "I hope you've got a nosey neighbour... they can be worth their ~~wait [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]~~weight in gold".
Indeed so.
Mrs Fenn might even have 'rescued' Madeleine from wandering around outside, but not known where she came from.
She might already have handed her over to Police.
She might have heard an entry, might have even spoken to an intruder, might have seen all sorts of things.
But Kate's response was to swear at her before ascertaining is she had any information.

There is no wonder that the police, when presented with the parents' incoherent statements and actions, concentrated on them.

And remember that whilst this was going on the heavily sedated twins were being left alone by both anaesthetists.

Exactly. Her aggressive response to Mrs Fenn was that of someone who didn't want to be questioned, not a desperate mother whose child had just been abducted.

by **tigger** 22.04.13 16:29

tasprin wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
tasprin wrote:I've never understood Kate McCann's animosity toward Mrs fenn. If Madeleine was abducted, it makes no sense at all. Under the circumstances I'd have thought the first people you'd question would be the neighbours as they may have seen or heard something which could turn out to be helpful. A few years ago I was burgled and when the poice arrived one of the officers said, "I hope you've got a nosey neighbour... they can be worth their ~~wait [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]~~weight in gold".
Indeed so.
Mrs Fenn might even have 'rescued' Madeleine from wandering around outside, but not known where she came from.
She might already have handed her over to Police.
She might have heard an entry, might have even spoken to an intruder, might have seen all sorts of things.
But Kate's response was to swear at her before ascertaining is she had any information.

There is no wonder that the police, when presented with the parents' incoherent statements and actions, concentrated on them.

And remember that whilst this was going on the heavily sedated twins were being left alone by both anaesthetists.
Exactly. Her aggressive response to Mrs Fenn was that of someone who didn't want to be questioned, not a desperate mother whose child had just been abducted.

But according to Mrs. Fenn this never happened. So we have to ask why create this story for the book? Most of these incidents related in the book - such as being offered a 'deal' by the PJ, have proved to be pure fantasy. Covering up or changing an event, however small, must have a purpose.

by Miraflores 22.04.13 19:46

We had a lad in this area who slipped and fell backwards off a ladder,
was perfectly conscious when the ambulance attended and had to be told
to get in, and was taken away against his will, but died in the
Intensive Care Unit in Malaga three days later.

Much the same happened to the actress Natasha Richardson, who had a fall skiing, got up apparently unhurt but later slipped into unconsciousness and died a couple of days later.

by **tigger** 25.05.13 16:06

A small gem from the rogatory of Matthew Oldfield.

4078 "Was there anything different about the Tuesday that you can recall?"

Reply "Erm, no, I don't remember anything specific about, about that day. I mean, Rachael became ill on the Tuesday night. G**** had, the thing that would have made it really horrible, when I became unwell, was for everybody then to go down with D and V, and we were sort of very worried that it would go first to G**** and then to the kids and then back up to everybody and completely ruin the entire trip for everybody, and G**** had loose nappies nearly every day, but until after Madeleine went, erm, disappeared, she was never sick ..'

Dr. Roberts noted: Is that 'went on her abduction,' Matthew?

After stating he remembers nothing specific about the 2nd, we get a fairly long story about a heroic run with Kate. Some 7 to 8 miles.

by plebgate 25.05.13 16:16

So somebody who has had D & V decides to go on a 7-8 mile run. hmmmm, what do you do when you have d&v, eat nothing and have rehydration fluids.

He must really be into running to attempt 7-8 miles if he had d & v and must have felt really unwell at the end of it.

Very often running distances will bring on diarrhoea and if somebody already has it before they set out they must the MAD is all I can say.

by Guest 25.05.13 16:52

Not being a native English-speaker, can anyone help me with this one?

"G**** had loose nappies nearly every day, but until after Madeleine went, erm, disappeared, she was never sick .."
Grace was never sick until after Madeleine disappeared, yet she had running nappies on May 1?

by Guest 25.05.13 16:59

It could mean she was never physically sick - as in vomiting when you've read a particularly nauseating article about the McCanns.

The Oldfields certainly didn't seem to think that diarrhoea was a problem in young babies as they claim to have left their daughter alone when they and the others were busy having their "me" time.

Perhaps they would have taken vomiting more seriously though that didn't bother Jane and Russell - just clean her up and get back down the pub!

Chatelaine, your English is excellent. It's very hard for anyone to follow anything that the Tapas mob say!

by Guest 25.05.13 17:11

Thank you, NFWTD :-)
So, to continue the nitpicking: Grace was "vomiting" after Madeleine disappeared ...?
You see, I am a great believer in Freudian slips of the tongue ;-)

BTW can anyone tell from the top of their head WHEN the Oldfields returned to the U.K.?

ETA I know that the Paynes stayed on for a while and that Rachel, Fiona and Russell returned to PT some time later to finger Murat.

by Guest 25.05.13 17:23

Châtelaine wrote:Thank you, NFWTD :-)
So, to continue the nitpicking: Grace was "vomiting" after Madeleine disappeared ...?
You see, I am a great believer in Freudian slips of the tongue ;-)

BTW can anyone tell from the top of their head WHEN the Oldfields returned to the U.K.?

ETA I know that the Paynes stayed on for a while and that Rachel, Fiona and Russell returned to PT some time later to finger Murat.

It's here in his interview, Chatelaine, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Questioned about other changes in his health - or of his family - he recalls that the three had had intestinal problems: he on 28 April; from memory, his wife on 30 April or 1 May, and his daughter on 7 May.

by Guest 25.05.13 17:49

That's very interesting, Finn. So his daughter had diarrhoea [quote: "G**** had loose nappies nearly every day"] during holiday, but only developed intestinal problems on May 7 ...? French doctors are bad, but British ... ?

by Cristobell 26.05.13 16:15

[quote="tigger"]

kikoraton wrote:I have great respect for Dr Roberts, but I'm not altogether sure what he is driving at here (page 1). The key is literal - a reference to the key of an apartment or property possibly let by Robert Murat? So did the McCanns keep on referring to it, in order to draw attention to their desire/need to locate the holder of that key, and possibly do a deal with them? Is that it?
If so, I could suggest a couple of places they could try - though I'd much rather the PJ got there first. Michaela Walczuch's telephone habits on 2 May might be a good place to start. Or, if I wrote an incomplete script for my Pantomime Sketch on the ~~Christmas Chill-out~~ "Lighter Side - it is Christmas after all" Thread of this forum, possibly the drab apartment in the mean streets of Lagos holds the.....errrrm, key.
Only trying to go with the drift.......I'm not at all convinced that Murat provided a key either knowingly or not. But there again, he may well have done, along with the phones and chintzy ambiance of the Casa which were so useful on 3 May.

Having a lovely leisurely re-read of this thread; wonderful stuff.

I remember Dr. Robert's theories about the 'key', but wasn't quite sure I agreed. 'Key' is a little word but it has lots of connotations. Its constant use by the McCanns' is intriguing.

Simply to throw another idea into the pot, and working on the basis of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid), I remember as a mature student, and then as a lecturer, that if I wanted to ensure the students picked up on specific facts, I would use the word 'key point' etc, and have often seen other lecturers do the same. It is basically a way of getting the audience to scramble all the information they have and concentrate on the point that is being highlighted by use of the word 'key'. Ditto if you were summing up within an essay.

I have seen Gerry use the word 'key' many times, usually as a means to change the subject back into safe territory. Using the word 'key', rather brusquely brushes away any awkward questions, almost saying 'he said/she said' is of no consequence, the KEY thing is, Madeleine is missing and we still need to find her, etc and nothing else matters, we must concentrate on the KEY issue. It is a tad arrogant. It could be read as 'what I am talking about is way more important than what you want to talk about', so lets get back to our main objective and don't bother me with that stuff again.

As for their interviews, I think they have many set and prepared answers in case they are served a curve ball. 'We're obviously Madeleine's mum and dad', 'Madeleine is still missing' etc. They are emotive statements, drawing on their sympathetic victim roles to smooth over the awkward question that has just been asked. The former are the key issues, the ones they can always fall back on if the going gets tough.

by **tigger** 03.08.13 10:10

I found this interview and analysis - hadn't come across it before. Very interesting imo expecially in view of the McCann's attitude to their children.

Today on the ‘Fátima’ programme, a morning talk show on SIC channel, former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral and criminal psychologist Paulo [b class="coloradmin" style="color: #aa0000"]Sargento[/b] were invited. They debated the problems and the doubts that are raised by the recent documentary from the McCanns, which will be was broadcasted this evening on the same channel. [a warning about Merche’s ‘blonde moments’]

Merche Romero – Madeleine McCann disappeared two years ago. The intense investigation to discover the little girl’s whereabouts ended without major results and the process was closed. Nevertheless, Maddie’s parents reaffirm that their daughter was abducted and they say that they continue to search for the abductor. Today, the 12th of May, the day that marks Maddie’s sixth birthday, SIC will broadcast, in the evening, a documentary that was made by a British television channel. We’ll be showing you parts of that documentary, in an exclusive.

Before that, I’d like to welcome, and also present our guests: Dr Paulo [b class="coloradmin" style="color: #aa0000"]Sargento[/b] and Gonçalo Amaral. A very good morning to you.

Paulo [b class="coloradmin" style="color: #aa0000"]Sargento[/b]/Gonçalo Amaral: Good morning.

Merche Romero: And I start with the first question for Gonçalo Amaral: Should the police continue… ahm… what do you expect from this documentary?

Gonçalo Amaral: This documentary is a document. A document that is based on lies, which will be used, if some day the process is reopened, it will be used as evidence against those who go around saying those lies, trying to understand why.

Merche Romero: Dr Paulo [b class="coloradmin" style="color: #aa0000"]Sargento[/b]… ahm… the… the truth is that this has been prompting a lot of talk, hasn’t it? Ahh… the little girl’s parents’ attitude, namely during the interview with Oprah, did it surprise you?

Paulo [b class="coloradmin" style="color: #aa0000"]Sargento[/b]: No, it didn’t surprise me. Let’s see, these things and definitely, that sometimes we, who comment on this case, we’re criticised over some abuses concerning the evaluations and the diagnoses and etc… What I mean is, I never diagnosed anyone, because when I make a diagnose it’s in my office with the adequate methodology, and with the person in front of me. Nevertheless, an evaluation of people’s behaviour can give us some… approaches, some theories about the manner in which they function.

Now, in this case, there is something that is very interesting, it’s that in this case everything had been very manipulated in terms of image communication techniques, by a gentleman who is in fact a mastermind in that aspect, which is mister Clarence Mitchell – to whom I take my hat off, under that point of view, not for the rest, because it’s a gentleman who has lied shamelessly and defamed some people, saying he’s going to sue people; it’s him who should have some lawsuits upon him.

Oprah’s interview, for me, is a very simple matter, it was a construction, the questions were previously arranged, where the couple was previously given access to the questions, for that they prepared and even trained to answer them, there were not even hesitations, there were no overlapping speeches, let’s say of words from both sides, as one would expect to happen in a natural interview – like us sometimes, when we are here and one of us has another opinion and suggests – and the questions had especially a grammatical style that we’ve come to recognise well, which is a style, a style that I have sometimes jokingly - although we shouldn’t joke too much about this - called ‘Mitchellian’, because it uses a type of fallacious arguments, that are already well known both on blogs and on television, and when they are used by him or by the couple. Alas, the person who imitates him very well in that style, it’s for example Gerry McCann.

That matter, of confusing oneself many times, which is a well known fallacy, since the times of the tribunes in the ancient Rome of Cesar Augustus, of confusing the negation of the consequent with the affirmation of the antecedent, it’s something very interesting, which they use systematically. From the point of view of image, I think that the only thing that we can take from that interview is that it was in fact something that was built to follow a different strategy, from the one that was foreseen at least two weeks earlier. Because if we recall two weeks earlier, the strategy was to focus on the location of the disappearance, with the face of the three-year-old child.

Merche Romero: And that is precisely what we are [interrupts Paulo [b class="coloradmin" style="color: #aa0000"]Sargento[/b]’s train of thought], we’re moving on, we’re going to focus on the documentary, ah, that is going to be broadcast by SIC this evening. The first excerpt, let’s watch…

Excerpt of the McCanns’ documentary with Sean, Madeleine’s younger brother, and Kate painting the three children’s names.

Sean: That is a lovely picture you’re making, mommy.
Kate: Thanks honey, do you know what it says?
Sean: No… (makes funny noises /onomatopoeias)
Kate: What names do you think that is, Sean?
Sean: Amelie…
Kate: Who’s your other sister?
Sean/Amelie: Maddie.
Kate: There you go…
Kate: I honestly believe they’re expecting her to come home, you know, one day soon. They very much… ‘When Madeleine comes back, we’re share our toys’, and you know, Amelie is wearing Madeleine’s shoes, she’ll say ‘This won’t fit Madeleine now, so we’ll have to take her and get a bigger pair of shoes when she gets home’, you know?

Merche Romero: Kate, the children’s mother, talks about the hope that she and her other children, Maddie’s siblings, foster concerning the little girl’s return. (turns to Gonçalo Amaral) Dr Paulo [b class="coloradmin" style="color: #aa0000"]Sargento[/b], from these images, right, what’s the picture that you draw of this family?

Gonçalo Amaral: I’m not Paulo [b class="coloradmin" style="color: #aa0000"]Sargento[/b]…

Merche Romero: Ah, forgive me. Forgive me, Dr Gonçalo Amaral.

Gonçalo Amaral: No problem. I wouldn’t want to comment on these images a lot, it’s a mother in suffering, she’s lost a daughter, and she has the right to say whatever she wants, so there’s nothing here…

Merche Romero: But the fact that she’s feeding – now yes (turns towards Paulo [b class="coloradmin" style="color: #aa0000"]Sargento[/b]) – the mother feeds the children’s hope in the girl’s return…

Paulo [b class="coloradmin" style="color: #aa0000"]Sargento[/b]: Of course… I agree with Dr Gonçalo Amaral, in what he says, there is in fact a mother that suffers, there’s a family that suffers, no matter what happened. Well, this is a solid fact, it’s not possible, let’s say to think or it’s very hard to think that people aren’t suffering. No matter what happened, this is necessary to have as a solid fact. Now, there’s something that should be avoided as well. I understand that all the pacts among the adults, among the large groups, like the Tapas nine, among the couple, all pacts are possible.

Now, what I’ve been saying and I think should stir these people’s conscience, is to keep the twins out of the pacts. I mean, this issue of transmitting hope, that there is no certainty, quite to the contrary, if there is one it’s the possibility that the girl will never appear again, and to make the twins live, in fact, this nightmare is a complete irresponsibility, not to say it’s an exercise in bad parenting, a completely shameful one.

Gonçalo Amaral: Let me say just one thing.

Merche Romero: Say it, say it, say it.

Gonçalo Amaral: It’s that at the time of the events, only a few days later, we tried to speak with the twins, and what this couple told us, was that they didn’t express themselves well [communication skills], despite being two years old, that they couldn’t speak very well and so on, as a matter of fact it seems that two years later they’re doing better, they’re now four years old, so it’s normal. But at the time, they would know something or they might know. And that’s it, we didn’t force it, because these were two children.

Paulo [b class="coloradmin" style="color: #aa0000"]Sargento[/b]: Of course.

By Joana Morais

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] class="coloradmin" style="color: #aa0000"]sargento[/b].html

by worriedmum 03.08.13 10:59

tigger wrote:

Gonçalo Amaral: Let me say just one thing.

Merche Romero: Say it, say it, say it.

Gonçalo Amaral: It’s that at the time of the events, only a few days later, we tried to speak with the twins, and what this couple told us, was that they didn’t express themselves well [communication skills], despite being two years old, that they couldn’t speak very well and so on, as a matter of fact it seems that two years later they’re doing better, they’re now four years old, so it’s normal. But at the time, they would know something or they might know. And that’s it, we didn’t force it, because these were two children.

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

That is the first time I have read this. IIRC doesn't Kate say , fairly recently, that the twins 'surprised' them with what they could articulate at this time? Does anyone else remember this?

by Guest 03.08.13 11:07

worriedmum wrote:
That is the first time I have read this. IIRC doesn't Kate say , fairly recently, that the twins 'surprised' them with what they could articulate at this time? Does anyone else remember this?

***
I remember Gerry's blogs in 2007, saying that the twins were sleeping in a bed now and also that they were amazingly "vocal". Will try and find the exact quotes.

by **tigger** 03.08.13 12:10

Iirc it's in the second Swedish interview last year.

by **PeterMac** 03.08.13 13:06

So Madeleine, aged three and with a clear genetic defect, could read Harry Potter, had seen the entire oeuvre of Dr Who and remembered her favourite episode ( out of more than 700), knew the lyrics and "tunes" (though we hope and pray not the meaning ) of the songs of the Pussy Cat Dolls, but the two twins were clearly educationally sub-normal, and incapable of speech ?
Do we accept this ?

by Guest 03.08.13 13:14

In a word - no; the quotes from Kate and Gerry agree that the twins were not mute; unusual I know to be believing anything they say but on this occasion I do.

Maybe that's why the twins were never questioned at once as it could have been very interesting to hear when they last saw Madeleine.

I know that all children proceed at their own pace but my son at 27 months never stopped talking!

by **tigger** 03.08.13 14:31

This is the bit that I found interesting:

Oprah’s interview, for me, is a very simple matter, it was a construction, the questions were previously arranged, where the couple was previously given access to the questions, for that they prepared and even trained to answer them, there were not even hesitations, there were no overlapping speeches, let’s say of words from both sides, as one would expect to happen in a natural interview – like us sometimes, when we are here and one of us has another opinion and suggests – and the questions had especially a grammatical style that we’ve come to recognise well, which is a style, a style that I have sometimes jokingly - although we shouldn’t joke too much about this - called ‘Mitchellian’, because it uses a type of fallacious arguments, that are already well known both on blogs and on television, and when they are used by him or by the couple. Alas, the person who imitates him very well in that style, it’s for example Gerry McCann.

by Guest 03.08.13 14:37

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:In a word - no; the quotes from Kate and Gerry agree that the twins were not mute; unusual I know to be believing anything they say but on this occasion I do.

Maybe that's why the twins were never questioned at once as it could have been very interesting to hear when they last saw Madeleine.

I know that all children proceed at their own pace but my son at 27 months never stopped talking!

By the time my son was two years old, our conversations had to be spelled out because he would pick up absolutely everything even (or should I say especially) when he didn't appear to be listening.

Regarding the quote: "G**** had loose nappies nearly every day". At the age of 15 months, my son had diarrhoea for just 24 hours. He was just miserable at first but then he suddenly deteriorated becoming very lethargic. He ended up in hospital for another 24 hours with us and the nurses constantly feeding him glucose jelly and sugary drinks to try and rehydrate him and raise his blood sugar to normal levels. If he hadn't improved, he would have had to be sedated and put on a drip.

Babies dehydrate scarily quickly.

by **tigger** 03.08.13 15:03

I'm apologising for these bitty posts but cutting and pasting on mobile Internet is complicated. The quote below belongs with the earlier one on the Oprah show and Sargeto's observation on the colour of her cardigan are very interesting.

Let’s talk about the McCanns’ interview with Oprah. From a psychological point of view, how do you evaluate the couple’s behaviour?

Image sanctification at the highest level. Notice that even Kate’s clothes were chosen for the occasion. Do you ever remember seeing her in a skirt?

Now that you mention it, I noticed the extremely thin legs…

Of course you did. She presents a different image, using a skirt for the first time, with a contents that is more maternal, more familiar more adequate under the point of view of a 40-year-old woman who has a daughter that has been abducted. All in all, fitting better with what the North American middle class likes to watch on television. But you noticed her very thin legs. Well, people who regularly jog get muscled legs, but once they stop practising and continue eating, they fatten. Well, if one stops practising and is depressed, one loses the appetite and grows thin. Note that even people who are not technically trained, do notice these small details. When I mention the suicide issue, it’s also a way of saying: watch this woman, because she needs help.

You were talking about the clothes that were chosen for the Oprah interview…

Yes, notice the almost tepid colour of the cardigan and the manner in which it matches the colour of Maddie’s clothes that can be seen on the screen behind the McCanns. Totally studied. The replies are automatic, as if they had been dictated by an advisor.

The questions were also kind…

They were prepared. I believe that the couple was paid to go there. And they only went, previously knowing the questions. They wouldn’t go any other way. Don’t doubt that. As a matter of fact, they had been invited before, and they only went now because Gonçalo Amaral is translating his book into several languages and a reply was necessary. The questions were prepared and the replies were rehearsed. Just analyse the grammatical style that is used in the replies to Oprah and check the grammatical style that is used in Clarence Mitchell’s press conferences. I’m sure you’ll discover major similarities. And on certain blogs, you can see the same resemblance. This is called media manipulation.

Unquote

by gbwales 11.08.13 17:48

This thread is fascinating: so many extraordinary things said.

Here's possibly another one for Forensic Linguistics, which I noticed for the first time as 'odd' when I read it earlier over in the "VIDEO - Was Gerry ANGRY with Kate as her DREAM led to them becoming SUSPECTS?" thread - it's two statements really:

"According to the court testimony of the McCanns' liaison officer, Ricardo Paiva, the suspicions of Amaral and his team were hardened by what was seen as a turning point in the police investigation.
It came when a weeping Kate phoned Paiva, in late July 2007, to report a disturbing dream in which she had seen Madeleine lying on rocks overlooking a beach at Praia da Luz. The detectives took this to be a clear signal that the McCanns knew full well that their daughter was dead. "

and

"He (GM) then went on to contradict Dr Paiva's evidence that Kate had seen Madeleine on a hillside in a dream. He said: "I'd like to make it absolutely clear that Kate has never had a dream that Maddie has been buried somewhere, and I don't know if something's been lost in interpretation, but that didn't happen – not with those words, that's for sure."

I've tried to check on any other references to the dream, and it always appears that the body is 'lying on rocks' or 'on' a hillside, never 'buried' anywhere.
And yet GM specifically denies something that hasn't actually been said - ie: that Kate had a dream that Maddie was 'buried somewhere'.
If for instance GM denied she had a dream about 'where Maddie's body might be found' that would make more sense in terms of directly refuting what she said.

If you then take it that he could be playing with words deliberately, then it also make you wonder about the final part of the sentence -

"...and I don't know if something's been lost in interpretation, but that didn't happen – not with those words, that's for sure."

What is he referring to that didn't happen? Kate having a dream that Maddie has been buried somewhere? (because he just told us that already) - or that Maddie hadn't been buried somewhere? (...at that point in time?)

I know it's not one of those quotes that directly relates to a central piece of the disappearance, but it just still intrigued me as it's just 'odd' (as their quotes so often are!)

by BerylJ 11.08.13 17:54

gbwales wrote:This thread is fascinating: so many extraordinary things said.

Here's possibly another one for Forensic Linguistics, which I noticed for the first time as 'odd' when I read it earlier over in the "VIDEO - Was Gerry ANGRY with Kate as her DREAM led to them becoming SUSPECTS?" thread - it's two statements really:

"According to the court testimony of the McCanns' liaison officer, Ricardo Paiva, the suspicions of Amaral and his team were hardened by what was seen as a turning point in the police investigation.
It came when a weeping Kate phoned Paiva, in late July 2007, to report a disturbing dream in which she had seen Madeleine lying on rocks overlooking a beach at Praia da Luz. The detectives took this to be a clear signal that the McCanns knew full well that their daughter was dead. "
and

"He (GM) then went on to contradict Dr Paiva's evidence that Kate had seen Madeleine on a hillside in a dream. He said: "I'd like to make it absolutely clear that Kate has never had a dream that Maddie has been buried somewhere, and I don't know if something's been lost in interpretation, but that didn't happen – not with those words, that's for sure."
I've tried to check on any other references to the dream, and it always appears that the body is 'lying on rocks' or 'on' a hillside, never 'buried' anywhere.
And yet GM specifically denies something that hasn't actually been said - ie: that Kate had a dream that Maddie was 'buried somewhere'.
If for instance GM denied she had a dream about 'where Maddie's body might be found' that would make more sense in terms of directly refuting what she said.

If you then take it that he could be playing with words deliberately, then it also make you wonder about the final part of the sentence -

"...and I don't know if something's been lost in interpretation, but that didn't happen – not with those words, that's for sure."
What is he referring to that didn't happen? Kate having a dream that Maddie has been buried somewhere? (because he just told us that already) - or that Maddie hadn't been buried somewhere? (...at that point in time?)

I know it's not one of those quotes that directly relates to a central piece of the disappearance, but it just still intrigued me as it's just 'odd' (as their quotes so often are!)

Kate also mentioned a cold grey stone slab in this link [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Snip ‘I was crying out that I could see Madeleine lying, cold and mottled on a big grey stone slab.

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So yet again, not buried.

by **tigger** 11.08.13 19:45

That description has a rather film -ike image. cold and mottled, so not even a recently dead corpse.

The stone slab - all very Frankenstein.

But go a fe pages back to the quote from Joanna Morais about trying ver hard not to say that Maddie was entitled to a proper burial. Changing the last word to 'search'.

by **tigger** 21.10.13 7:37

From Dr. Roberts'. ' Lies, damned lies and statistics' 2011
Mccannfiles.com

Clarence Mitchell: "...To this day there is a very small but highly vocal minority online; the joys of the Internet. The Internet is a wonderful thing but it has its downside, as we all know. There is a very vocal but very small minority of people who believe Kate and Gerry were negligent and to this day they rail and rant against them. They are powerless, they know nothing and it... it's totally irrelevant. But we keep a... a weather eye on what they're saying and if action needs to be taken, in certain cases, then it is."

Unquote

So what exactly don't we know, mr.Mitchell? If it's irrelevant and if we are powerless why worry?

I find the phrasing here curious, we don't know something - that's good.
All the same we have to be monitored. Why? In case we find out 'something?'

A lot of trouble to go to for 'a very small minority'.

Clarrie would be a natural for a remake of Faulty Towers. big grin

by Smokeandmirrors 21.10.13 7:47

I thought the same as you Tigger. And if we all know nothing, what is it that Clarence knows that he's not sharing? His phrasing here reminds me of his "there'll be an innocent explanation" for whatever the police may or may not find. How does he know this? It implies something could be found, that there is something to find, but that he would explain it away and that would be that, no more questions asked.

For someone who has made a living out of being a spokesperson, he has a very poor way of expressing a point. Bottom of the class.

by Guest 06.11.13 21:52

Hmm food for thought here from statement analysis..... Off to have a trawl through some interview transcripts....

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

Step 1 Listen to the guilty
Step 2 Go where they tell you to go

"Ugly fields" Billie Jean Dunn

"floating" Justin DiPietro

"woods" Cindy Anthony

to be continued...

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

by Guest 06.11.13 21:57

Peter Hyatt of Statement Analysis did some on the McCann case, only based on very rudimentary early statements. He concluded: guilty knowledge ...

by SittingOnTheFence 07.11.13 1:51

With her comments about her dreams, is this a guilt thing and is Kate trying to hint / lead people to where Madeleine is - it's now 'safe' to find her and bury her properly? The "cold grey slab" comments makes me think about the church and graveyard, or that's she's in a rock crevice somewhere. Am I being too simplistic, watching too many crime movies!

by **Hobs** 07.11.13 2:19

"He (GM) then went on to contradict Dr Paiva's evidence that Kate had seen Madeleine on a hillside in a dream. He said: "I'd like to make it absolutely clear that Kate has never had a dream that Maddie has been buried somewhere, and I don't know if something's been lost in interpretation, but that didn't happen – not with those words, that's for sure.

These is close, those is distancing, for there to be a those, there has to be a these.
This is close, that is distancing, for there to be a that, there has to be a this

It is important to gerry that he tells us that did didn't happen not with those words.

Anything in the negative is sensitive.

That didn't happen, not with those words, means there was a this did happen with these words

If it wasn't with those words gerry, what words was it with?.

Qualifiers are words that when removed do not change the meaning of the sentence.
Qualifiers weaken a statement rather than strengthen it.

He doesn't want to make it clear, he wants to make it absolutely clear, which is weak.
Never does not mean did not.
Never is only applicable if you have been asked have you ever...?
He cannot say kate did not have a dream about Madeleine being buried somewhere and he cant say it, I can't say it for him.
Notice he doesn't specify where Maddie was buried as per the cream, only that Maddie was buried somewhere, deception by ommision making it sensitive.
I would be looking at where they went and when, the hillside is sensitive given they would run to the top of the hill went they went jogging.
It is well known that killers often return to the scene of crime or the dump site to either check if the remains have been disturbed in some way, to relive the crime or to gloat.
How better to check on the remains than by jogging past them every day in plain sight, the same as some killers hang around a crime scene once discovered.

What would the something be that is lost in translation?
Kate and gerry both speak english, what is there to be lost in translation?

How does he know what kate dreamed?
It is interesting to note he uses Maddie rather than Madeleine given they have been telling the world from the get go it was Madeleine and not Maddie.
When there is a change in language there is a change in reality, is the change warranted?
Maddie buried, Madeleine alive?