Re: Forensic linguistics -

by Research_Reader 13.02.14 13:05

mysterion wrote:I don`t take LK seriously. She never interviews guests, she "strokes" them. She very rarely critices anything in the fashion parade. I think she just follows the edicts of the entertainment show producer. IMO of course.

I don't usually like him, but I'd love to see Jeremy Paxman in full Rottweiler mode let loose on the McCanns.

by Tangled Web 13.02.14 13:24

Research_Reader wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Research_Reader, there's an instance here at 2.40 when they thought they were off camera.

Interesting, thanks. Whats interesting to me is not so much the fact that they were then apparently smiling and joking as soon as the cameras stopped (so they thought) but that the editor of that news piece decided to show it. hmm

I thought exactly the same thing RR! They dealt a sneaky blow at the end there laughat

by Guest 13.02.14 13:30

Research_Reader wrote:
mysterion wrote:I don`t take LK seriously. She never interviews guests, she "strokes" them. She very rarely critices anything in the fashion parade. I think she just follows the edicts of the entertainment show producer. IMO of course.

I don't usually like him, but I'd love to see Jeremy Paxman in full Rottweiler mode let loose on the McCanns.

Jeremy Paxman? Maybe so, I think I might have plumped for Mrs Merton... laughat

Straight to the point. No messing.

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

by ultimaThule 13.02.14 13:38

Sadly, Jeremy was muzzled but I have no doubt that in normal circumstances he'd be able to reduce the wee one to a blubbering wreck in 5 minutes flat. As it is, his distaste for his subject is palpable:

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

by Research_Reader 13.02.14 13:41

GM positively beams with delight when Paxman mentioned the media attention they got.

by Guest 13.02.14 13:44

Jeremy's face at 0.58 is a scream! Looks like he's eaten something disagreeable.

by Guest 13.02.14 13:48

Research_Reader wrote:GM positively beams with delight when Paxman mentioned the media attention they got.

Paxman mentioned his effort to bring in the media. And Gerry's beaming something that doesn't look like delight to me.

by diatribe 13.02.14 13:48

I don't know about Jeremy Paxman, but I think the late Robin Day would have treated Gerald McCann with much the same disdain as one would accord a turd floating down the Thames.

by ultimaThule 13.02.14 14:42

MILLIE wrote:Jeremy's face at 0.58 is a scream! Looks like he's eaten something disagreeable.

At 1.08 when the wee one is stumbling over assuming 'you're taking a devil's advocate postion' Jeremy is off camera, but if we could see his face I suspect it would be saying 'no, you arrogant t**t... far from playing devil's advocate, I simply don't believe a word that comes out of your lying mouth'.

More proof, as if any is needed, that the wee one seriously believes he possesses a towering intellect that can spar with the likes of Paxman and emerge victorious. It's not surprising his grandiose plans to strut the world stage as a man of gravitas have come to nowt.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 13.02.14 15:51

I don't believe that anyone with intelligence and the ability to form their own opinions would believe the McCanns.

Which rules out Lorraine Kelly.

by **tigger** 28.04.14 13:03

Came across this from one of the early interviews - it's from Statement Analysis November 2012 .
Snipped as it's pretty long. (I have the whole article if you want it Hobs - there was a problem with the site?)
It is the McCann's first interview 25/5/07

JH: And then on that Thursday night, Kate, when you
realised that she wasn't in her bed where you'd left her.
Did you think even momentarily perhaps that she'd
just woken up, wandered off of her own accord, perhaps?

The question is directed specifically at Kate.

KM: Not at all, no.

"No" is sufficient, and the additional words indicates sensitivity.

GM: No, I mean, that, I think, was absolutely certain
but, you know, before you raised the alarm, we double
and triple checked but we certainly had no doubt in our mind that she'd been taken.

This is a very weak answer. One cannot "think" and be "certain" at the same time. By saying
"I think" he allows for someone else to "think" otherwise. To him, it is not only "certain" but
"absolutely" certain.
Follow the pronouns: He begins with, "no" but goes beyond this answer with, "I mean"
and "I think", which, both broken, at least begin with the pronoun, "I"
in the answer, but then he uses "you know" indicating sensitivity, and then
the distancing language of "you" raised the alarm, only to then switch to the pronoun,
"we."

He began with "I", moved to "you" and then on to "we"
Please note that if he is speaking for himself and his wife, he should, in the least, start
with the pronoun "we" and remain in it, yet even if he turned to "I" (showing a
very strong, personal connection) he could return to "we." In this case, the pronouns
are very concerning. Please note that "we" is often used when sharing guilt. To begin with "I"
but to move to "you" and finally "we" gives the appearance of shared guilt.

Note that words like "absolutely" makes "certain" sensitive. Between the pronoun change and the addition of "think" and "absolutely", the answer is very weak.

In Statement Analysis, additional words give us information. Additional words are those that can be removed from a sentence with the sentence still working. Here, we have "absolutely" added to certain, showing sensitivity. We do not have, at this point, the reason why it is sensitive; as it could be they are attempting to persuade the interviewer that they were certain she was kidnapped and had not wandered off.

Most parents, upon finding an empty bed, might assume their child wandered off. It is important to GM that this not be a possibility.

JH: And... and... and was there then frantic activity that night? I mean, I've spoken to even local people who've told me they became aware of what had happened pretty quickly and they were looking around, as well.

This is a very poorly worded question and introduced "frantic activity" to the
language. Good questions use the subject's own words and avoid introducing
new language to them.

GM: From the minute we discovered she was gone, if you actually look at the actions, our own actions and those of the group are actually, response and the speed of the response from all of us in the group and the Mark Warner representatives was excellent, the alarm and the call to the police went out within 10 minutes and the Mark Warner resort manager, John Hill, had, ... missing child, protocol in place within, you know, half an hour and all of the staff, were contacted... returned to the resort here and the, you know, the local search started, errr... so, you know, in terms of that it was done very, very quickly.

We come upon a highly sensitive statement.
Note when the habit "you know" arises, as it shows an increased awareness
of the presence of the Interviewer, or of the question.

Because I do not know what took place, regarding media criticism or challenges, I cannot say if this sensitivity is in response to what has already been said. "Actually" is used when comparing two or more thoughts. We don't know what is being compared but repetition is noted as sensitive and we have some words being repeated.

"very very" quickly is weak. It suggests guilt or guilty feelings at the response time.

This weakness may be in response to prior criticism, or, that it is because the response was not quick.

There is a strong need to justify response. It may be due to guilt, or it may be due
to criticism they have heard, but it is present.

Unquote (bolded remarks are comments)

by Tangled Web 28.04.14 13:54

Asking the McCann's if they thought Madeleine had woken and wandered is a perfectly reasonable and logical question to ask under the circumstances. IMO they can only be certain that she didn't wake and wander if they KNOW what happened to her. They could not say with such certainty that she didn't wake and wander if they KNOW that she didn't. Or, she did wake and wander and that's how she met her demise and they're trying to stop people pursuing this line of enquiry. There is a reason they insist that she didn't but I'm not sure what it is.

by Wahrheit 04.05.14 22:23

I've just come across this item on Peter Hyatt's blog. I think he's firmly come down off the fence.

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

by HelenMeg 04.05.14 22:54

Wahrheit wrote:I've just come across this item on Peter Hyatt's blog. I think he's firmly come down off the fence.

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

Really interesting reading that analysis

by Okeydokey 06.05.14 1:24

Tangled Web wrote:Asking the McCann's if they thought Madeleine had woken and wandered is a perfectly reasonable and logical question to ask under the circumstances. IMO they can only be certain that she didn't wake and wander if they KNOW what happened to her. They could not say with such certainty that she didn't wake and wander if they KNOW that she didn't. Or, she did wake and wander and that's how she met her demise and they're trying to stop people pursuing this line of enquiry. There is a reason they insist that she didn't but I'm not sure what it is.

Yes - their response is not convincing on two points:

A. We know they had the "star chart" at home trying to stop Madeleine from seeking them out within the home when she woke in the night. She therefore had at the time a propensity to wake and seek them out.

B. Madeline had on their own admission a good 20-30 mins to travel away from the apartment. An infant could easily travel a mile in that time period. So, if they only searched for 10 minutes it seems extremely unlikely they could have covered a square mile, searching all possible hiding places, given most of the searching would have been within the apartment and immediate environs.

So the question is: why do the McCanns want us to believe there was no possibility of her wandering off? The most likely answer is because they have had to focus on selling us a single narrative.

by Okeydokey 06.05.14 1:59

HelenMeg wrote:
Wahrheit wrote:I've just come across this item on Peter Hyatt's blog. I think he's firmly come down off the fence.

l[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Really interesting reading that analysis

Wow - yes v. interesting especially that is only appearing now.

I think a lot of the verbal "slips" in their TV interviews repay close attention. They often occur on crucial words.

by **Hobs** 06.05.14 7:30

Okeydokey wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
Wahrheit wrote:I've just come across this item on Peter Hyatt's blog. I think he's firmly come down off the fence.

l[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Really interesting reading that analysis

Wow - yes v. interesting especially that is only appearing now.

I think a lot of the verbal "slips" in their TV interviews repay close attention. They often occur on crucial words.

The mccanns statements/interviews have been covered by Peter and myself on other occasions, type mccann in the search facility

by Cristobell 06.05.14 10:26

Okeydokey wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:Asking the McCann's if they thought Madeleine had woken and wandered is a perfectly reasonable and logical question to ask under the circumstances. IMO they can only be certain that she didn't wake and wander if they KNOW what happened to her. They could not say with such certainty that she didn't wake and wander if they KNOW that she didn't. Or, she did wake and wander and that's how she met her demise and they're trying to stop people pursuing this line of enquiry. There is a reason they insist that she didn't but I'm not sure what it is.

Yes - their response is not convincing on two points:

A. We know they had the "star chart" at home trying to stop Madeleine from seeking them out within the home when she woke in the night. She therefore had at the time a propensity to wake and seek them out.

B. Madeline had on their own admission a good 20-30 mins to travel away from the apartment. An infant could easily travel a mile in that time period. So, if they only searched for 10 minutes it seems extremely unlikely they could have covered a square mile, searching all possible hiding places, given most of the searching would have been within the apartment and immediate environs.

So the question is: why do the McCanns want us to believe there was no possibility of her wandering off? The most likely answer is because they have had to focus on selling us a single narrative.

In retrospect and in view of the digs planned for the area in and around Mark Warner's resort, it would seem the McCanns and their friends were very keen to get the search focused outside the immediate area and towards the borders etc. Bizarre, given that Jane Tanner saw the 'abductor' walking away from the apartment, but understandable if the body was close by.

by Okeydokey 07.05.14 1:21

Hobs wrote:
The mccanns statements/interviews have been covered by Peter and myself on other occasions, type mccann in the search facility

Sorry Hobs, I wasn't suggesting no-one else had been through them on this site, I just meant that it was interesting this particular analyst felt this was now the right time to blow the whistle. The reason I say that is because it's pretty clear that analysis dates back a long while I would say!

by Okeydokey 07.05.14 1:24

Cristobell wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:Asking the McCann's if they thought Madeleine had woken and wandered is a perfectly reasonable and logical question to ask under the circumstances. IMO they can only be certain that she didn't wake and wander if they KNOW what happened to her. They could not say with such certainty that she didn't wake and wander if they KNOW that she didn't. Or, she did wake and wander and that's how she met her demise and they're trying to stop people pursuing this line of enquiry. There is a reason they insist that she didn't but I'm not sure what it is.

Yes - their response is not convincing on two points:

A. We know they had the "star chart" at home trying to stop Madeleine from seeking them out within the home when she woke in the night. She therefore had at the time a propensity to wake and seek them out.

B. Madeline had on their own admission a good 20-30 mins to travel away from the apartment. An infant could easily travel a mile in that time period. So, if they only searched for 10 minutes it seems extremely unlikely they could have covered a square mile, searching all possible hiding places, given most of the searching would have been within the apartment and immediate environs.

So the question is: why do the McCanns want us to believe there was no possibility of her wandering off? The most likely answer is because they have had to focus on selling us a single narrative.
In retrospect and in view of the digs planned for the area in and around Mark Warner's resort, it would seem the McCanns and their friends were very keen to get the search focused outside the immediate area and towards the borders etc. Bizarre, given that Jane Tanner saw the 'abductor' walking away from the apartment, but understandable if the body was close by.

Yes. That has indeed always struck me as more than a little odd. Whilst the thought of borders might have come up, I think a parent would be more focussed on the idea that the child was still in the immediate vicinity, in a house, in a van, lying injured somewhere. The McCanns' immediate and insistent focus on closing borders etc seems rather odd.

by **tigger** 07.05.14 5:34

Okeydokey wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:Asking the McCann's if they thought Madeleine had woken and wandered is a perfectly reasonable and logical question to ask under the circumstances. IMO they can only be certain that she didn't wake and wander if they KNOW what happened to her. They could not say with such certainty that she didn't wake and wander if they KNOW that she didn't. Or, she did wake and wander and that's how she met her demise and they're trying to stop people pursuing this line of enquiry. There is a reason they insist that she didn't but I'm not sure what it is.

Yes - their response is not convincing on two points:

A. We know they had the "star chart" at home trying to stop Madeleine from seeking them out within the home when she woke in the night. She therefore had at the time a propensity to wake and seek them out.

B. Madeline had on their own admission a good 20-30 mins to travel away from the apartment. An infant could easily travel a mile in that time period. So, if they only searched for 10 minutes it seems extremely unlikely they could have covered a square mile, searching all possible hiding places, given most of the searching would have been within the apartment and immediate environs.

So the question is: why do the McCanns want us to believe there was no possibility of her wandering off? The most likely answer is because they have had to focus on selling us a single narrative.
In retrospect and in view of the digs planned for the area in and around Mark Warner's resort, it would seem the McCanns and their friends were very keen to get the search focused outside the immediate area and towards the borders etc. Bizarre, given that Jane Tanner saw the 'abductor' walking away from the apartment, but understandable if the body was close by.

Yes. That has indeed always struck me as more than a little odd. Whilst the thought of borders might have come up, I think a parent would be more focussed on the idea that the child was still in the immediate vicinity, in a house, in a van, lying injured somewhere. The McCanns' immediate and insistent focus on closing borders etc seems rather odd.

I'm copying this to the recent search topic - it will get lost otherwise and it isn't on topic here anymore.

by j.rob 08.05.14 12:20

On one of the threads (which I can't now find so posting here) there is a clip of a TV interview Kate McCann did with Philip Schofield and his co-host (would this have been for ITV This Morning?)

While others have pointed out many telling facial gestures (for instance Kate's grimace when Schofield brings up the subject of Stephen Birch's proposed digging) there is an absolute classic towards the very end of the clip.

While for most of the interview Kate does her usual monotone 'out of it' kind of drawl, with her eyes sort of glazed over.

But observe towards the end of the clip - she has, by this time (if not from before) clocked, in my opinion, that Schofield is a 'non believer'. Her eyes very rapidly dart from Schofield to the co-presenter. The darting eyes are a 'deer in the headlights' look - they are saying: 'he doesn't believe me - what about her - does she also not believe me?'

Gerry tends to turn his head very quickly away from the camera/observer when in a 'hot spot' - so his facial features cannot be seen.

These gestures can be observed in many of the media interviews and, in particular in the McCann home videos (watch Gerry playing with Madeleine and an older girl cousin - the back of Gerry's head is shown with Madeleine in front of him closely following his facial expression - and sometimes confused/disturbed - which are concealed) and in the 'Madeleine was Here' series.

Even with the footage slowed right down, the Kate's darting eyes move incredibly quickly. Completely out of kilter with the rest of the movements.

Ditto Gerry's head movements - for instance of Gerry and Matt in the 'Madeleine was Here' series where Matt carries out a 'reconstruction' of his 'final check' on Thursday evening with Gerry looking on.

In my opinion, these very rapid gestures and movements give the game away. The mask slips momentarily to reveal, as Amaral might say, 'the truth of the lie.'

by Guest 11.05.14 21:44

Good to see some statement analysis of payne's erm.. You know..erm.. Interview and the bag for hiding tennis raquets....

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

Sunday, May 11, 2014

McCann Case: David Payne Statement Analyzed

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

[size][color][font]

Was Madeline McCann moved in a bag? David Payne was asked about this.

Taken from David Paynes rogatory statement, answering a question about the 'bag'. He insists Gerry didn't have one.

1485 "What about a kit bag' Would they have a kit bag with them?"

Reply "Err he certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a

squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn't have anything that I

would call a kit bag from days when I played''

In the SCAN technique of Statement Analysis, as taught by Avinoam Sapir ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) we recognize that each individual has a personal, subjective, internal dictionary and it is the work of SCAN to "decode" this.

For example, in teaching interviewing, I ask people to write down what comes to mind when I say the word "boy" aloud.

This word would appear to be quite simple, and not in need of definition nor clarity. Not so.

Here are some of the responses to the word "boy":

1. Newborn at the hospital
2. 21 year old adult in the military
3. 8 year old in Little League
4. 25 year old who has "failed to launch"

Note the distance between in the ages alone! This is why SCAN does not "interpret" one's words, but seeks to enter into the subject's own personal dictionary. Exempt from this principle are:

Pronouns
Articles
Objective Time on a Clock

Pronouns are instinctive and highly reliable for guidance. When one says "we", we know that the one was not alone, for example.

Articles are also instinctive and are reliable: "I met a man and he drew the gun on me..." Uh oh.

Therefore, a follow up question (or two) is necessary to allow the subject to interpret for himself. This is critical in the topic of human sexuality, as President Clinton has well exampled.

"I was making love to her" spoken in 1945 means something entirely different than the exact same words spoken today.

We now need to know what a "kit bag" is, especially since it comes from a different culture. The subject, himself, gives us some help:

Err he certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag or a, you know,

The word "certainly" indicates sensitivity about having a bag. "Certainly" indicates that he wants us to accept something without question. We do not.

Next, we note that he does not say that "he" did not have a bag, only that he did not have a "great big" tennis bag. Follow up questions:

What kind of bag did he have?
Did he have a tennis bag?
Was it a small bag?
Was it a big bag, but not a "great" big bag?

We use the subject's own words and get him to clarify for us.

For him, it is not just a bag, and it is not just a big bag, but a "great big bag"

The words, "you know" are a habit of speech, and like any habit, we note when it arises and when it does not. It shows an acuteawareness of the presne e of the Interviewer or the audience. I use it when I get a bit nervous before a crowd, for a variety of reasons, but especially when bringing forth a principle that I know will be initially resisted. The Reliable Denial, when in the presence of law enforcement students, is one such point. Jaded from street interviews, it is difficult to get them to accept this phenomena because it appears too simple. I understand. I trusted Mr. Sapir's judgement because I was so impressed with his work, that I presupposed it to be true. Thousands of interviews (not hundreds) has only confirmed his genius for me, and the high level of reliability of this principle.

err I mean I used to be a

squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn't have anything that I

would call a kit bag from days when I played''

As parents of kids over than 7 know, where there is a "that", there is a "this."

"I didn't do that, Mom!" means that the child did something. Just not "that", and a follow up question will show what it is the little boy did!

"The teacher said you ran after Sally Sue and pulled her hair!" "I didn't do that, Mom!" is true enough: he didn't run after her when he pulled her hair: she was standing right next to him.

The repetition of being a "squash player" is sensitive, as he uses it as a way to persuade that he would know what "that" bag looks like. I believe that they did not have a squash bag which would be "that", but this indicates that they did have a bag ("this") which is, as a "semi professional" can attest to!

Note that "certainly" is repeated, further weakening his assertion. He is deceptive. He is truthful that they likely did not have the same bag he had when he played semi professional squash, but his purpose of persuading us reveals his own weakness. The bag may have been very close to a squash bag ("when I played" is even further weakening) and likely some squash players today use it (just not when he played!).

This is a bit of "linguistic gymnastic" stretching of words, which belie the need to stretch. Simple truth would have looked like this:

"They didn't have a bag."

If he is not able nor willing to say this, we won't say it for him. Next comes the admission that there was a bag, but before we leave the statement, did you "follow the pronouns" in your analysis?

He went from "he" to "they."

Oops.

1485 "Yeah.'

Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you

know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn't a big tennis, you

know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.'

1485 "Yeah.'

Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that,

it would have been just purely, if they had anything''

The subject is cutely aware that the inference is not putting a tennis racquet in the bag, but a small child. His repetition of "tennis racquet" (as seen in repetition) allows us to know that he is not plainly speaking of what he knows.

Peter Hyatt as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

7 comments:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]john said...
Thanks Peter.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]May 11, 2014 at 8:22 AM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Anonymous said...
Why does he mention "put water in"???
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]May 11, 2014 at 8:47 AM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]john said...
Anonymous said...
Why does he mention "put water in"???

Hi Anon,

Good pick up with the water referance.

Lights
Doors Opening/Closing, windows opening/closing
Coverings; blankets, towels, etc
Water; washing, bathing, showering, laundry, etc

as possible linguistic indications of sexual activity including sexual abuse.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]May 11, 2014 at 9:10 AM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
ellie said...
Typo...Should be "suspect is acutely aware".
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]May 11, 2014 at 10:10 AM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Hobnob said...
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that,

Oh dear open mouth insert foot.

Here we see the guilty knowledge creeping in, with the word HIDE

Who goes around hiding tennis racquets in bags, who would even have the thought of hiding a tennis racquet in a bag?

Hide is sensitive in relation to the tennis bag or any bag.

There was a big blue bag as the PJ photos show it in situ in the wardrobem which just so happenes to be where Eddie the cadaver dog alerted to and which mysteriously vanished along with the pink Blanket.

I would show the mccanns and chums the photo of the bag in situ and ask where is it, what happened to it, who moved it? why was it moved, why can't it be presented now?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]May 11, 2014 at 10:30 AM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Hobnob said...
Extract from David Payne's rogatory statement to Leicestershire Police on 10 April 2008

"Mmm..., errr... Madeleine's, errr... a very striking, errr... beautiful child, I'd almost - if I want a better phrase - call her doll-like, you know. She was very, you know, I think, you know, very unique looking child, errr... she'd got very pretty, you know, blonde hair, errr... in a bob, she was quite a petite, errr... child and, you know, she was very bubbly, very, errr... you know, she was a very good child to, to interact with. She was very bright, you could have a lot of fun with Madeleine, errr... and, you know, she, she was, you know, Kate and Gerry's, you know, pride and joy. They'd had a lot of trouble conceiving, you know, with IVF and everything and, you know, Madeleine was their miracle. She was obviously very unique with the fact that she'd got the, you know, the iris defect, errr... but, you know, she was certainly a happy go lucky child, you know, she was, she would interact with the other children very well, as I said on the other, earlier recording, you know, she played very happily with Lily and, you know, indeed the other children. She was, you know, very... she is a very beautiful child and good fun."

(...)

"You know, I, you know, a fact I've come across already you know, she was a... she's a very bright child, you know, she wouldn't be the kind of mischievous child who, you know, and just try and get out of the flat and, you know, get up to mischief and that, you know, there's fun in all children but she certainly wasn't that kind of child. She was very bright."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]May 11, 2014 at 10:32 AM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
charlotte from denmark said...
"I was making love to her"

How is this different in 1945 and today?

Is this something an english spoken person will know? I ask, because I am not, and to me they seem the same.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Links to this post
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/font][/color][/size]

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

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

by Guest 11.05.14 21:56

@Stewie.

Brilliant. Not come across that one before.

Cheers for posting it.

by Guest 11.05.14 22:26

Andrew77R wrote:@Stewie.

Brilliant. Not come across that one before.

Cheers for posting it.

No worries. There's another one from a few days ago analysing an interview with the mccanns.... Too long to post here but interesting reading... Not surprisingly deception is indicated by both of them...

by Guest 11.05.14 22:32

Stewie wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:@Stewie.

Brilliant. Not come across that one before.

Cheers for posting it.

No worries. There's another one from a few days ago analysing an interview with the mccanns.... Too long to post here but interesting reading... Not surprisingly deception is indicated by both of them...

Have you got a link for that one please....

by Miraflores 12.05.14 9:02

I would caution here that a statement analysis by an American would not necessary yield the same results as that analysed by someone who was used to British English - which in GM's case would need to include Glaswegian idioms and expressions. E.g. Americans almost invariably talk about going 'to the hospital' when most UK speakers would say they went to hospital, and only use 'the' when they are talking about a specific hospital. Or a Scottish example: the Scots talk about where they stay, the English about where they live.

by Guest 12.05.14 20:06

Andrew77R wrote:
Stewie wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:@Stewie.

Brilliant. Not come across that one before.

Cheers for posting it.

No worries. There's another one from a few days ago analysing an interview with the mccanns.... Too long to post here but interesting reading... Not surprisingly deception is indicated by both of them...
Have you got a link for that one please....

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

by j.rob 12.05.14 21:02

These statement analyses were what turned me from a McCann believer (or at least fence-sitter) to a disbeliever. Plus reading about Tony Bennett as it appeared to me he had more to lose than gain from giving his opinions on the case. So that piqued my interest.

While I had read both these statement analyses before, I had not read the comments on the second one.

Two things jump out at me, from the comments. One relates to Kate's medical career. Based on what I have seen, observed and read with regard to KM I have always been astonished that she managed to qualify as a doctor. She is just so self-absorbed and comes across as being so shallow and emotionally immature, in my opinion. It astounded me that she would ever have been able to take any interest in a patient, let alone make a rational diagnosis.

The other thing is the fantastically acute observations about the McCann and Tapas children bathing routine. The Gaspers told the police about the holiday bathing arrangements for the children in which the fathers would take it in turns to bathe the children each night. Kate, in her book, makes the apparently nonsensical comment that, when Madeleine and her brother had cried, and Kate and Gerry didn't come to her, Madeleine might have meant when she and the twins were having their bath (page 62, Madeleine). This appeared not to make sense to the average person (parent?) as normally it would be one of the parents bathing the children, or, possibly a nanny. Yes, if a (female) child goes on a sleep-over to a friend then they will bathe with the friend. But you would not expect the father to be supervising this - I would have found this very peculiar with my own children.

However, in the context of what the Gaspers revealed about bathing arrangements for children on McCann and friends family holidays, Kate's comment makes a lot more sense. It suggests they were not there when their children were being bathed.

1. OldPsychNurse said...

Kate was expelled from an OB-GYN residency and also from an anesthesiology residency. She has spun this information as if it was her personal choice to leave these residencies, but she was expelled from both for having an incomplete knowledge base. (She didn't retain or learn necessary information from her medical school program.) She's the most dangerous type of physician: incompetent, deceitful, and prideful. Madeline died r/t injuries consistent with her mom's personal characteristics. She was incompetently medicated, so her pride-filled, deceitful mom could attend a dinner party.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

2. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Hobnob said...
Gerry McCann: We thought that was the best thing erm, and it seemed to work absolutely fine and we didn’t have any problems right until the Thursday morning when Madeleine said “why didn’t you come when we cried last night?” We thought that’s odd

I got banned from many forums for pointing out the obvious to this statement.
Kate said in another interview was it when they were being bathed or put to bed?

I asked the following:

If the children, Maddie and Sean cried when they were being bathed... Who was bathing them?
If it had been kate or gerry then the question would never have arisen since the parents would have been there when they cried.

If kate and/or gerry had been in the apartment they would have heard the children crying and, i assume like normal parents (stop snickering at the back) would have gone to check why they were crying and to comfort and reassure them.

If kate and gerry had not been in the same apartment 5A as the children, where were they?, what were they doing? and why were they letting someone else bathe their children? they would not have heard the crying and the question would apply.

If kate and gerry were as they claimed in their apartment 5a and they didn't hear the children crying, where then were the children? In whose apartment were they and who was bathing them? Kate and gerry would not have heard them crying.
If they had been next door then it is likely they would have the crying and again gone to check like you and i would.

This implies the children were in a more distant apartment, whose else was in the apartment adult wise and also child wise?

by Hicks 12.05.14 22:30

j.rob wrote:These statement analyses were what turned me from a McCann believer (or at least fence-sitter) to a disbeliever. Plus reading about Tony Bennett as it appeared to me he had more to lose than gain from giving his opinions on the case. So that piqued my interest.

While I had read both these statement analyses before, I had not read the comments on the second one.

Two things jump out at me, from the comments. One relates to Kate's medical career. Based on what I have seen, observed and read with regard to KM I have always been astonished that she managed to qualify as a doctor. She is just so self-absorbed and comes across as being so shallow and emotionally immature, in my opinion. It astounded me that she would ever have been able to take any interest in a patient, let alone make a rational diagnosis.

The other thing is the fantastically acute observations about the McCann and Tapas children bathing routine. The Gaspers told the police about the holiday bathing arrangements for the children in which the fathers would take it in turns to bathe the children each night. Kate, in her book, makes the apparently nonsensical comment that, when Madeleine and her brother had cried, and Kate and Gerry didn't come to her, Madeleine might have meant when she and the twins were having their bath (page 62, Madeleine). This appeared not to make sense to the average person (parent?) as normally it would be one of the parents bathing the children, or, possibly a nanny. Yes, if a (female) child goes on a sleep-over to a friend then they will bathe with the friend. But you would not expect the father to be supervising this - I would have found this very peculiar with my own children.

However, in the context of what the Gaspers revealed about bathing arrangements for children on McCann and friends family holidays, Kate's comment makes a lot more sense. It suggests they were not there when their children were being bathed.

1. OldPsychNurse said...

Kate was expelled from an OB-GYN residency and also from an anesthesiology residency. She has spun this information as if it was her personal choice to leave these residencies, but she was expelled from both for having an incomplete knowledge base. (She didn't retain or learn necessary information from her medical school program.) She's the most dangerous type of physician: incompetent, deceitful, and prideful. Madeline died r/t injuries consistent with her mom's personal characteristics. She was incompetently medicated, so her pride-filled, deceitful mom could attend a dinner party.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

2. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Hobnob said...
Gerry McCann: We thought that was the best thing erm, and it seemed to work absolutely fine and we didn’t have any problems right until the Thursday morning when Madeleine said “why didn’t you come when we cried last night?” We thought that’s odd

I got banned from many forums for pointing out the obvious to this statement.
Kate said in another interview was it when they were being bathed or put to bed?

I asked the following:

If the children, Maddie and Sean cried when they were being bathed... Who was bathing them?
If it had been kate or gerry then the question would never have arisen since the parents would have been there when they cried.

If kate and/or gerry had been in the apartment they would have heard the children crying and, i assume like normal parents (stop snickering at the back) would have gone to check why they were crying and to comfort and reassure them.

If kate and gerry had not been in the same apartment 5A as the children, where were they?, what were they doing? and why were they letting someone else bathe their children? they would not have heard the crying and the question would apply.

If kate and gerry were as they claimed in their apartment 5a and they didn't hear the children crying, where then were the children? In whose apartment were they and who was bathing them? Kate and gerry would not have heard them crying.
If they had been next door then it is likely they would have the crying and again gone to check like you and i would.

This implies the children were in a more distant apartment, whose else was in the apartment adult wise and also child wise?

This is interesting. Charlotte Pennington says that she was in 5a within minutes of the alarm being raised. According to her statement the twins were NOT in the children's bedroom, yet later they appear in cots with no sheets. It would seem they were hastily brought back to the McCann's apartment.

Latest topics