Forensic linguistics -

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.'

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

[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]

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

@Stewie.

Brilliant. Not come across that one before.

Cheers for posting it.

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...

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....

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.

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.]

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?

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.

Miraflores wrote: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.

Hi Miraflores.

Statement analysis in any language yields the same results.
The only time we have to be careful is when it is translated from the original language into a second language ie. portuguese into english since we are in effect analysing the interpretator and their translation rather than the original language.
Translations  are not a literal translation rather they are as close as can be expected based on the expertise of the translator.

Even in translations the principals remain the same, we look for pronouns which are instinctive in any language and the first thing we learn as a baby, i, me, mine etc.
We look for where they appear in a statement and where they don't, articles are also pretty much the same in any language so we look for where they are, where they aren't and if the use is appropriate ie,  i saw a car, The car was speeding. Here we see the article A is used in relation to the car as it is introduced by the subject, thereafter it becomes THE car as it has been introduced and we know what they are referring to. I saw a man, the man crossed the road. If more men arrive we see  introductions such as another man ( if not known to the subject or a name if known) and then if further men arrive we would often hear them introduced  by a description ( a blonde haired man, a short an) to enable us to differentiate between them,

We learn the subjects personal dictionary, how they speak, their baseline so to speak, their idioms  i seen instead of i saw for instance) Once we listen and learn what is their normal we look and listen for when it changes, when pronouns appear or disappear, if they change from i seen to i saw. Aything different to their usual is noted and further questions can be asked for clarification.

This is important  when we see pronouns  vanish ( they aren't taking ownership of their statement) when there are temporal lacuna ( gaps in time) when they change how they refer to something ( a change in language is a change in reality ie. i was in the lounge with my wife and daughter. My wife left to go shopping, the girl was drawing.  my wife came home from shopping and my daughter was crying. In this case he goes from daughter to girl back to daughter. She is daughter when his wife was home and girl when his wife was away.  Whilst his wife was away he sexually abused his daughter. Since this is such a heinous crime and lying is stressful, he raped a girl (distancing) rather than his daughter (close)

The more statements we get from a subject the better it is for us to come to a conclusion of truth or deception.
In some cases a single sentence can be enough to reveal the truth or the deception, more often though we can't come to a definite conclusion, we have an idea but not enough to say they are definitely being truthful or they are definitely lying, we ask for more statements to enable us to come to a conclusion.

Terri horman has said very little thanks to her lawyer, we see deception in what she has said, we can't though for definite say she was involved and did the crime, she could have guilty knowledge of who really did it.
The mccanns however have provided us with a wealth of statements, from the rogs to interviews to press conferences, to their mockumentary to kate's book ( her lawyer must have been spitting nails when they learned she had done a book since it pins her down to a specific story and timeline which can be compared with her rogs etc. Not a smart move)

I have never been convinced by the theory that all the children were in one apartment.  Who would volunteer to look after 6 small children, including babies with diarrhea?  Even new men would flinch at that task.  

As for the bathing? Who knows, it may be that if they were all socialising in one apartment, to save time they may have stuck all the kids in the bath together - which the kids would of course love.  If they were crying when they were being bathed they might have wanted mummy or daddy?

It may have been a freudian slip, imo, Kate is not a very hands on mother, and I suspect she and her macho husband were probably happy to hand the bathing over to whoever volunteered.  

The most likely explanation however, imo, is that given the half ass parenting skills and sheer ignorance of Kate and Gerry, they may well have left the tots on their own in the bath whilst they shared a glass of New Zealand vino oblivious to the cries of the kids coming from the bathroom.  Kate is possibly the only mother in history who is able to take a shower and leave 3 toddlers on their own reading books in an unfamiliar apartment - I couldn't even escape for a 'quick' trip to the bathroom when I only had one toddler to look after!

Could it be that when Payne paid his visit to Kate in her towel for 30 seconds/30 minutes he was going round to bathe the children? Just a question.

Dee Coy wrote:Could it be that when Payne paid his visit to Kate in her towel for 30 seconds/30 minutes he was going round to bathe the children? Just a question.

I don't believe he went there at all. According to Dianne Webster's first statement, he went back to their flat and bathed their children with DW. Fiona Payne was the one who was unaccounted for, according to her own mother.

Cristobell wrote:I have never been convinced by the theory that all the children were in one apartment.  Who would volunteer to look after 6 small children, including babies with diarrhea?  Even new men would flinch at that task.  

As for the bathing? Who knows, it may be that if they were all socialising in one apartment, to save time they may have stuck all the kids in the bath together - which the kids would of course love.  If they were crying when they were being bathed they might have wanted mummy or daddy?

It may have been a freudian slip, imo, Kate is not a very hands on mother, and I suspect she and her macho husband were probably happy to hand the bathing over to whoever volunteered.  

The most likely explanation however, imo, is that given the half ass parenting skills and sheer ignorance of Kate and Gerry, they may well have left the tots on their own in the bath whilst they shared a glass of New Zealand vino oblivious to the cries of the kids coming from the bathroom.  Kate is possibly the only mother in history who is able to take a shower and leave 3 toddlers on their own reading books in an unfamiliar apartment - I couldn't even escape for a 'quick' trip to the bathroom when I only had one toddler to look after!

I'm agnostic on this but I don't for one moment believe that these well heeled professionals didn't have mobile phones with them at all times.  So hypothetically it would be a case of you taking your turn to babysit and if a child got upset during the night you would call the parents. 

However, I agree with you entirely about the parenting skills on display. My recollection of looking after under 4s was you couldn't leave them unsupervised for a moment. The noise masking from a shower would mean you were leaving awake 3 and unders completely unsupervised for however long you shower (let's say 10 minutes). They could be rifling through your medicines, seeing how the kettles works, choking on their biscuit, discovering the bottle of bleach...anything.

     Please.

There are topics on the children being in one apartment. As from Hobs' last post this has nothing to do with forensic linguistics.

This one for instance:

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

I am afraid I am still not entirely convinced that an American could successfully analyse a Glaswegian or Liverpudlian's speech patterns. Both have idiomatic expressions which are not always understood by others in the UK, let alone elsewhere.

Miraflores wrote:I am afraid I am still not entirely convinced that an American could successfully analyse a Glaswegian or Liverpudlian's speech patterns. * Both have idiomatic expressions which are not always understood by others in the UK, let alone elsewhere.

* Nor yet their vocabulary, nor their mangling of Standard Grammar.

PeterMac wrote:

Miraflores wrote:I am afraid I am still not entirely convinced that an American could successfully analyse a Glaswegian or Liverpudlian's speech patterns. *  Both have idiomatic expressions which are not always understood by others in the UK, let alone elsewhere.

* Nor yet their vocabulary, nor their mangling of Standard Grammar.

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

For you PM:   

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

I don't remember seeing this interview before.


I find there answer to 'what the twins have been told' very interesting. Gerry says 'the twins believe...' about 2.30 onwards, with lots of suppressed face touching from Gerry.

Hobs, are you out there please?