Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Gerry McCann: Did You Kill Your Daughter



"Yes or no" Questions are generally avoided by skillful interviewers until they have first asked open-ended questions and carefully worded follow up questions, utilizing the subject's own language.  

For innocent parents, even under public pressure, the strength of truth is something instinctively protective.  

"One could never prove I killed my daughter because I didn't.  But, I love my daughter and right now, I do not know if she is being fed, and I must now..."

The language of concern for Madeleine's present state and the kidnapping itself, should dominate the language. 

In basic analysis, we will even count words. 

How many words are dedicated to:

a.  Madeleine's current health and well being in hands of a kidnapper?
b.  Touching the heart of the kidnapper to release her?

Or

c.  How many words are dedicated to proving that which needs no proving?

This is the "Wall of Truth" that produces confidence, and sometimes, under constant accusation, dismissal.  

Dismissal in light of something quite particular:  

The innocent (de facto) father cares for little but what Maddie is going through and how to facilitate her release.  You can accuse him all day long but his words are going to either ignore or dismiss the false claim because his priority is not defense but getting his daughter back.  

Analysis of the McCann interview can be found in three parts.  Here is Part One.  We allow a subject's words to guide us. 

We presuppose truth and innocence.  We only conclude guilt and deception if the subject talks us into it.  

What millions have felt instinctively, we show using principles that are timeless.  

In this, the language reveals that Madeleine died an unintentional death and the parents engaged in a criminal cover up for the purpose of self preservation. 

The theme of "self" has been consistent in the decade since their daughter's death. 

In part three, you will see the scenario that the parents set up for us and how effectively they concealed their daughter's remains.  

It is within the language that we see that Madeleine was very likely sedated, regularly, but on the night in question, something went wrong.  The dosage was not correct.  She may have ceased breathing, or she may have awakened and fallen and was either deceased or beyond savings.  

The McCanns would have faced Negligence charges as well as professional consequences.  

They chose to deceive and protect themselves.  

Behavioral Analysis post crime shows the pattern of deceivers:  attacking the doubters, emotional manipulation and self promotion; all unnecessary in the "Wall of Truth" we find in the statements of the de facto innocent.  (all are judicially "innocent" under presumption).  






IR:  Did you Kill Your Daughter? 

Gerry McCann -"
 
Q: Did you kill your daughter?

GM: - No…no…never…and you know,  there’s nothing with any logic that could, you know, you’d have to start with why, you know, how, when, who and tha…that’s just simply you know that’s what any these things is there’s nothing to suggest anything so no – that’s an emphatic no.

This is a short portion from a video.  The transcripts were posted and the accuracy of the analysis is based upon the accuracy of the transcripts.  

update:  there is some editing out, making it difficult to get an accurate transcript.  

The question was direct:  "Did you kill your daughter?"

Statement Analysis of the interviews that the McCanns have given is consistent:

The child was not kidnapped nor missing.  

The parents' language made the case simple to follow.  Behavioral Analysis was consistent with the language.  

Parents of kidnapped children move quickly due to instinct.  This happens with or without police intervention.  

1.  They call out for their child.  This is a natural instinct.  They cannot cease thinking about the current status of their child and this will come into their language.  

2.  They will show concern for the immediate needs of the child.  In their language there will be questions about her favorite toy, food, care, medicine, etc.  

3.  They will plead with the kidnapper.  They will do exactly what a parent does when someone babysits:  ensure proper care.  

4.  They will accept nothing less than the return.  

The language will be dominant.  

5.  They will incessantly remember some small detail and facilitate the flow of information.  They will be impatient with police, searchers, etc.  

6.  They will not allow for any possibility of anything other than the truth.  This is called the "wall of truth" and is very powerful.  

They will not entertain possibilities of guilt for themselves.  See Kate McCann's embedded confession.  

In the case of Madeleine McCann, we followed the parents' words.  

People who support the idea of kidnapping will say the words the McCanns refused to say.  


Interviewer:  Did you Kill Your Daughter? 


expected:  

a.  "No."  

This may exist by itself.  This would shift the burden of conversational politeness to the Interviewer because the question should be a complete disconnect from reality.  This is because the subject will be so far removed from the possibility that he or she will allow the silence to push the interviewer to find another question or rebuttal.  There is an "indifference" to accusations because it is not true.  

Yet, even further here, we have seen cases where one can say "no" because the subject did not directly cause the death.  

In one case, a man said, "I did not kill her" because he had injected his girlfriend with an unintentionally lethal dosage of heroin.  The drug killed her, not him.  

Yes or No questions are not powerful questions.  Yet, in this case, the IR felt the need to ask and we are able to analyze the answer.  

In "yes or no" questions, investigators often count every word after the word "no" as unnecessary.  

b.  "No.  She was kidnapped and we must..." moving directly into action of not giving up, finding the kidnapper, pleading for good care for Madeleine, and so on. 

Unexpected:  

a.  Avoidance
b.  Sensitivity to the question 
c.  Need to persuade 
Gerry McCann  -"
 
Q: Did you kill your daughter?

GM: - No…no…never…and you know,  there’s nothing with any logic that could , you know, you’d have to start with why, you know, how, when, who and tha…that’s just simply you know that’s what any these things is there’s nothing to suggest anything so no – that’s an emphatic no."

Let's look at his answer:




Q: Did you kill your daughter?

GM: - No…no…never…and you know,  there’s nothing with any logic that could, (?) you know, you’d have to start with why, you know, how, when, who and tha…that’s just simply you know that’s what any these things is there’s nothing to suggest anything so no – that’s an emphatic no.


We begin with "no" and count every word added to it, weakening the response.  

"no" is repeated;

"never" is unreliable as this was a single specific event.  

Never is used to span indefinite or lengthy time.  

This is the biological father regarding a single event that took place at a specific location, date and time.  "Never" seeks vagueness. 

Not only is it technically "unreliable", it is most unexpected here.  


a.  "And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know."

First notice the avoidance of the simple word "no" making the question sensitive to him. 


Even after years of a public accusing him of killing her daughter the expectation remains that parental instinct will deny death and hold to still recovering her.  


b. "you know" is a pause, showing our second indicator of sensitivity to the question.  This actually speaks to the need to consider what to say rather than the word "no" alone, which would then put the interview burden upon the interviewer to deal with the denial.  


The blunt "no" is used by several:


1.  The actual innocent use it.  This is especially important in the context of biological child. 

2.  Those who do not wish to facilitate the flow of information will use it when they are deliberately practicing short answers.  See 911 call of former police chief Will McCollum for an example of "pulling teeth" to get information.  

c.  "you know" is not only avoidance of "yes or no", and a pause for time to think, it is also a habit of speech that arises when a subject has acute awareness of either the interviewer and/or the interviewer/audience (TV).  


What do we do with a habit of speech?


We note what words provoke it and what words do not.


Here, the simple "yes or no" question has produced sensitivity indicators which means that the question of killing her is sensitive.  


He could have said, "no", even if they had blamed the sedation or accident on the death, yet it may be that the subject is considering himself as ultimately responsible, as a father.  


I have some concerns from their language about other activities that I did not address in the interview due to the technical nature of the principles (it would have been beyond explaining to a general audience) but even in such cases of possible sexual abuse, we find complexity.  This complexity can show itself as incongruent language;  one is a caring responsible parent at times, while a negligent, abusive parent another time.  


Here, we may consider that the subject might be considering his own culpability in her death, even if unintended as the language indicates.  


The sensitivity continues to this question:  


"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 


"you know"  is repeated.  This question is to be considered "very sensitive" to him. 


Now:  "And you know, there's nothing with any logic that kids could, you know... 


"there's nothing" goes immediately to proving his innocence, rather than denying any responsibility for Madeleine's death. 


This is a signal of self preservation and explains the need to pause and the increases in sensitivity: 


he must protect himself rather than deny. 


"There's nothing" (what does "nothing" look like?) is now qualified:


"with any logic"


Rather than deny killing his daughter, he now employs as a distraction, motive. 


An innocent has no need to explore motive, true enough, but so much more when we consider context:


He is using energy to defend himself by refusing to deny, but by claiming it is not logical.  Yet, the broken sentence indicates self censoring.  


Instead of saying "no" and allowing the wall of truth to leave it there, he avoids a denial and introduces the word "logic" where he should have complete linguistic disinterest.  

Even if he had been arrested, this would be something his attorney would argue while he, the innocent, would be focused upon negotiations and pleadings with the kidnapper to:


a.  return Maddie

b.  feed her
c.  give her her favorite ______-
d.  share information with the kidnapper to comfort Maddie
e. express the utter impotence that inflames parental instinct

Maddie was three.  


This means he had, from the beginning, rocked her to sleep, held her to comfort her, relieved her distress in changing diaper, making her warm, etc, and had kissed and bandaged her falls and cuts. 


Suddenly, in a kidnapping, this is all stolen from him.  It causes traumatic frustration in un fulfilled  parental instinct.  It can cause mental health issues. 


Consider the ancient wisdom about the mother bear robbed of her whelps.  


Parental instinct is powerful and creative.  


It is also missing from the language of the parents.  


Question:  How could this be?

Answer:   Acceptance of Madeleine's death.  

It is in death's acceptance that the instinctive frustration is extinguished --and even this takes time. 


The language of parents who have lost children to death reveals this frustration.  They feel guilty for not being able to intervene any longer in their child and it takes time to process and resolve into acceptance.  


Even mothers who have found their children dead will often "rub" them trying to warm their bodies, and cover them with a blanket to "protect, shield and dignify" the child.  It is heartbreaking.  


Falsely accused of missing children care little or nothing for accusers, articles, personal insults; they just want their child back.  "just" being the operative word:  the other issues pale in comparison. 


Here we see the priority of the subject come through in his answer:


Rather than denial, he indicates that he has explored various explanations in logic.  


It is like saying "it does not make sense."


Consider this statement in line with his wife's statement about normal and routine where things "did not" go wrong.  This was likely a reference to sedation.  


If you've ever had a fussy sick child, you were glad to have medicine that alleviated the symptoms and helped the child fall asleep. It is in everyone's best interest. 


Now consider an anesthesiologist as a professional and listen to the interview. 


"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 


It is not just "logic" but further exploration of "any" logic.  This is to broaden a personal defense rather than deny according to the question. 


"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 


Any logic that "could", in regard to the question of killing his daughter.  This speaks to the application of "any logic" in the future/conditional tense.  


He is addressing defense proofs in a scenario that does not exist.  he is not in court and...


his child is still "missing" and in someone else's hands, allegedly, according to the narrative.  


In what could have been a very boring question, we find a pattern emerge:


The need to persuade rather than truthfully report.  


This is the theme of his answer. 


He begins with a diversion to become argumentative in  a position where no argument is needed. 


He does not move towards Madeleine linguistically (as expected) but is in "self" mode, specifically in motive or evidence.  


Rather than deny, the sensitivity continues. 


This is an abundance of words that are employed rather than the single word "no."


You would have to start with why? 


He wants to know what "you" (interviewer/audience) thinks of motive.  


Q.  Why would he want this?


A.  so he can attempt to rebut it. 


This affirms consistency of unintended death by negligence.  The focus is upon self, not the denial and not the child.  


After "why" (motive) he now continues: 



How? 


This is the methodology that he addresses rather than saying "no."




When? 


This is the time frame of Maddie's death that is concerning to him.  



Who? 


This is to answer the question "Did you...?" with a question, "Who?"


What does this mean?


Beyond the obvious "answering a question with a question" that parents of teenagers know all about, he is signaling that "did you?", singular, is insufficient. 


This is an indicator that both parents were in agreement with the sedation, neglect and cover up, and have been since.  



And there's just 
simply, you know, no answer to any of these things 


Here he presents the questions and tells us in passive voice that there are "just simply, you know, no answer", which is singular. 


There are answers. 


"just simply" is to make a simple conclusion from one who has, still, refused to answer the question.  


"just" is a dependent word indicating he is comparing "simple" to "complex" (or something that is not simple). 


This comes from not a single question, but a series of questions:


1.  Why?


2. How?


3.  When?


4.  Who?


The order is important.  




None of the questions has to do with kidnapping.  All are presupposing that Madeline is deceased.  



It is interesting to note that "who" comes after "how" and "when."  This makes "who" at the bottom.  "Why?" is first.  


– there's nothing 
to suggest anything. 


Here the question is about killing his daughter, not about how she was killed. 


It is not about when she was killed.


It was not about who killed her. 


It is about "you"; with "Did you kill your daughter?"


He introduces, in his answer, other questions which not only avoid the denial, but also avoid any assertion that Madeleine was "taken" from them by a kidnapper.  


This is not part of his verbalized perception of reality, nor has it been. 


From the beginning, they used language that indicated acceptance of her death. 


As parents, they showed no linguistic concern for her well being under a kidnapper, when asked.  


This is not because they are uncaring but it is because they knew she was not with a kidnapper and she was beyond the workings of parental protective and provisional instincts.  


He now gets to the answer:




So no – 



The "no" is conditional.  He answers, "Did you kill your daughter" by a conditional response:


Since he has no answers as to "how" and "when" he therefore ("so") issues "no" but immediately weakens it with unnecessary emphasis:  



that's an emphatic 'no'."


He even employs the word "emphatic" as a need to persuade.  

Analysis Conclusion:


The question "Did you kill your daughter" is given enough sensitivity indicators to conclude:


Deception Indicated


This indicates parental responsibility.  He is not one who has utterly divorced himself from it.  This should be understood in light of being a father:


His daughter was supposed to be in the hands of a stranger, yet as a father, he gave no linguistic concern for her well being, nor attempts to retrieve her. 


By the time he gets to a denial, he has already given us an abundance of information, particularly, that Madeleine was never "missing" and "alive" via the presentation of questions. 


The questions are designed to divert, but the specific questions chosen reveal his own thinking.  


Even when deceptive people speak, we must listen as their words reveal content.  


Here, his words reveal careful consideration to potential criminal litigation against him rather than assertion of both innocence and the kidnapping of the child.  


This is consistent with the McCanns' statements throughout the years, as well as their media campaign and attacks upon those who refuse to believe them. 




Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Was Bill O'Reilly a Victim of Leftist Witch Hunt?



Did Bill O'Reilly sexually harass women, or was it foolish or inappropriate banter which is not illegal. 

Sexual harassment must be defined.  Workers make "sexual" comments incessantly, if the definition is broad, including "You look great!" 

Yet, this is not likely something to result in millions of dollars of pay offs. 

We have two statements issued by Bill O'Reilly. 

Given his training, we expect him to say that he did not sexually harass anyone.  Even without him defining sexual harassment, this is still our expectation.  

We recently have seen an attorney accuse Sean Hannity.  In listening to the audio, she is deceptive, but the next day, she recanted.  There is a "witch hunt" that is well known and if Bill O'Reilly is a victim of witch hunt, we may allow his words to guide us. 

First statement:  April 1, 2017

Just like other prominent and controversial people, I'm vulnerable to lawsuits from individuals who want me to pay them to avoid negative publicity. In my more than 20 years at Fox News Channel, no one has ever filed a complaint about me with the Human Resources Department, even on the anonymous hotline. 

First:  he immediately puts himself in a crowd.  Psychologically, we like to see someone stand alone and say, "I did not..."

guilt hates to be alone and will often associate with others.  He does this from the start.  

Secondly:  This is similar to the language of PED users who boast of how many times they have passed a drug test rather than when they have been caught.  

There is no denial but he specifically qualifies these complaints as to where they did not go:  Human Resources.  

We may consider that complaints went elsewhere.  

I do not doubt that many today are opportunists who in the spirit of larceny, seek to obtain money their own hands have not earned, yet we expect him to deny sexually harassing anyone.  

But most importantly, I'm a father who cares deeply for my children and who would do anything to avoid hurting them in any way. And so I have put to rest any controversies to spare my children. 


Being a father does not preclude someone from adult sex, sexual contact, or sexual harassment.  

This is a diversion and "sermonizing" (moralizing away the allegation without answering it).  

He tells us why he had to "put to rest" controversies:  for his children.  




The worst part of my job is being a target for those who would harm me and my employer, the Fox News Channel. Those of us in the arena are constantly at risk, as are our families and children. My primary efforts will continue to be to put forth an honest TV program and to protect those close to me.  


The language is similar to child molesters who use as a defense that they are "happily married" or "a father" rather than deny.  

It is likely that he was trying to save his job on this date.  
Note "families" and "children" enter his language.  This is emotional manipulation akin to "who will save the children?" by a politician seeking to exploit.  

He seeks pity rather than issue a denial. 



Statement 24 April, 2017

“I am sad that I’m not on television anymore. I was very surprised how it all turned out. I can’t say a lot, because there’s much stuff going on right now. But I can tell you that I’m very confident the truth will come out, and when it does, I don’t know if you’re going to be surprised — but I think you’re going to be shaken, as I am. There’s a lot of stuff involved here.”
“Now, I can’t say any more because I just don’t want to influence the flow of the information. I don’t want the media to take what I say and misconstrue it. And you, as a loyal O’Reilly listener, have a right to know, I think, down the lane what exactly happened. And we are working in that direction, okay?”

The truth will come out. 
This is a common thread in guilt, from OJ to Lance Armstrong to...with the only difference is that the subject gives us his reason for delay.  
Those of de facto innocence state so.  There is no legal nor civil repercussion for the de facto innocent to say "I did not..."

Here he avoids a denial and blames media.  Media will follow its narrative but to say "I did not sexually harass anyone" would have been a place to start for a denial.  
He avoids the denial and feels the need to explain why.  This continues to heighten the sensitivity.  

Analysis Conclusion:

Bill O'Reilly does not deny sexual harassment, therefore, we cannot deny it for him. He is unwilling or unable to issue a reliable denial.  
Even if the second statement's "wait for the truth" is simply exploitation due to build ratings for his program, it does not negate the rest of the analysis. 
It is likely that if Fox did, in deed, pay out millions, it was not due to a witch hunt, but self protection of its brand. 
Fox News sets up a sexualized environment with beautiful women in sexualized outfits. 
A deliberately sexualized environment is going to produce such results. 

Analysis Question:  Was Bill O'Reilly a victim of a leftist witch hunt?

Answer:  No.  

American Thinker had a thoughtful article stating hope that Bill O'Reilly will take time to reflect upon himself and be truthful.