Like myself he is learning the principals of Statement analysis and also, he is very good with the body language side of things.
Take a look, and tell me what you think.
I've just started reading Gonçalo Amaral book, Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie.
I came across this in chapter 3.
There are many possible leads: voluntary disappearance - the child could have wakened and not seeing her parents, gone off to look for them; accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditated; an act of vengeance; taken hostage followed by a ransom demand; abducted by a paedophile; kidnap or murder committed by a burglar.
In Statement Analysis order is important. The subject is giving us additional information by the order they list things. Most people will mention their oldest child first and their youngest child last. This is because the oldest one has been around the longest. If a parent is talking about something that the youngest child has done, then he or she may mention the youngest one first then continue to talk about the rest of their children according to age.
Ask yourself to name some of your old school friends, there is a high possibility you will mention first the person you were closest to, and so on. Back to this paragraph from the book.
Look at the order that is at the forefront of the polices mind..It starts of with the possibility of Maddie going missing, wondering off..It then continues..accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditated; an act of vengeance; taken hostage followed by a ransom demand; abducted by a paedophile; kidnap or murder committed by a burglar.
Look what they think may have happened foremost in order. Then look what they think may have happened last in order..This tells me that from the very beginning they did not believe Maddy was Abducted, and or Kidnapped, but that they were involved right from the very start.
Taken hostage followed by a ransom demand; abducted by a paedophile; kidnap or murder committed by a burglar.
Look at this part especially.
We know there was no taken for ransom otherwise there would have been a police shutdown on it especially once a ransom note was found or delivered.
It would have been dealt with behind the scenes rather than as we saw in the media.
All the media attention would have made it impossible for the kidnappers to get a ransom let alone collect it as everyone would be watching for them.
We would only have heard about it after Maddie was released alive or more likely found dead.
Kidnappers would see her as a liability or would be panicked and kill her.
Since we know this definitely didn't happen as the media attention would have endangered the child, anything following this possibility also didn't happen, do you follow the logic?
An act of vengeance is only likely if gerry or kate had done something to another, medical negligence perhaps.
Given their jobs this is not likely although i believe oldfield was under a malpractice investigation and gerry was helping him.
The likely target thus would have been oldfield not gerry.
Vengeance by a family member or friend is possible, again unlikely, as usually they target the responsible adult not the child.
Children tend to be victims in custody battles where one parent has custody.
The non custodial parent decides if they can't have them no one can.
In this case it is possible, as she was IVF for a donor to take action but then would they know who the recipient of their donation was?
This then is also unlikely.
This takes us then to voluntary disappearance - the child could have wakened and not seeing her parents, gone off to look for them; accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditate.
If she wandered and was taken then she would be in the immediate or local area.
If we accept the time lines from the group then Maddie would likely have been seen by an adult from the group with all the checks or she would have been calling for daddy since he had just left her sleeping and was talking to Jez Wilkins in the street just outside the apartment
. This though means the patio doors would have been open as toddlers wouldn't usually consider closing them unless they slide closed themselves, she would have heard her dad in the street as it was quiet and voices carry and she would have been calling for daddy/mummy etc.
They would have heard her voice and gone to look.
For her to be wandering and picked up by a passing paedophile who struck it lucky is also unbelievable.
The way he has written it is clever, a possible option
. he gives the minimally possibly option which doesn't refer to any evidence and allows for the possibility she is still alive although pretty much every adult on seeing a lost child would naturally call the police.
There were no calls and given the time she was allegedly missing they would likely have found her at some point.
Accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditated.
He gives one possibility of her being alive which is what we would all hope for and would be the natural instinct, a live child is the best outcome and thus a priority, it is something he allows for as a parent not as a cop especially since no body has been found as yet which would be definitive proof of death.
He then gives us FOUR options for a death, again he gives the parents the option of coming clean with a minimal cause of death, accidents happen and the parents panicked etc. he is giving them an out.
They admit to this, Maddie gets recovered.
The rest are plain and simple murder either premeditated or not.
This is where his real attention lies.
I've just started reading Gonçalo Amaral book, Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie.
I came across this in chapter 3.
There are many possible leads: voluntary disappearance - the child could have wakened and not seeing her parents, gone off to look for them; accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditated; an act of vengeance; taken hostage followed by a ransom demand; abducted by a paedophile; kidnap or murder committed by a burglar.
In Statement Analysis order is important. The subject is giving us additional information by the order they list things. Most people will mention their oldest child first and their youngest child last. This is because the oldest one has been around the longest. If a parent is talking about something that the youngest child has done, then he or she may mention the youngest one first then continue to talk about the rest of their children according to age.
Ask yourself to name some of your old school friends, there is a high possibility you will mention first the person you were closest to, and so on. Back to this paragraph from the book.
Look at the order that is at the forefront of the polices mind..It starts of with the possibility of Maddie going missing, wondering off..It then continues..accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditated; an act of vengeance; taken hostage followed by a ransom demand; abducted by a paedophile; kidnap or murder committed by a burglar.
Look what they think may have happened foremost in order. Then look what they think may have happened last in order..This tells me that from the very beginning they did not believe Maddy was Abducted, and or Kidnapped, but that they were involved right from the very start.
Taken hostage followed by a ransom demand; abducted by a paedophile; kidnap or murder committed by a burglar.
Look at this part especially.
We know there was no taken for ransom otherwise there would have been a police shutdown on it especially once a ransom note was found or delivered.
It would have been dealt with behind the scenes rather than as we saw in the media.
All the media attention would have made it impossible for the kidnappers to get a ransom let alone collect it as everyone would be watching for them.
We would only have heard about it after Maddie was released alive or more likely found dead.
Kidnappers would see her as a liability or would be panicked and kill her.
Since we know this definitely didn't happen as the media attention would have endangered the child, anything following this possibility also didn't happen, do you follow the logic?
An act of vengeance is only likely if gerry or kate had done something to another, medical negligence perhaps.
Given their jobs this is not likely although i believe oldfield was under a malpractice investigation and gerry was helping him.
The likely target thus would have been oldfield not gerry.
Vengeance by a family member or friend is possible, again unlikely, as usually they target the responsible adult not the child.
Children tend to be victims in custody battles where one parent has custody.
The non custodial parent decides if they can't have them no one can.
In this case it is possible, as she was IVF for a donor to take action but then would they know who the recipient of their donation was?
This then is also unlikely.
This takes us then to voluntary disappearance - the child could have wakened and not seeing her parents, gone off to look for them; accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditate.
If she wandered and was taken then she would be in the immediate or local area.
If we accept the time lines from the group then Maddie would likely have been seen by an adult from the group with all the checks or she would have been calling for daddy since he had just left her sleeping and was talking to Jez Wilkins in the street just outside the apartment
. This though means the patio doors would have been open as toddlers wouldn't usually consider closing them unless they slide closed themselves, she would have heard her dad in the street as it was quiet and voices carry and she would have been calling for daddy/mummy etc.
They would have heard her voice and gone to look.
For her to be wandering and picked up by a passing paedophile who struck it lucky is also unbelievable.
The way he has written it is clever, a possible option
. he gives the minimally possibly option which doesn't refer to any evidence and allows for the possibility she is still alive although pretty much every adult on seeing a lost child would naturally call the police.
There were no calls and given the time she was allegedly missing they would likely have found her at some point.
Accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditated.
He gives one possibility of her being alive which is what we would all hope for and would be the natural instinct, a live child is the best outcome and thus a priority, it is something he allows for as a parent not as a cop especially since no body has been found as yet which would be definitive proof of death.
He then gives us FOUR options for a death, again he gives the parents the option of coming clean with a minimal cause of death, accidents happen and the parents panicked etc. he is giving them an out.
They admit to this, Maddie gets recovered.
The rest are plain and simple murder either premeditated or not.
This is where his real attention lies.
EVIL parents.
ReplyDeleteI have always found this case so very fascinating mainly because the actions of the Mccanns were seen as so strange just seemed so "brilliant" to me. So many people hold the Mccanns in contempt because they left their children alone. However, the negligent act of leaving their kids alone WAS THEIR ALIBI. How very clever. The Mccanns have repeatedly insisted that there is no way that they could have had anything to do with Maddie's disappearance because they were out with friends and because they were doing regular checks. I know a lot has been made about the timing of these "checks," but to me they do not matter all that much. It was all just theater anyway. The "checks" do not prove one way or the other that Maddie was still alive in the apartment at any certain point in time. The only way the timing of the checks has anything to do with Maddie's disappearance, is to help establish the time when Gerry removed Maddie's body from the apartment.
ReplyDeleteI do not think Maddie died when they were at dinner. I think she died before they went to dinner, around 7:30, which is a sensitive time for the Mccanns. They then placed her body behind the couch (where the dogs smelled cadaverine), and hatched a plan to go to dinner as "normal," and then to have Gerry remove the body at around 10:00. It would be darker then and there would be fewer people on the streets. Also, by that point all their friends would be much drunker and more easily confused as to the timeline of events. I do not think there is a conspiracy or pact among the tapas 7; I merely think that those people had been drinking steadily since around 5 pm (their early dinner), and were quite wasted by 10:00. They were confused and drunk and unable to piece together a cohesive timeline. Being educated doctors, they were sure of their recollections. They cannot do a reconstruction because they do not clearly remember that night.
Finally, I am reasonably certain that Maddie's body was disposed of in a tunnel nearby the church, as Gerry himself has visions of tunnels (a big hint). Walking from their apartment to the church would have taken only a few minutes. Gerry would have had time to have done it and still returned to the tapas bar within a reasonable amount of time.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk
ReplyDeleteHi ME, Thanks
DeleteI'll add it to the go visit list over there >>
Iv'e just finished reading Gonçalo Amaral book, Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie. It,s a must read, along with watching his documentary.
ReplyDelete^^^^^ Here is the link to his book translated into English.
ReplyDeletehttp://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/maddie-truth-of-lie.html
I lifted this from the HiDeo FB.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the distancing language and the over use of the word "CHILD", and we all know what that could possible mean? .
Gerry, Lisbon interview February 2010
* the important thing is that there is an innocent
child missing and that
search must go on.
* Where is the
child? We are
looking for that evidence. Where is the
child?
Gerry, the Stockholm interview 2012
* of course at the time someone stealing your child was the furthest thing
from our minds
Kate, ditto
* there’s no
way a young child could
have got out
* how should a mother or father grieve when their child is abducted
* people will say how can they laugh when their child has been abducted
When Maddie first disappears Kate relates how angry she is at Mrs Fenn with her plummy accent and show as much interest in the lost child as a can of beans falling off a shelf. .