Sunday, February 22, 2015

Question: Kate introduces MURDER and Framed

Hi Tania!

I've seen where you have replied to "anonymous" ;) claims where Maddie's death was not an accident.

Here's where I'm so confused and it would be nice to understand better thx in advance)!

You told us kate "herself" told us poor little Maddie was "murdered" because she chose the word. The quote comes from a Daily Mirror interview where she is addressing CLAIMS that she murdered Maddie. If she's responding to claims of murder, doesn't that mean somebody else brought up murder before she did? And she also brought up the word framed. If leaking a word gives it importance why so much emphasis on her responding to others' claims of MURDER but you completely dismiss

To ask it another way- you dismiss accidental death above so presumably you think it's murder. So if km were to respond to your accusation, and used the word "murder," you would then say- look- she used the word murder, so she must have murdered Maddie.

Anywho, that's where I'm a tad confused. Any help is appreciated!!!

* waves *
Breaking down in tears, distraught Kate said of the Portuguese police: "They want me to lie - I'm being framed.
"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming us

If she is responding to a question in which the word murder is used such as did you murder Madeleine and her reply was "no, i did not murder Madeleine", in statement analysis this is known as an unreliable denial as she is reflecting the language of the interviewer (which is why when interviewing a subject,you do not introduce new language)

 A good example of this is gerry's response on being asked "did you kill your daughter? He replies No, and that's an emphatic no and then goes beyond the bounds of the question by explaining how he could not have killed his daughter making it not only an unreliable denial but also extremely sensitive.

GM"No. That's an emphatic 'no.' I mean the ludicrous thing is. Errm... what... I suppose... what's been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. Well, when did she have the accident and died? Cos... the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner, so if she died then, how could we have disposed of... hidden her body when there was an immediate search. It's just nonsense. So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

KM (interjecting): "And it gets even more ludicrous, that we've obviously hidden her so incredibly well, where nobody's found her and we hid her (interviewer: 'incredibly well') so well that we then decided that we'd move her in the car which we hired weeks later and you know it's just ridiculous.

If she is asked to make a comment  such as why were you  called in to the police station? and she replies using the process of free editing where the words are thought of a microsecond before being spoken, then murder is on the forefront of her mind and she leaks that thought in her reply.
Since they are telling the world she was abducted and knowing how muzzled the UK media is and how supportive of the couple they were, would a journalist ask directly did you murder your daughter and risk their ire?
At best they would have used a less provocative word such as kill (see gerry's answer)  or are you involved in the death of your daughter?
A strong reliable denial would be I did not kill Madeleine.
She doesn't reflect the language of the question

She uses the strong first person pronoun I
Past tense DID NOT
Event specific  KILL MADELEINE.

If she said  i didn't do it, i did not harm Madeleine, i would never harm/hurt my daughter, then it would also be an unreliable denial as it violates the principals of a strong reliable denial.
It - she doesn't say what IT is
Harm/hurt is to minimise the crime
WOULD is future conditional, and since Maddie is already dead, she can no longer be harmed.

Kate and gerry have been telling the world for 8 years Maddie was abducted, if this were true and they were innocent then they would only use the term abducted as this is what is on their mind unless they have knowledge or have been given to believe she is dead.

If they were innocent, they would have fully cooperated with LE in regard to reconstructions and interviews, they would have physically searched and they would have answered every question put to hem, the expected behavior of innocent parents.

AS we know, they refused to co-operate, lawyering up almost immediately.
They refused to physically search.
Kate refused to answer 48 questions.
They have sued or threatened to sue anyone who disagrees with their version of events.
They also hired investigators with no experience of finding missing persons, but who were experienced in financial crimes, money laundering and the like.
After 8 years, there is still not one iota of evidence to indicate an abduction, which, even you have to admit, is rather telling.

Regarding the word framed.
She introduces this as she was made Arguido.
To be framed would imply there was evidence that proved they were involved.
Evidence would be planted to implicate the subject.

This then tells us there is evidence that has been found which would implicate one of both of them in the death of their daughter.
This despite their oft repeated claims there is no evidence that Maddie is dead.

We know this is untrue since blood and body fluids were found in the apartment and hire car, cadaverine was found in the apartment and hire car as well as on items of clothing and cuddle cat.
There has been to date no evidence indicating abduction.
Excuses were thought up to explain away this 'non existent' evidence such as kate handled multiple dead bodies before the vacation, Sean had developed a taste for sea bass( reputed to give off the scent of cadaverine) and the classic dirty diapers, rotting meat and fish and sweaty sandals.

We also have clarence telling us:

  "Any evidence they may or may not have found which gave them cause for suspicion of Gerry and Kate can be wholly and easily explained should it come to that."

Given we know the evidence found includes blood and body fluids which in the initial FSS report indicated they belonged to Maddie before it being minimised and which could not and did not exclude Maddie as being the donor, the question arises, if they claim they are being framed and the fluids belong to Maddie, why the have they not been arrested and charged?
It would mean that someone had access to Maddie's remains and obtained samples of blood and body fluids and went to the apartment and placed said fluids behind the sofa on the floor, in the parents wardrobe on cuddlecat, kate's pants and the red child's t-shirt and then knew which hire car they were going to rent and places fluids and hairs in that.

Since the house was being watched as were the couple and LE were everywhere how did said person get in to contaminate the apartment, get access to the clothing when they were in the new apartment and get access to cuddlecat which appeared to be surgically attached to kate.
How then did they get access to the hire car?
If they got samples from Maddie's remains, why was it not reported to LE?
Who would find a body and not report it especially in a case like this?

Do you see how implausible all their excuses and explanations are?

Kate used the word murder which would exclude accidental death.

Accidental death could have been Maddie falling and banging her head.

Maddie being hit during a row and being fatally injured

Maddie being  injured  whilst kate and gerry rowed, with one of them lashing out and hitting Maddie instead.

Maddie dying of overdose when she found pills or medication or drugs

Maddie dying during/ as a result of being the victim of another crime such as being sexually abused.

Kate doesn't allow for the above options as she would have said accidentally died.
She uses the specific MURDER

This could be premeditated which would fit with her having issues with Maddie and not bonding with her as per her book.

It could be due to altruistic reasons such as Maddie had serious health issues which were life shortening so she was killed as a kindness to end her suffering.

It could be down to jealousy as we know kate was an only child and perhaps resented Maddie getting attention (especially if she was a daddy's girl)

It could be down to anger, Maddie was the scapegoat for all the family problems, financial issues (struggling to pay the mortgage) when things went wrong, Maddie was blamed,  marital issues.

It could be that  Maddie wasn't gerry's bio child whereas the twins are and when they arrived she was  regarded as disposable, she wasn't part of the family ( we have seen in their comments over the years that there is no bond between kate and Maddie and kate in particular has real problems talking about or referring to her as part of their family)

It could be that she died after some other crime was committed and they wanted to stop her talking as she was now of an age where she could talk and tell what was happening.

It could have been accidental homicide, something happened and they did not seek treatment and as a result she died.

It could have been the result of accidental overdose/over sedation.

Whatever the reason, they could not allow Maddie to be autopsied as the  results would be hard if not impossible to explain away as an accident.

Kate used the word MURDER for a reason.
It was at the forefront of her mind the moment she spoke and she leaked marbles


  1. Hi Tania,
    I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy reading your blog. You have such a logical mind, and have learned Statement Analysis so well (I read that also), that it is a pleasure to read your analysis. Excuse me for posting as "Anonymous," but I don't have any other accounts among the choices listed. Anne Krug

  2. I don't know if the McCanns are innocent or guilty. However, I do think that it is time that someone was called upon to tell the generous donors to the Find Madeleine fund and the poor British taxpayer exactly what is being achieved towards finding who took/ killed the child and what the McCanns are doing to find her. I do not see why they should have it both ways. Police forces are overstretched and underfunded. Our hospitals are in crisis. People are having their benefits cut. However, Operation Grange goes bowling along, "making progress" and "finding important new leads". If they succeed in ruining Goncalo Amaral, then they will have enough money to continue with their own investigations. The begging bowl must be put away and Operation Grange wound up. If the Amaral verdict goes against them, the inference must be that there is truth in his book and the McCanns no longer deserve all the financial help they are receiving. The Find Madeleine moneys must be offered as a reward for information and Operation Grange wound up. Morton's Fork.


Post a comment