Martin RobertsMarch 19, 2016 at 5:33 PM
Hi Tania
Could the 'leakage' implicating 'falling off things' have perhaps been deliberate? The situation is nowhere described as 'she might have bumped her head' (i.e. her own head, herself).
Rachael Oldfield: "...if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head (passive voice) or you know whatever the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of people there who could of you know, tried to revive a child."
So, if something (or someone) had accidentally bumped Madeleine on the head (active voice - not appropriate to inert things, e.g. window sills), there were those present who could have tried to revive a child (but without necessarily succeeding).
Russell O'Brien: "You're far more likely to get clobbered by your uncle or your neighbour than some', you know, 'random stranger'.
Hi Martin, thank you.
When someone seeks to deceive, the subject they want to be deceptive about is at the forefront of their mind.
Could the 'leakage' implicating 'falling off things' have perhaps been deliberate? The situation is nowhere described as 'she might have bumped her head' (i.e. her own head, herself).
Rachael Oldfield: "...if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head (passive voice) or you know whatever the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of people there who could of you know, tried to revive a child."
So, if something (or someone) had accidentally bumped Madeleine on the head (active voice - not appropriate to inert things, e.g. window sills), there were those present who could have tried to revive a child (but without necessarily succeeding).
Russell O'Brien: "You're far more likely to get clobbered by your uncle or your neighbour than some', you know, 'random stranger'.
Hi Martin, thank you.
When someone seeks to deceive, the subject they want to be deceptive about is at the forefront of their mind.
They then have to think about what they are saying or writing looking for anything that would reveal the deception.
This results in slower than the norm in their rate and rhythm of speech, nonsense sounds and stuttering, something we have seen copious amounts in the rogs and unscripted answers where they are using the process of free editing.
On non sensitive topics their speech is fluid with little evidence of stuttering, self editing or nonsense sounds such as er, umm, tch, tut etc.
Once we get to something sensitive, then their speech becomes disjointed and loses its previous fluidity.
Rather than a regular rhythm tum ti tum ti tum, it now becomes tum ti... tum...tum ti tum.....tum..ti.
It is almost painful to hear someone mangling speech so badly it becomes almost incoherent, more so if the subject is educated, professional or used to speaking to multiple people such as public speaking.
As well as self editing, the subject also has to remember what they have said previously, when it was said and to whom.
This results in self referral
"As i said previously"
"As i said before"
"I already said this"
"My answer is already on record"
Which then puts the onus on the interviewer to make the connection, rightly or wrongly.
Since deception is stressful and the brain hates stress, it seeks to ease the stress by revealing the truth.
At the same time the subject doesn't want to reveal the truth due to guilt, guilty knowledge or fear of the consequences.
This causes internal conflict which is revealed in the speech, the writing and the body language.
To avoid leaking the truth, the subject will often omit the sensitive bit, temporal lacuna is a favorite, or minimize their own role when they have no other option.
To avoid revealing the truth, the subject will become evasive and surround the truth with deception, this however reveals a truth shaped hole.
The trick is to spot the truth shaped hole that is revealed by the sensitivity and probe deeper to see why it is sensitive.
Often, the subject is asked to write down everything they did on the day of the event from waking up to going to sleep.
Once done, the investigator will go through the written statement, noting pronouns both present and missing, tenses, articles, changes in language, introduction of people, even the form of the statement can give an idea of truth or deception.
This will also give the investigator an idea of what is and isn't sensitive, what is missing that should be there and temporal lacuna and so on.
During interviews, the subject is the one that leads the investigator to the truth.
Being asked a single question such as,
"What happened?"
Then allowing the subject to speak freely and without interruption, choosing the starting point which they decide is the priority to them, that which is most important to them.
The investigator takes copious notes on things such as pronouns, tenses, articles, where the language changes and if the change in language is warranted by a change in reality.
Once the subject has answered as much as they want to, the next question should then be
"What happened next?"
Further questions are then asked using only the words introduce by the subject, if they say tickle as an example, the questions would be,
"What is a tickle?"
"How do you tickle?"
"Where do you tickle?"
"What do you tickle with?"
You learn what a specific word means to the subject.
To you it may have one connotation, to the subject it means something else.
This can happen with slang, social status, education, English as a second language, location, even local dialect.
One i see and hear often is I SEEN rather than I SAW
Someone with a poor education, lower social class, will use words differently to someone well educated and of a higher social class
In bill clinton's case sexual relations meant full intercourse not oral sex.
He would have passed a poly because to him it was not sexual relations.
In kate's case, she tries to avoid mention regarding what caused Maddie's death, her brain though is saying i don't like being stressed i want to tell the truth and feel better.
When kate refers to falling, bumping their heads, tins of beans falling (the visual is telling, in that a tin of beans that gets dropped or falls often has a noticeable dent )it is because at that specific moment she is recalling what happened, what she saw and then tries to not mention it.
However the truth will leak out in marbles.
Like a Kerplunk game with all the marbles sitting on sticks which are then removed.
As the subject speaks a stick is removed.
Sometimes they are lucky and no marbles will fall, the subject relaxes believing they have gotten away.
The next question or time, the subject answers a question, a stick is removed and a marble will shift.
The alerts the subject and we see the self editing, stuttering and nonsense sounds show up.
Further along another question, another stick is puled and this time a marble falls out, a marble which reveals a bit of the truth.
Sometimes the subject doesn't realise they have leaked, especially if the interviewer doesn't show they spotted it and shows no reaction.
A bit further along, a question, a stick and a marble falls out and the subject realises it.
Usually they either clam up and the interview is ended, become aggressive and angry and the interview is ended or they then try and explain away what they just said, which can lead to more leaked marbles.
It may be that kate is subconsciously trying to leak the truth without saying it outright.
This could be fear of gerry, fear of others or fear of the consequences.
She is under a great deal of stress and it shows.
Nine years is a long time, the twins are getting older and now have access to the internet.
They will be asking questions and, once they reach 18, they are adults and no longer under their parents control.
Kate wants to talk.She will talk.
She wants the stress to end.
The truth coming out will be a big relief to her as she can grieve openly and get any help she needs.
The question is, who will she confess the truth to?
