Statement Analysis-Jane Hill interviews McCanns:part one

Thank you

Statement Analysis

Thursday, November 15, 2012
Statement Analysis: McCann Interview


Question for Analysis:
Do the McCanns have guilty knowledge of what happened to Madeleine?
We have not covered the McCann case in detail because I had hoped the original police interview transcripts would be released which would likely give us the information we seek, through the lens of Statement Analysis: the truth.
In other interviews, the McCanns have not been asked strong questions. Most interviewers use the opportunity for self promotion, employing lengthy statements before the question, which draws the reader's attention to the Interviewer, and not to the information. Below is an interview conducted when the McCanns published their book.

Statement Analysis is in bold type. Underlining and color added for emphasis, with blue used to show the highest level of sensitivity in analysis. Red is used to indicate deception. I have cut out most of the video commentary in order to keep to the interview. This analysis is "Statement Analysis" and is limited to the linguistics; not any other form of evidence.
Thursday, 11 August 2011

Looking for Madeleine McCann – Sunday Night. Video and transcript

...but first, for four years Kate and Gerry McCann have lived a never ending ordeal and they still don’t know when or if it will ever end. It began on a family holiday in Portugal when Madeleine, their four year daughter, simply vanished. She hasn’t been seen since. Tonight, the mystery deepens. You’re about to see home video never shown before and learn the vital clue Madeleine left behind. Here’s Rahni Sadler.

[Cuts into Video of Madeleine McCann dressed a pink fairy outfit:
Gerry McCann: Okay, spin around darling. Right round. Oh yes, I can see your wings.
Kate McCann: Big smile. Kate laughs.
Gerry McCann: Oh yes. One more. Big smile. That’s pretty.]

Gerry McCann: She was incredibly beautiful baby actually.

Kate McCann: We sound like the most biased parents on the planet now but she was just really compact and was just really the really nice, round, perfect head...and......you know...and then she, she opened her mouth ...the whole world knew she was with us...

Every parent calls their child "perfect" yet here we have a specific: "really nice, round, perfect head" is the language of a doctor, particularly when a child is first delivered.
Note in recollecting her birth, KM says "the whole world knew she was with us" using "the whole world" as a reference.
Gerry McCann: She’d McCann level volume, there’s no doubt about that.

[Cuts into Video of Madeleine sitting on the stairs with her twin siblings singing:
Madeleine: Clap your hands together one two three. Clap your hands...
Gerry McCann: Yay well done. Okay, let’s sing another one.]

Kate McCann: I always wanted to be a mother, erm, I don’t know, maybe that stemmed from being an only child and sort of, you know, wanting that feeling of family.

Voice over: Madeleine was the daughter Kate and Gerry McCann always wanted. For years Kate struggled to fall pregnant so when Madeleine came along they felt blessed. They loved to photograph her and she loved being photographed.

Voice over: this is the last picture of Madeleine taken seven hours before she disappeared.

Gerry McCann: There’s a photo of her that afternoon that was taken at 2:29 (laughs) I think, we’ve got it recorded on the digital camera and er she was just sitting by the pool er with myself and we’ve both got our feet just paddling and she’s so happy.


Voice over: In late April 2007, the McCanns decided to travel to Portugal for a family holiday.

[Cuts into a video of Madeleine climbing the flight stairs to the aeroplane where she stumbles on the steps:
Voice over: In the pink pants climbing the stairs to the plane is Madeleine
Gerry McCann on the video: Oop day...you alright?]

Voice over: It was the McCanns first holiday overseas as a family and they went with three other couples
[video on airports shuttle bus pans in Gerry’s direction...‘cheer up Gerry, we’re on holiday.’ Gerry:‘F**k off']

Gerry McCann: It’s a small resort out of season, end of April beginning of May and it was incredibly quiet er, we felt very relaxed there, very relaxed.

When a couple speaks together, the pronoun, "we" is expected and used often. Where we expect the change is when we come to the highly personal loss of a child. The expected is that a mother will use the pronoun, "I" when speaking about the child. Fathers do also, but given maternal instinct, particularly one who just spoke of the birth, we expect to hear the pronoun, "I" to be employed.

Voice over: In the evening the children were put to bed by half past seven before the adults had dinner together down at the pool. From where they ate, Kate and Gerry could see the back of their apartment and left the door unlocked.

Gerry McCann: If you measured it directly from the back of the apartment there’s a straight line to where we’re dining, it’s only 50 metres

Interviewer: 50 Meters?

Gerry McCann: Er..that, that’s a direct line...

Kate McCann interrupts: 49 point 4 on Google if you want to be really specific

KM shows the use of the internet, with the word "Google" early in the interview. The reader should be considering if the internet is a sensitive topic to KM.

Gerry McCann: But the proximity was very close

The word, "but" often refutes that which came before it. Here, we do not know what would be refuted by GM since they appear to agree about the distance, but only in a "direct" line and not actual access.

Voice over: Madeleine and the twins slept in a room at the front of villa 5A. Kate and Gerry believed their shuttered bedroom window, overlooking the car park and street, was closed and locked. Every half an hour the parents would take turns to check on each other’s children.

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

Pronouns are instinctive, and reliable. It is to be noted here that GM says "we", first when it came to thought. He reports what both of them were thinking.
Next, we note anything in the negative as very important. He reports, again, in the plural, that "we didn't have any problems";
People generally do not report "not" having problems; and mark time by problems that arise. It is to be noted that here, in the negative, he again, uses the word "we" and not "I"; with "I" being the strongest link to truth in the English language.
Yet, it could be that he is speaking for both, and knew what both thought, and what both did not think.
He then quotes the child:
"why didn't you come when we cried last night?" as being the words of Madeleine.

Please note that by quoting Madeleine, he continues to use the word "we."

Did a child of Madeleine's age actually use the word "we" and not the pronoun, "I"?

I find this odd.

Having raised 6 children, and having taught parenting classes for many years, small children are selfish. They are concerned with "I" and use the pronoun, "I" and "me" and "my" most often in life, until they are later taught to be concerned with the well being of others.

The use of the pronoun "we" when quoting Madeleine is very odd.

The reader should question whether or not this is an artificial quote for the purpose of alibi building.

Research has shown what parents of teenagers have always known: guilty people will use the pronoun "we" often, in the psychological attempt to share guilt (Dillingham) and spread out responsibility among others. Even if, via discussions, husbands and wives know what each other thought, it is very unlikely that a child of Madeleine's age would raise concern for her siblings' crying.

Is this story telling for the purpose of alibi building? This leads the interviewer to draw a conclusion:

Interviewer: You now think somebody had either tried to get into the room or was in the room and woke them up the night before

By using the word "now", in 2011, the Interviewer intimates that he is familiar with past claims by the McCanns. This should alert them to this fact and put them on the defensive. Interviewers must be very careful and avoid

Kate McCann: Er it seems too much of a coincidence that she made that comment and then that happened that night.

Statement Analysis teaches that the analyst (reader) should believe exactly what someone says unless they prove otherwise. When someone says, "if I was you, I would not believe me" it is good advice to follow. Here, KM says it is "too much" of which we may agree. There is doubt in my mind that Madeleine used the word "we" and here, KM refers to "that" (distancing language) comment and says that it only "seems" too much. She does not affirm that Madeleine said it.

Interviewer: Looking back now, you think that could have been your one chance...to save her

This is not a question but a statement.

Kate McCann: Well as soon as ermm I’d discovered that Madeleine had been taken it..it just hit me straight away what she said that morning and I just thought, my God, someone tried the night before.

Note that she is referring back to the moment of discovery. This is critical.
Instead of saying that she discovered Madeleine "missing", she spoke of the conclusion, "had been taken" (passive) and then connects the thought of Madeline's statement "straight away" and "just" thought: with "just" being minimization, used by comparison. This means she compared this thought with a much larger thought.

Let's say I wanted to sell you a car for $15,000 but I fear you will say it is more than you can afford, so I first show you a car for "$20,000" and have you immediately say, "it is too much!" of which I then roll out the next car and say, "this one is just $15,000", meaning that I compared it to the greater number.

When KM said that she "just" thought, it indicates that she had "straight away" thought of something much worse.

It is difficult to imagine the shock and adrenaline (hormonal) rush at the discovery of a missing child, that someone would have the presence of mind to compare a prior night's comment from a child, with something much worse, at the moment. It takes time for us to process, particularly while under such duress (hormonal rush).

This appears to be an artificial placement of a thought.

Madeleine's quote does not appear credible, and due to the 'fear' or 'fight/flight' shock of a missing child, that a mother (maternal instincts inflamed) would be able to think through these things, conclude abduction and tie it to the night before leads me to conclude:

It does not appear credible.

When we are first in a shocking situation, it takes time to debrief and reason. This is why, for example, the placement of emotions in the 'perfect' or logical part of an account is an indication of having placed them there artificially.

"I was walking my dog when I came upon a drug deal in progress. One man pointed a gun at my head, while the other was laying on the ground. The gunman turned and ran off from me. The man on the ground got up, and ran off in another direction. I called police."

This is a true account of something that happened to me many years ago.

After calling 911 I thought it was strange that I was not afraid even though the gun was pointed right at me.

A few hours later, I woke up with my hands shaking, unable to go back to sleep. It took time to process the event due to the hormonal flush that I felt during the event.

If I wished to tell this account in story telling:

"It was a normal night, like any other..." signaling that this night would be anything but normal.

"As I came upon the gunman, my heart began to pound, and fear flushed through my veins..."

That is not what happened.

It takes humans time to process thoughts and emotions.

Here, KM puts her thoughts, even using logical conclusions and comparisons, all while being a mother of a missing child.

It is not credible. The hormonal rush would block out the thought process, and the recall should be very clear, also due to the presence of the hormonal increase.
voice over: On Thursday night, Kate put her daughter to bed for the last time.

Kate McCann: My memory of that evening, it’s really vivid, I mean she was really tired but she was just cuddled up on my knee and we read a story and we also had some treats, some crisps and biscuits erm and then after they’d done the usual kind of, toilet, teeth erm we went through to the bedroom and read another story: If your happy and your know it...ermm...[looks at the interviewer then away and back again] ...yep.

The memory of "that" (distancing language of the loss of a child is emotional distancing done to protect) evening. Appropriate use.

"it's really vivid" is due to the hormonal rush of whatever it is that happened that night.

The pronoun "we" shows unity, cooperation between KM and her children.

The word "just" is comparison (see above). This indicates that when Madeleine was very tired, she often acted differently than she did on "that" night: on "that" night, she cuddled up. This indicates that on other nights when she was tired or overtired, she did not cuddle, but was likely difficult. In this description, she not only cuddled, but did so on mother's lap.

Since they are doctors, one should wonder what caused Madeleine to not act out but only to "just" cuddle and sit on her lap.

Was Madeleine given something to help her sleep so that the parents could go out to dinner?
Voice over: At 9pm Gerry checked on Madeleine and the twins

The interviewer (or Voice over) introduced the time of 9PM. We look to see if "9PM" is confirmed by GM:

Gerry McCann: I’d actually stuck my head around the door and I, I just lingered for a few seconds and thought how beautiful she was erm and that’s the last time I saw her.

This is an important statement. It shows two things, in particular:
1. GM does speak for himself, with the pronoun, "I"
2. He used the word "actually" in his checking on Madeleine.

The word "actually" indicates that he is comparing two or more ways of checking on her.

"Would you like to go home now? No, actually, I would like to stay for the whole show..."
"Would you like seafood? No, actually, I would like a steak."
It is used when comparing two or more things.

What was GM comparing his checking with? Whenever I hear the word "actually", I follow up with more questions to learn what the person was comparing.

Note how he also brought his thoughts into the time frame. One might wonder why he feels the need to describe what he thought at that time, since he was checking to see if the kids were okay and asleep while they were at dinner.

GM did not affirm the time he checked on Madeleine.


Interviewer: Last time you saw her

Gerry McCann closes eyes and swallows: Mmmm

Interviewer: You thought how lucky you were

Note that GM did not use the word "lucky" but it is introduced by the Interviewer. This is always to be avoided.


Gerry McCann: Exactly. Your world’s shattered within an hour

Please note that GM, father of missing child, did not say his world was shattered with "an hour" but said "Your world's shattered..."

The expected is that the father of a missing child would say "My world's shattered"

Fatherhood is very personal and up close. We do not expect to hear the 2nd person pronoun used here. This is distancing language that is very unexpected.
voice over: At 10pm it was Kate’s turn to look in on the kids

Reminder: We are not viewing reality; we are viewing verbalized reality.
We are not analyzing Kate McCann; we are analyzing the words KM chose to employ.

Here, we lay out what is expected: "I got there and Madeleine was gone" would be the first thing that a parent would say. (anything similar) Everything pales beyond a child missing and is a lesser, or 'trivial' detail. What does she say?
Kate McCann: The bedroom door where the three children were sleeping was open much further than we’d left it. I went to close it to about here, and then as I got to about here it suddenly ...slammed. And then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children. And literally as I went back in the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn, were closed ...whoooosh...it was like a gust of wind kind of blew them open.

1. The bedroom door
2. Where the three children were sleeping
3. open further than we'd left it
4. I went to close it
5. It suddenly slammed
6. I opened it
7. I just thought I'll just look at the children
8. The curtains of the bedroom were closed
9. like a gust of wind blew them open

Kate McCann: And the curtains which had been closed just swung open into the room and reveal that the shutter was all the way up and the window had been pushed right across and then I just knew...I just knew she’d been taken.

10. curtains just swung open
11. shutter was revealed
12. window pushed right across
13. Thoughts: "I just knew, I just knew"

Deception indicated

In any event told, there are three sections to an account:

1. What happened before the event
2. The event itself
3. What happened directly after the event.

Truthful accounts will focus primarily on the event, itself.
The "form" of an answer or statement that is truthful will look like this:

25% of the words or lines written will be dedicated to what happened leading up to the event. This is the "Introduction" to the event.

50% of the words used, or lines written, will be about the most important part of the account: the event itself.

25% will be of what happened afterwards.

A statement is tested on its "Form" and if there is a major deviation from this formula, it can be said that the Account is unreliable.

The overwhelming number of deceptive accounts has the Introduction heavily weighted. 85% of deceptive statements have more information in the "pre" or "Introduction" phase.

Here is an example:

1. "My job is to take care of the clients. That day, I brought
2. my client to the park.
3. He escalated by screaming.
4. He took off his shirt and cut himself.
5. He picked up rocks and threw them at people
6. and screamed at them that he would kill them.
7. I held him by both arms until he calmed down.
8. Once he was calm, I told him that
9. I had to call 911.
10. I waited for police to arrive."

This account is 10 lines in length.
The incident where the client
acted out begins on line 3. It ends at line 7.
What he did after the client calmed down is 2 lines.

Introduction: 2 lines: 20% intro
Escalation of client: 5 lines, or 50%
After event: 3 lines 30%

This would be seen as a Truthful or Reliable statement on its form as it is close to the 25%, 50%, 25% form for truthful accounts.

Accounts that are false or deceptive are often 70% or more in the "Introduction" phase.

In Kate McCann's account, she is 100% in the pre-event of Madeline being missing.

Her answer, by its Form, is deceptive.

She never said Madeline was missing.

voice over: Kate says that after a quick frantic search of the apartment she ran back towards Gerry who was still with their friends at the table by the pool.

Gerry McCann: I know exactly where the table was. It was kinda this bit, so it would be about around here. And er, I was kinda sitting in this bit.
Kate was clearly distraught and I jumped up but, kind of disbelief. She can’t be gone. She can’t...she can’t possibly be...how can she be gone? And I was saying that to Kate as we were both running

Here we have GM using the pronoun, "I" for himself.
Note body posture of "sitting" is a signal of tension for him, yet he was only "kinda" sitting. "Kinda" is a form of qualifier which avoids precise language.
Note that he does not say that "Kate was distraught" (the expected) but that she was "clearly" distraught, showing that being "distraught" is sensitive. Why the need to emphasize the obvious and expected? We would not think that a mother of a missing child is anything but distraught. We must be now on alert for persuasion rather than truth reported.
Voice over: Police were called within fifteen minutes. But they didn’t arrive for nearly an hour. It took them another two hours before they bothered to seal off Madeleine’s bedroom. British investigators later called it the worst preserved crime screen they’d ever encountered. Road blocks and checks weren’t put on Portugal’s borders for a full twelve hours and in days hundreds of guests, potential witnesses and suspects had checked out and left without ever having been interviewed.

Kate McCann: The night seemed so long, every second was excruciating and it was dark and er, you just want there to be light and everybody searching and Madeleine found.

KM did not describe Madeline missing. She did not say that she wanted everyone searching.
She did not say she, the mother, wanted Madeline found.

Statement Analysis teaches that the subject will guide us:

She said "you just want" and not that "I just want"

If KM cannot bring herself to say that she wanted Madeleine found, we cannot say it for her. Using "you" is 2nd person, distancing language. A missing child is very personal to a mother and we expect to hear the oft-used pronoun, "I", something an adult has used millions of times and is quite good at using it properly. It's absence means that she does not commit herself to the statement.

KM does not commit to finding Madeleine.

Interviewer: Did you kill your daughter?

Yes or No questions are the easiest to lie to, however, we are still able to analyze responses.

If the subject says, "no" and when asked, "Why should we believe you?" and says, "Because I told the truth when I said "no", it is a very strong denial.
Therefore, even though yes or no questions are low stress questions for liars, it is still a good question when followed up with "Why should we believe you?"


Gerry McCann: No. That’s an emphatic no. I mean the ludicrous thing is erm 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, because, the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner so ...if she died then, how could we of disposed – hidden her body. You know, when there’s an immediate [inaudible but sounds like he was about to say ‘search’] it’s just nonsense. And if she died when we were in the apartment or fell and di...why would we ...why would we cover that up?

This is an important question and a vital answer. Here, I have repeated his answer, and added emphasis for the analysis:

No.

"No" is a good answer, and is expected. Each word after the word "no" becomes important. It would be best to say "no" and nothing else because in innocency, there is no need to explain.

That’s an emphatic no.

This now weakens his denial, as he repeats it (any repetition is sensitive) and calls for emphasis (another weakness)

I mean the ludicrous thing is erm what,

He is answering the question for himself, and begins with the pronoun, "I", which is good. This connects him to the sentence. We want to see him stay in the first person singular, as truthful.

"the" is an article. Articles are instinctive and exempt from the personal, subjective, internal dictionary we all possess. He addresses "the" ludicrous thing", which is now important. What is "the" ludicrous thing?


I suppose what’s been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body.

"The" ludicrous thing is now weakened by "I suppose". If it is "a" ludicrous thing, than he might only "suppose" rather than know for certainty. Something is "ludicrous" when it is not only false, but obviously false. It is ludicrous to think a man comes down a hot chimney with gifts. "Ludicrous" means to accept as false, without question. Yet, he, himself, questions it by the weak, "suppose."

When we "suppose" , we allow for someone else to "suppose" something else.

"I locked my keys in the car" is strong.
"I think I locked my keys in the car" is weaker; allowing for me, or others, to think that maybe I did not lock them in the car, but left them elsewhere. "Suppose" is the same thing; he is only speculating, yet, the article, "the" addresses a very specific "ludicrous" issue.

The issue: Madeliene died in the apartment and "we" hid her body.

He does not say that this is "the" ludicrous thing. He only supposes it, allowing for himself, and others, to suppose it to be ludicrous, or not to.

People do not like to lie directly, as it causes internal stress.

This is not an embedded admission as he is reporting that this is what's been purported, however, he allows for us to suppose that it may, or may not be, ludicrous.

Well when did she have the accident and died, because, the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner so ...if she died then, how could we of disposed – hidden her body?

He now asks a question, "When?"
Please note that when a person asks a question in an open statement, and does not wait for the Interviewer to answer, it may be an indication that the subject is re-living the event, working from memory, and speaking to himself.
Note that whenever someone is reporting what happened and has the need to say 'why' something was done, it is very sensitive.

Note the change to "we" from the stronger "I" and note when it appears in context: Madeleine dying while "we" were at dinner.

This is to establish an alibi.

If an accident happened, it happened while we were at dinner, so it could not have been us.

This is his reasoning, yet he does not state it but raises it as a question.

Questions can be answered.

Roger Clemens said, 'If I have all these performance enhancing drugs it would mean that someone supplied them. Who is this? Who supplied me? I wish he would come forward.'

The man who supplied him with his performance enhancing drugs did this very thing. He came forward and we heard the telephone recording between Clemens and the man who delivered his drugs.

The challenge shows a need to challenge.

In the McCann case, he raises "accident" as evidence that he and his wife could not be involved.

Yet, had he or Kate accidentally gave Madeleine too much medication to sleep through dinner, she could have expired while they were at dinner.

He raised the question for us to answer. Answering it is not difficult.

Those who lie do not like to be challenged as to veracity and often turn the challenge on others, like Clemens, and like Lance Armstrong, who sued anyone who dared question his veracity, because he could afford to tie up lawyers in court. He added ridicule to his comments.

Billie Jean Dunn uses insults, combing sexual and violent language in her insults. She can bear many things, but cannot bear not being believed.

It is not surprising that McCann would blame police or others.

You know, when there’s an immediate [inaudible ] it’s just nonsense. And if she died when we were in the apartment or fell and di...why would we ...why would we cover that up?

Note that he allows for her to die when they were in the apartment, not when "I was in the apartment" moving away from the singular, "I" and does not ask, "Why would I cover that up?" but "why would we...?"
He did not wait for an answer from the interviewer.

Why would they cover it up?

Because of medicating her to sleep is illegal. They would lose custody of their other children, lose their license to practice medicine and go to prison.

When he asks "why?", we are able to, without much effort, answer him. Yet, he does not ask for himself. He began with "I" but moved, with the topic of possible guilt, to the sharing of guilt/responsibility, to "we."

Kate McCann: It gets even more ludicrous that we’ve obviously hidden her somewhere incredibly well where nobody’s found her ..

Note that GM only "supposes" ludicrous activity, yet KM goes even further with "even more";
Note her words, that she herself frames:
"we've obviously hidden her somewhere."

This is not something we expect to hear from innocent parents. It is too painful.

Both GM and KM allow for them to be involved. Innocent people generally do not allow for any possibility of involvement. Even while attempting to ridicule the notion, we see signals of sensitivity.

These are red flags.
Interviewer: Incredibly well

Kate McCann: and we’d hidden her so well that we’d decided we’d move her in the car which we hired weeks later and you know, it’s just ridiculous

Note the change of language from "ludicrous" to "ridiculous" as a "car" enters her language.
Interviewer: When you come back to Portugal do you feel closer to Madeleine?

Kate McCann: Although I don’t know where Madeleine is that is the last place that, you know, I saw her, held her, and I guess there’s a part of me that still feels connected to her there so.

please note that this is present tense and should be looked at closely. She does not know where Madeleine is, presently, uses the pronoun, "I" and is strong, in spite of saying it in the negative. It could be for several reasons:

1. She is not involved
2. GM hid the body without her (not likely supported by the use of "we" above)
3. She was placed somewhere where her body would move, such as water;
4. She does not know due to being placed where wildlife would 'move' her from the location.

Commonly, small bodies disposed in water are difficult to locate due to current. Haleigh Cummngs, Baby Lisa, and Baby Ayla come to mind.
Regarding kidnapped kids found years later:

Kate McCann: I think kids can be written off, you know, missing kids can be written off too easily. You cannot do that, you cannot give up on a child.

Regarding her child being kidnapped (the context of the voice over), Kate McCann tells us that this is not the case with Madeleine:

1. kids" is used
2. "You" cannot do that; "you" cannot give up. She does not say "I cannot do that" and "I cannot give up".
3. Note the change from "kids" to "child" has a change of language.
4. Note the article, "a" child; not "my" child.

This is a strong indication that Kate McCann knows that Madeleine was not kidnapped and will not be found, years later.

Voice over: With no police force currently investigating Madeleine’s case, the McCanns are using their own money, including royalties from Kate’s book to hire investigators and former police to continue the search for Madeleine.

Gerry McCann: Kids are survivors

Note that he identifies Madeleine's looks, behavior, and voice with "McCann" yet here, only "kids" are survivors, not Madeleine. He does not say that Madeleine is a survivor. This is an indication that he knows Madeleine did not survive.


Kate McCann: You know, Madeleine means tower of strength. Wherever she was, whoever she’s been with, whatever’s happened, we will get her through it
Listen to what KM says, and do not interpret:
She does not say that Madeleine is a tower of strength who has survived and will be found. She only says what the name means.

Note carefully: She does not say that Madeleine is strong and a survivor and that, therefore, Madeline will get through this. She says, "we" will get her through it.
This is a denial of Madeleine's strength and survivor status.

People do not like to lie. Here, KM is not lying because she does not say that Madeleine is a survivor.

Interviewer: You will not rest until you find your daughter, until you wrap your arms around her

This is a direct question (language given, unfortunately) but is a direct question:

Kate McCann: I don’t believe any parent could, you know, and I don’t believe we could ever reach the point where we just think oh well, we’ve done everything now, you know. Whilst the situation remains as it is, you know, Madeleine’s out there and she needs us to find her

1. Please note that KM does not answer the question.
2. Please note that she only affirms that "Madeleine's out there", something that police and doubters also believe, just as many believe that Baby Ayla is "out there" and "floating" and that other dead children that are not laid to rest in a proper burial are "out there." She does not affirm that Madeleine is alive. This is a natural denial we expect from parents.
3. Runs away from commitment: She begins with "I don't believe..." yet switches to "we" repeatedly. This appears to be a very strong signal that they both need to share guilt and responsibility.

Note that the question was directed directly to her, but she avoided a direct answer with "parents": this means the question is very sensitive to her.

Why would the question of not finding rest until she wraps her arms around her child be sensitive to the mother of a missing child?
Gerry McCann: Mmmm

Interviewer: You’ll keep looking forever

Kate McCann: We will

This is a strong indicator that Kate McCann knows that there will not be an end to the search: confident that she will "forever" (Interviewer's words) be looking.

It is similar to OJ Simpson saying he would "never stop" looking for the "real" killer of his ex wife.

Instead of searching until she is found, she affirms that "we" will keep looking forever, without end.

This interview was much better than the others I have seen and has convinced me that the McCanns have guilty knowledge on what happened to Madeleine on the night they reported her missing.

Perhaps the "accident" that they refer to is their use of medication to put Madeleine to sleep while they were on vacation, of which they then discovered that they had unintentionally overdosed her.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/statement-analysis-mccann-interview-2011.html

matthew

Thank you for this article and the links. This SA is very good.

In the last one where Kate iis describing her approach to the bedroom door on her check - I didn't realise even though I have listened and watched the video many times, that she didn't even mention Madeleine was missing. Huh! - but all of the interview is littered with oddities!