Embedded Admissions or Embedded Confessions are often thrilling to spot, and easy to be mistaken over.





In the interview by Richard Hall about missing toddler, Madeleine McCann, the title is listed as such.





What does this mean?





An embedded admission is where a subject chooses his or her own words to frame guilt. "Admission" is to acknowledge what was done, while "confession" acknowledges what was done but also clarifies the guilt. For law enforcement purposes, we need only one to admit what they did; we don't need them to tell us it was morally wrong.





In a recent interview in a break in, the subject said, "I could not afford a lawyer to show if I was innocent or guilty. "





He allowed for the possibility of guilt. This is not something we expect from one who's de facto (actual) innocence protects him from an emotional connection with guilt. This is our "psychological wall of truth." In this case, the subject went on to come very close to embedding an admission or confession as he described the thief as someone who "had to be desperate." Later in the interview, he spoke of being "desperate" in providing for his growing family.





With a risky action planned, we thus search for a "trigger"; that is, an event that causes him to cross the line and actually go through with his plans.





As I let him speak he eventually described "the last straw" as a point where the company did not believe him on something and he was humiliated.





In his mind, he did not break in and steal; he "balanced the accounts" owed or obtained "redress" for perceived insult of not being believed earlier by a superior.





In the recent "Fake Hate" case where a woman claimed to have been victimized by a dangerous arsonist/racist, an interview with the subject who is currently raising money at Go Fund Me, we are very likely to hear her describe herself, in some way, as a "victim."





Where there is a "victim", there is a "victimizer", or villain and exploiting the public is not "stealing" but in seeking "redress" of perceived "wrongs."





These all can appear as embedded admissions but they are not.





"You say that I stole the money!"





This is not an embedded admission.





This is to show that the language, "I stole the money" originates from someone else: "You say..."





"Everywhere you read that I lied!"





The first may have stolen the money but it is not embedded admission. In the second, the subject may have lied, but this is not an embedded admission either. He is ascribing the information to media.





An embedded admission is the framing of words which confesses or admits the action or guilt, where the origin of the wording is the subject, (speaker), himself.





In the McCann interview on youtube, you will see an example of this.





Deceptive people will do this, at times, believing they are using ridicule instead of a denial, which will be entreated by the audience favorably. It is to say, "if you are as smart as me, you'll laugh at this too!"





Absent of a denial, it is a concern.





The key is found in a basic principle of Statement Analysis: following the language:





What produced it?

What is the greater context?

What is the lesser context? (sentence/sentences)

What is the quality of the sentences?





An analyst asked about these statements in the McCann case.





This case captured the imagination of the public because, for the most part, intuition told listeners that something was amiss.





The claim was that someone broke into the flat and kidnapped young Madeleine while the parents were a short distance away, on holiday, having dinner.





With a kidnapped child, we have a body of work that tells people exactly what they thought it would:





The parents will tell the public:





1. my child is kidnapped

2. my child is in the hands of strangers

3. my parental instinct is engaged; my priority and my goal is one

4. Human empathy is with the victim, a child in the hands of stranger.









In other words, the parents are going to tell us that she is kidnapped and then express the normal empathy that parental instincts naturally do:





What is she going through?

Is she being fed?

Does she have her favorite blankie, toy, etc?

Is she crying at night?

What is she going through looking at a stranger's face?





They will plea for her return and plea for their daughter's treatment.





With the McCanns early interviews, the only people that claimed she was kidnapped and showed human empathy for the victim were supporters; not the McCanns. The McCanns concern was self, their sleeping, how they were holding up. They knew Madeleine was beyond their concerns. It is interesting that the most emotionally laden language about the child comes from supporters more than even nostalgia from the parents.





The supporters are willing to say precisely what the McCanns were not willing or able to say.





They disagree with the analysis with the claim of "moral supremacy"; that is, "if you were as caring an individual as me, you'd know she was kidnapped." For some, it has become a life's obsession and purpose.





Although unpopular, Kate McCann's language does not indicate sociopathy.





She was a caring mother.





Why do so many consider her sociopathic?





Here is what I believe to be the answer:





She did not express human empathy for the victim, not due to sociopathic disconnect: she knew Madeleine was beyond her maternal instincts of caring.





She had processed the death.





As a mother, she went through something so horrific, literally failed resuscitation and removal and concealment of the body, that it likely traumatized her.





Therefore, she appears sociopathic as the years go by because of this processing of trauma and the priority of self preservation: She would be in legal jeopardy if she told the truth.





Objection: a caring mother would not sedate her own child.





Answer: Agreed.

Not every abusive parent is a sociopath.





But calloused, uncaring, foolish, selfish may not rise to "sociopath."





Although this is likely, and its condemnation is unnecessary, it does not equal that she was a sociopath. Her medical training gave her a false sense of confidence (her language suggests that this was routine) and she would have faced child abuse (endangerment) charges had she admitted this. As wrong as it was, "sociopath" is not indicative within the language contextually or specifically.





A better argument about a sociopath can be made on the drugging and murder of Caylee Anthony than here. Casey Anthony's language indicates a disconnect with basic human empathy.





My opinion on this topic is limited to Kate. The demonization of Kate may arise from her contempt of the audience and how she "takes the fight", not for Madeleine, but her own name, to the offensive. It is to provoke anger, but doesn't indicate sociopathic personality.





Statements for Analysis





Here are the two statements. One contains an embedded admission; the other indicates distancing language due to guilty knowledge. It is consistent with their earliest statements.













Kate McCann (2011):





I just think Madeleine’s abductor must be sitting there laughing, just thinking “ How easy is this ”, you know, “I’ve committed this crime and the police don’t seem to be t hat concerned and I’m still out here ”.









The greater context is the number of years of processing information. The lesser context is within the statement, itself.





Consider the source of this information is key:





The source of information is for Kate to enter into two things:





a. Action

b. Thinking

c. Language





Kate tells us, specifically, what the abductor must be doing, saying and thinking. She is entering into the abductor's thought process, translating the thoughts to words, while giving a specific body posture (action).





Question: What is the origin of the wording?





If the origin is someone else, it is not an embedded admission.





Answer: The original of the wording is the thoughts of the abductor.





She does not simply say what the abductor said, in a hypothetical, but what the abductor thought as well.





There is no source, no quote, no relaying of this from someone else.





In other words: Kate's own brain produced this.





I believe her.





The body posture indicates tension. She is "sitting", and I would not be surprised to learn that this interview was one in which this statement came while Kate was seated.





"Laughing" is to hold in derision. This is something the British public has been infuriated over; the contempt shown for their audience.



Question: Where is this "abductor" sitting?



Answer: " here"



I believe her. Precisely.









Linguistic Disposition





Linguistic Disposition is critical in analysis





Early on, we ask, "What is the subject's linguistic disposition towards the victim?"





Kate talked about how she was not sleeping, but now about what Madeleine was going through.









Here, what is Kate's linguistic disposition towards police?





She tells us of this contempt.





She has also a history of mocking police.





Kate is telling the truth. She speaks from experiential memory and the language is clear: she "gets" the mindset and the language of the "abductor."





I just think Madeleine’s abductor must be sitting there laughing, just thinking “ How easy is this ”, you know, “I’ve committed this crime and the police don’t seem to be t hat concerned and I’m still out here”.





"How easy is this" is not her first time telling us that it was not difficult. See the original analysis where she boasted of the same. This is now to tell us:





What is her linguistic disposition towards the abductor?





Answer: the abductor is smarter than police. Kate has shown contempt for law enforcement before and she has shown contempt for her audience. This is one of the contributing factors in the British reaction to the McCanns: no one likes being lied to. It presupposes we are too stupid to discern.













Gerry McCann:





It should be very obvious to anybody who has anyone missing that when someone says that you hid your own daughter’s body and faked an abduction, when that child is still missing and we are doing everything in our power to try and find her, I think that would be absolutely shocking to any family.





Gerry and Kate have used very different language. This is not the norm as husbands and wives, in this unique relationship, further entwined with the crime, does show disconnect: they do not enter into each others' language as most married people do.





Here Gerry is showing contempt, not for police, but for the public. It "should" be "very obvious" but it is not.

"I think that would be absolutely shocking to any family" is, in a sense, the "normalization" of that which is not universal nor experienced by many.





How many people have had a stranger kidnap their child or children?





Very few.





What to make of such a normalization?





The universal "you" pronoun suggest, here alone, that the subject is not only acutely aware that he is not believed, but that he did not experience the unique and rare stranger kidnapping. This is why it "should be obvious" and he "thinks" "any" family would know.





"any family" would not know.





That Madeleine was kidnapped by a stranger is something that the McCanns let their supporters say for them. In the early interviews, it was not just "not a priority", it was not in the language.





The public, without training, reacted strongly to this, perhaps not able to articulate why they did not believe them.





This comes close to an embedded confession but is not. It is to share a much more common experience (child's death) than the unique and rare stranger abduction. It is consistent with his other statements which show our Analysis Conclusion:





Both parents knew the child was deceased and beyond their parental help and must maintain a facade for their own freedom and to keep their family intact.





Kate gives us an embedded admission; Gerry does not.





Both statements show guilty knowledge of the death and both are consistent with prior analysis.





For training in deception detection, enroll today at:









also visit our new You Tube channel which we hope to update regularly with examples of how to discern deception.





Katelynn Markham Case: HERE as a sample of the work.



Thanks to Lars for the submission of statements.















