Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

by **Hobs** 07.12.16 5:04

Verdi wrote:The connotation of water; hygiene; lights switched on and off; doors opening closing; would be an issue embedded in the sub-conscience of the victim, not the perpetrator. The victim lives in fear of past experiences of sexual abuse, not the perpetrator.

The Australian interview under examination by Peter Hyatt was with Gerry and Kate McCann, not the victim. Unless he is implying that one or both parents were victims of abuse at some stage in their lives and subsequently became the perpetrator, then it's pure specualtion not worth a moments consideration when examining this isolated case.

For example - I have a deep rooted love of water. Not the stagnant type found in ponds and lakes but crystal clear pure water - does that imply that I've been the victim of sexual abuse? No, I believe it's because I'm an Aquarian or maybe I just like water. Sorry, I'm being facetious.

When water is introduced in a statement, it does not mean that sexual activity has taken place at some time, it means that the subject felt that the introduction of water into their statement, such as washing their hands, bathing, washing dishes etc was important enough to warrant being introduced.
The interviewer then has to find out why the subject felt the need to introduce water.
In kate's case, she felt the need to introduce the children in the book as this:

"We shepherded our three little weary ones through to the bathroom to brush their teeth and for M to do her bedtime wee-wee"

You will note It is M not Madeleine and only M does her bedtime wee-wee.
There was no need to go into such detail.
A simple 'bedtime routine' would have sufficed since we all know it would include, washing face etc, brushing teeth and then toilet in no particular order.
It was however, important enough to kate to tell us in her book that we learn all three little weary ones brushed their teeth and only Maddie (M) had a bedtime wee-wee.
This would cause the interviewer to probe deeper as to their bedtime routine and what was different that night to other nights?

Was this just a way to convince us that Maddie was alive that day?

In sexual abuse cases particularly with children doors are noted as they remember the door opening when their abuser came into the room and door closing behind them and the same when the abuser left.
The same with lights going on or off, it can be a memory of the light being turned on/of prior to the abuse.
Even in young children who cannot have vocalised, the rush of hormones would leave a permanent mark on the brain and could then act as a trigger as they got older.

it does not mean that xyz introduce water in their statement therefore they were abused, it means that xyz had a reason to introduce it into their statement, it was important enough for them to include it when others would not, therefore the interviewer would seek to learn the why.
it could be irrelevant to whatever the interview is about, it could be relevant in that the subject is in an abusive relationship which could have some bearing to whatever the interview is about ( eg money went missing, the subject did not commit the crime but she was in an abusive relationship and her boyfriend threatened her to give him the codes etc so he could then break in and take the money) Or it could be that the person did whatever the interview was about and it was a subconscious cleansing/washing away of the sin.

What is clear with kate is there a lot of mentions of bathing, water, toileting, doors, windows and lights, all of which would tell us there were things going on that were sensitive enough to kate that she introduced it.
fisrst she had the shower when payne turned up, then she had a bath when gerry was there.
We have specifics relating to bedtime routine.
We have specifics relating to door angles,
we have introduction of lights on and off.

All of the above would prompt the analyst to ask why the sensitivity, what was going on at those moments in time.

As with anything just because water, lights, doors etc are introduced, it doesn;t mean that something untoward happened, it means that the subject had a specific reason to introduce it and the interviewer would then seek the answer to why.

The connotation of water; hygiene; lights switched on and off; doors opening closing; would be an issue embedded in the sub-conscience of the victim, not the perpetrator. The victim lives in fear of past experiences of sexual abuse, not the perpetrator.
It is also possible for it to be embedded in the brain of the perpetrator as they could have been a victim of abuse themselves and are perpetuating the cycle.

One seeks the why it was introduced and then from that learns and uses the information to guide the rest of the interview.

That kate and/or gerry may have been victims of abuse themselves as children or a victim of ongoing domestic abuse would be learned from a thorough interview.
That they showed sensitivity is always worth considering given the nature of the crime commited against Maddie.
Were they a victim themselves and perpetuating the cycle as if often found in child abuse cases unfortunately.

As an aside Peter has also done an analysis of their first press statement when gerry read from a prepared script.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/the-case-of-missing-madeleine-mccann.html

by Guest 07.12.16 6:19

Sorry Hobbs, that's just interpretation.

Pretty tenuous stuff.

by Doug D 07.12.16 11:18

I really don’t understand why so many people are out to nonsense something that is not the be-all and end-all, but just another tool that can be subsequently used to aid the investigation and develop questioning in subsequent interviews.

People were saying that his initial discussion with RH brought nothing new to the table and as it was nearly four years after the event was meaningless anyway, so he has now gone right back to the beginning, acknowledged the criticism, but stated that due allowance was made for this time lapse in his considerations.

It was only as recently as the ‘60’s that ‘Body Language’ developed into a ‘science’ (pseudo-science no doubt some will say), but non-verbal communication is now accepted and thrown at you in virtually any ‘people’ or ‘communication’ training that is given by anyone.

Yes we know that ‘even the most intuitive and observant people can misinterpret or misunderstand body language messages’ and you might just have an itchy ear when you pull at your earlobe, but based on analysis of what must now run into millions of interviews, it is in the vast majority of cases a sign of deceit.

Nobody is going to get thrown into jail just because they pulled at their ear, but non-verbal signals can help lead an interviewer to open up questions leading into the right areas.

Eye movement, which at one time was thought to be linked to the side of the brain someone was using when either lying or telling the truth, has been properly studied and generally debunked, but statement analysis in the context we are now seeing is still relatively new.

I too am skeptical about some of the word usage claims, but hopefully open-minded enough to see it for what it is, another tool in the investigatory tool box, which, from what is available to us, appears never to have been properly delved into.

by **Jill Havern** 07.12.16 11:25

Well said DougD.

And PeterMac obviously thought Grange might be interested because he sent them links to the interview.

by Verdi 07.12.16 12:46

Doug D wrote:I really don’t understand why so many people are out to nonsense something that is not the be-all and end-all, but just another tool that can be subsequently used to aid the investigation and develop questioning in subsequent interviews.

I can only speak for myself - it's because Peter Hyatt's interview analysis is being propagated as the be all and end all when, as you rightly say, it's not the be all and end all. It can't even realistically be thought of as a tool to assist an investigation because there isn't a bona-fide investigation to assist - even if there was, the interpretation of an interview shown on Australian television, wouldn't be considered of value to a Portuguese or UK police investigation.

As I recently pointed out - this interview analysis first appeared on Peter Hyatt's blog on 15th November 2012 ..

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

Why all the hullabaloo four years later?

I also have reservations about Peter Hyatt's accreditation, whether he is appropriately qualified and/or trained to undertake the function of a statement analyst for the police. In this case alone, the number of charlatans that have claimed to be experts in one field or anoher, is phenomenal. Sorry but it makes me very wary.

by Guest 07.12.16 13:19

There is some small merit in profiling and various analysis.

However it's not a science.

Absolutely not.

It's an opinion and should be couched with probability factors.

We're not all the same or respond the same to situations.

by Richard IV 07.12.16 14:11

JohnyT wrote:
Verdi wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
In my opinion, innocent people can say emphatically "no" and also ramble.
Especially if getting irate when they think they're being implicated or accused of committing a crime..

"No! I did not rob the bank on the high street - when do you think I did it - in my effing lunch break. Look at the CCTV footage and then tell me I was anywhere near even the High Street let along the bank. If you must know I was down the pub at that time.."

Been there done it (not bank robbery you understand:).
.....are you sure?
On a serious note, I'm still not convinced that all the various answers mean what Peter says. Although i must admit, when he was asked if he killed his daughter there seemed to be no emotion. I'd have been livid about that question.
JohnyT

I expect they had been told beforehand what the questions were going to be.

Yes, I think I`d have been livid too if I had not been expecting it and probably made some sarcastic comment if I was innocent.

by Richard IV 07.12.16 14:32

BlueBag wrote:Sorry Hobbs, that's just interpretation.

Pretty tenuous stuff.

But based on empirical experience which all psychology is based on, so IMO not so tenuous.

Isn`t there a scientific model for observational analysis. Not sure. But if it is observed that hundreds of people display the same behaviour linked to a previous happening, surely that has credit.

by Guest 07.12.16 14:57

There seems to be quite a few folks who just want to believe in Peter and his analysis. He has all the triggers in place to hook his audience.

I would suggest that his conclusions are based around what's best for his business (training) and it's not even subtle. He agrees with the Amaral theory (many on here don't) because that is the most well known, he then adds in sexual abuse because it has been hinted about for years and it certainly gets people's attention and may lead to training opportunities.

Statement Analysis is not a recognised science (and probably never will be) however he's trying to sell it as such however he has no qualification to do so. He could somewhat be compared to Dr Sharon Leal but she is actually qualified to give an opinion and there's not too many around here who accept her opinion on the McCanns behaviour or language etc.

There is also the fact that he claimed in Richard's video that he knew little about this case, it seems Peter is not immune from a little deception himself.

by **Hobs** 07.12.16 15:40

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/the-case-of-madeleine-mccann-part-two.html

He is now looking at their second statement just after Maddie 'Disappeared'

by Tony Cadogan 07.12.16 15:54

plebgate wrote:Peter Hyatt did say that anyone can disagree with his opinion. Quite why some posters have to use such words as balderdash I have no idea. Big businesses don't seem to see this sort of analysis as balderdash or they wouldn't use his services. He also states that he has trained police personnel in these techniques.

Peter Hyatt gave an example of toothbrushes POSSIBLY being an indictator of some sort of abuse. He went on to say that this would not necessarily hold in every case, so why anyone would post that it is voodooish and that Hobbs' last post was almost incoherent, I do not know as I could make sense of what she was saying.

Peter Hyatt has gone on camera and stated quite clearly his beliefs from his analysis of the Australian interview.

It will be very interesting to me to see if any legal action is taken against him.

“Peter Hyatt did say that anyone can disagree with his opinion.”

If you are referring to my post, I’ve said nothing about Peter Hyatt. Besides, I do not need a permission to disagree. It so happens that I do not necessarily disagree with Peter Hyatt in the way you seem to have implied.

“Quite why some posters have to use such words as balderdash I have no idea.”

Neither have I. I am afraid. I was echoing another’s sentiment.

“Big businesses don't seem to see this sort of analysis as balderdash or they wouldn't use his services.”

And what gave you that impression?

“Hobbs' last post was almost incoherent…”

In general or in this case in particular, do you have a problem with my speaking as I find?

“Peter Hyatt has gone on camera and stated quite clearly his beliefs from his analysis of the Australian interview.”

What is the significance, if any, of the word ‘quite’ in your above sentence?

I do not propose to argue about words.

What I said in my post was not intended as a criticism of Peter Hyatt.

by MayMuse 07.12.16 16:13

No matter who or what is analysed, no matter how many times Madeleine is regurgitated in MSM, no matter the non existent burglars and child trafficking theories or the amount of funding thrown at the investigation; it does not hide the fact that intelligent cadaver and blood hounds alerted to apartment 5A and items belonging to the McCann family ONLY...
That in my opinion is the most valid statement of all!

by Richard IV 07.12.16 16:19

Hobs wrote:http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/the-case-of-madeleine-mccann-part-two.html

He is now looking at their second statement just after Maddie 'Disappeared'

Glad to see he will try to analyse the friends` statements when he has time.

by Richard IV 07.12.16 16:29

HKP wrote:There seems to be quite a few folks who just want to believe in Peter and his analysis. He has all the triggers in place to hook his audience.

I would suggest that his conclusions are based around what's best for his business (training) and it's not even subtle. He agrees with the Amaral theory (many on here don't) because that is the most well known, he then adds in sexual abuse because it has been hinted about for years and it certainly gets people's attention and may lead to training opportunities.

Statement Analysis is not a recognised science (and probably never will be) however he's trying to sell it as such however he has no qualification to do so. He could somewhat be compared to Dr Sharon Leal but she is actually qualified to give an opinion and there's not too many around here who accept her opinion on the McCanns behaviour or language etc.

There is also the fact that he claimed in Richard's video that he knew little about this case, it seems Peter is not immune from a little deception himself.

I don`t know why you`re trying to denigrate the man - he is allowed to make a living and pass his expertise on to others.

Statement Analysis does not have to be a recognised science. Why do you keep saying this. Lots of things in psychology are not recognised by the more scientific community - it doesn`t mean their methods are not credible. What is wrong with empirical observation which obviously Peter Hyatt has used together with some bio-scientific known reactions of the sympathetic nervous system.

If a dog pees on a lamp-post and then another thousand dogs are seen to pee on lamp-posts then it can be assumed that in general, dogs pee on lamposts - it is not scientific but empirical.

Much of human behaviour is not scientific.

by Guest 07.12.16 16:42

Richard IV wrote:
HKP wrote:There seems to be quite a few folks who just want to believe in Peter and his analysis. He has all the triggers in place to hook his audience.

I would suggest that his conclusions are based around what's best for his business (training) and it's not even subtle. He agrees with the Amaral theory (many on here don't) because that is the most well known, he then adds in sexual abuse because it has been hinted about for years and it certainly gets people's attention and may lead to training opportunities.

Statement Analysis is not a recognised science (and probably never will be) however he's trying to sell it as such however he has no qualification to do so. He could somewhat be compared to Dr Sharon Leal but she is actually qualified to give an opinion and there's not too many around here who accept her opinion on the McCanns behaviour or language etc.

There is also the fact that he claimed in Richard's video that he knew little about this case, it seems Peter is not immune from a little deception himself.
I don`t know why you`re trying to denigrate the man - he is allowed to make a living and pass his expertise on to others.

Statement Analysis does not have to be a recognised science. Why do you keep saying this. Lots of things in psychology are not recognised by the more scientific community - it doesn`t mean their methods are not credible. What is wrong with empirical observation which obviously Peter Hyatt has used together with some bio-scientific known reactions of the sympathetic nervous system.

If a dog pees on a lamp-post and then another thousand dogs are seen to pee on lamp-posts then it can be assumed that in general, dogs pee on lamposts - it is not scientific but empirical.

Much of human behaviour is not scientific.

So, what do you think of Dr Sharon Leal's opposite opinion that they are competely innocent (she also claims to be an expert in deception). Who to believe or neither

by Guest 07.12.16 16:43

Statement Analysis does not have to be a recognised science.

It isn't.

Why do you keep saying this. Lots of things in psychology are not recognised by the more scientific community - it doesn`t mean their methods are not credible.

Lots of psychology is quackery.

by worriedmum 07.12.16 17:41

MayMuse wrote:No matter who or what is analysed, no matter how many times Madeleine is regurgitated in MSM, no matter the non existent burglars and child trafficking theories or the amount of funding thrown at the investigation; it does not hide the fact that intelligent cadaver and blood hounds alerted to apartment 5A and items belonging to the McCann family ONLY...
That in my opinion is the most valid statement of all!

by plebgate 07.12.16 18:48

@Tony Cadogan

Glad to hear you weren't having a go at Peter Hyatt. He is as much entitled to a view as you are.
As for why I used the word "quite" why instead of just why - I do not know maybe you could have a go at statement analysis. big grin

I also am entitled to an opinion and my opinion on your first response was that you were having a go at Peter Hyatt but I accept having read your further post that you were not.

Onwards and upwards and as Doug D has rightly pointed out - nobody is saying that this is the be all and end all just another useful tool to give food for thought.

At least he has gone in front of a camera and is prepared to take criticism, something IMO even when remaining anonymous on a forum you do not seem to like to take. Just my humble opinion of course.

Anyway, onwards and upwards as usual.

by Richard IV 07.12.16 20:35

HKP wrote:
Richard IV wrote:
HKP wrote:There seems to be quite a few folks who just want to believe in Peter and his analysis. He has all the triggers in place to hook his audience.

I would suggest that his conclusions are based around what's best for his business (training) and it's not even subtle. He agrees with the Amaral theory (many on here don't) because that is the most well known, he then adds in sexual abuse because it has been hinted about for years and it certainly gets people's attention and may lead to training opportunities.

Statement Analysis is not a recognised science (and probably never will be) however he's trying to sell it as such however he has no qualification to do so. He could somewhat be compared to Dr Sharon Leal but she is actually qualified to give an opinion and there's not too many around here who accept her opinion on the McCanns behaviour or language etc.

There is also the fact that he claimed in Richard's video that he knew little about this case, it seems Peter is not immune from a little deception himself.
I don`t know why you`re trying to denigrate the man - he is allowed to make a living and pass his expertise on to others.

Statement Analysis does not have to be a recognised science. Why do you keep saying this. Lots of things in psychology are not recognised by the more scientific community - it doesn`t mean their methods are not credible. What is wrong with empirical observation which obviously Peter Hyatt has used together with some bio-scientific known reactions of the sympathetic nervous system.

If a dog pees on a lamp-post and then another thousand dogs are seen to pee on lamp-posts then it can be assumed that in general, dogs pee on lamposts - it is not scientific but empirical.

Much of human behaviour is not scientific.
So, what do you think of Dr Sharon Leal's opposite opinion that they are competely innocent (she also claims to be an expert in deception). Who to believe or neither

Whatever her qualifications are she`s a fraud IMO.

by Richard IV 07.12.16 20:37

BlueBag wrote:
Statement Analysis does not have to be a recognised science.
It isn't.

Why do you keep saying this. Lots of things in psychology are not recognised by the more scientific community - it doesn`t mean their methods are not credible.

Lots of psychology is quackery.

In your opinion

by Verdi 07.12.16 20:50

HKP wrote:
So, what do you think of Dr Sharon Leal's opposite opinion that they are competely innocent (she also claims to be an expert in deception). Who to believe or neither

Plus Tony's (Bennett) astute find from the 'Eyes for Lies' blog back in October 2011, I bumped up-thread..

'Eyes for Lies' still sure the McCanns are innocent

Eyes for Lies' is a blog run by an American lady, a psychologist or analyst of some kind, who proclaims that she is an 'expert in deception'. She even runs training courses in how to spot lies.

She has posted many useful articles analysing those who have lied in public and one of her most penetrating observations IMO was on a TV interview given by Robert Murat days after he famously won his £600 grand in the High Court of Justice in early 2008. We've quoted from it extensively in one of our articles about Robert Murat.

As the result of a recent TV items about the McCanns on Australian TV, she made this pronouncement yesterday:

]http://blog.eyesforlies.com/2011/10/mccanns-speak-out-in-australia.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EyesForLies+%28Eyes+for+Lies+Blog%29

QUOTE

I continue to support the McCanns are innocent and uninvolved in the disappearance of their daughter.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3721-eyes-for-lies-still-sure-the-mccanns-are-innocent#80254

Madeleine McCann's disappearance - big business all round!

by Verdi 07.12.16 20:54

Richard IV wrote:
Statement Analysis does not have to be a recognised science. Why do you keep saying this.

Because it has been claimed on this forum that statement analysis IS a recognised science.

by Guest 07.12.16 20:57

@Richard lV
So Sharon Leal is a fraud but Peter Hyatt is using scientific type analysis and he's not a fraud. I used statement analysis to deduce that.

Eta. Personally I think Dr Leal is wrong but saying she's a fraud is a bit misguided.

http://www.port.ac.uk/department-of-psychology/staff/dr-sharon-leal.html

If you could link to Peter's credentials that would be helpful.

This deception and analysis caper is all about the individuals interpretation therefore different people are seeing different things, some are even seeing what they want to believe.

by Guest 07.12.16 21:28

Richard IV wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Statement Analysis does not have to be a recognised science.
It isn't.

Why do you keep saying this. Lots of things in psychology are not recognised by the more scientific community - it doesn`t mean their methods are not credible.

Lots of psychology is quackery.
In your opinion

No.. I think I stated two facts there.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.12.16 21:33

HKP wrote:@Richard lV
So Sharon Leal is a fraud but Peter Hyatt is using scientific type analysis and he's not a fraud. I used statement analysis to deduce that.

Sorry @ HKP but I'm afraid for the purposes of your argument, the examples you've chosen are quite inappropriate. I'll explain why.

Look at the clip below where Sharon Leal declares tha the McCanns are innocent.

It's just 34 seconds long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EyT-7Zi5HMj

The documentary plays a brief clip (seconds only) of Gerry McCann making his speech on the evening of Friday 4 May asking for the abductor to return Madeleine.

And then we get a handful of words from Leal finishing IIRC with: "I know there is a lot of controversy about whether the McCanns are guilty or innocent, but from my point of view, I think the McCanns are 100% innocent".

Pray, what kind of analysis is that??!! It is surely worthless. It is not based on any analysis of anything at all apart from giving us a 5-second summary of what Gsrry was saying.

Moreover, we have to look behind the scenes and see if she might have had an agenda. Andsure enough, again i meory serves, was this not produced by shine TV which IIRC was owned by Elisabeth Murdoch & Matthew Freud. If not them, someone else with a pretty close connection to the McCanns, maybe someone else as the details.

So, quite apart from the utter vacuity and baselessness for claiming she thinks the McCanns are 100% innocent, she is manifestly not independent.

And so she is not a fair comparison with Peter Hyatt. Would you agree?

---------------------------

No more to say about Peter Hyatt, there is a range of opinions about his credentials and expertise, no doubt he has got some things right but in other cases his conclusions might not be so well supported or even wrong. I think someone upthread pointed out that the F.B.I. used Statement Analysts - the same folk who now employ Martin Grime

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time