Re: Statement Analysis: Diary of Kate McCann

by Basil with a brush 09.03.17 3:39

BlueBag wrote:I'm sorry Hobbs, you have so much stuff out of context.

Example:
We know the children were sedated, the mccanns finally admitted so, months down the line yet blaming the alleged abductor.

We know no such thing.

They didn't admit it.

Gerry wondered it... as he was driving if I remember correctly.

You can't state "we know" as if it's a fact.

As for:
Gerry screamed: "Kate killed her in frenzy, Madeleine was sedated by us, she fell down the stairs, in which case you would have thought they'd have found her body. I've heard all that"

This doesn't even need context.. he's heard it all.... and so have we, and worse.

I'm not a big fan of statement analysis.

It's seems like a lot of confirmation bias.

Stick to the facts and awkward questions, they can't do you for that.

Hey BlueBag

I know 'Statement analysis' along with polygraphs, is not admissible in a court of law. It's merely another tool frequently used by the police, among others.

Quite a powerful tool I believe though, as apart from my natural gut instinct and intuition for many years following this case, it cemented any doubt for me personally.

Interested on your thoughts as to why it seems like 'confirmation bias' to yourself.

I ask this merely because having listened to an explanation on how it works and is used, I came away under the impression that it is not solely based on the words people use and the order they put these in, but also on what they may introduce freely themselves. Isn't it sometimes used, not only after, but during interview along with body language at the very time the statement is given? More important than those couple of points though, It was also mentioned that they tackle a statement under the impression that 'Everything they tell you is the truth...unless they convince you otherwise' which surely cannot be a bias confirmation.

I can be stupid it's true, so be gentle.

Just genuinely interested in your thoughts

Basil

by hawkmoth 09.03.17 10:58

Hello Basil

I second everything you've said here: I think statement analysis is a very valuable tool when used correctly. Peter Hyatt's embedded confessions video is very impressive, and along with the dog evidence, and Gerry's discomfiture on film, this is what convinced me that M died in the apartment. Hyatt has worked with law enforcement and his S/A has led to successful convictions; I respect his judgement.

I'm not sure what you mean Blue Bag, by confirmation bias in this context - perhaps you'd explain.

The only thing I'm uncertain of is the concept of the 'embedded confession'; I hear what Peter is saying, but I'd need more examples.

Now here's the thing: as armchair analysts we are limited in what evidence we can drum up. The only people who really know what happened are the key players. Seems to me it would be incredibly useful to know for sure, in which part of their statements lies start to creep in, who tells the most lies, and about what.

Given that we have very detailed verbal statements from the Tapas group (except, unfortunately the key players, K & G) could the CMMOM group petition Peter Hyatt to analyse them? In a case of this magnitude it would be good advertising for him.

Statement Analysis: Diary of Kate McCann

Re: Statement Analysis: Diary of Kate McCann

Re: Statement Analysis: Diary of Kate McCann

Log in for more topics