The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.


Jill Havern
Forum owner

STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by Guest on 12.11.12 12:01

As was to be expected, Peter Hyatt found numerous sensitive indicators and a "red flag" in this 25 May 2007 interview, even though in those early days questions were not really "hard" questions ...

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.fr/2012/11/the-mccanns-interview-part-one.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Search party redux

Post by Guest on 12.11.12 12:49

1. They admit to not searching. Loud & clear.

2. And they don't seem to be able to put one sentence of decent english together.

3. What level of education does it take to qualify as a UK physician?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by Guest on 12.11.12 14:12

@Portia
It is not meant as 'proper English', imo

They speak the language of 'mis information' or
'propaganda' , the tongue used by PR big-shots, politicians
and others.

parapono

'what you sow, you'll harvest'

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by Angelique on 12.11.12 15:31

It is almost as though the McCanns and anyone else related to them in whatever sphere, media, journalists, PR merchants, can say anything really. I have come to realise that it doesn't matter anymore. They can say whatever they like, no one is going to touch them. We can point discrepancies until the end of time but it seems that they will not have account for anything.

I fear Ironside/SteelMagnolia was right - there is nothing that is going to change the status quo. I just wish she could have told us who is protecting them.

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 36
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by tigger on 12.11.12 15:49

He should analyse the Australian interview from last year, they really slipped up big time there.

I like the way het points out how bad the interview technique was. Very soon they could pick and choose their questions and as I recall, Kate wrote in her diary that they sometimes rehearsed up to three hours before an interview.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by Da Troof on 12.11.12 16:30

@tigger wrote: Kate wrote in her diary that they sometimes rehearsed up to three hours before an interview.

Hence "we were working really hard" whistling

Da Troof

Posts : 80
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-09-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by kinell on 12.11.12 16:49

@Da Troof wrote:
@tigger wrote: Kate wrote in her diary that they sometimes rehearsed up to three hours before an interview.

Hence "we were working really hard" whistling

And "Gerry put on another great performance"

(great performance? bigshock )

____________________


kinell

Posts : 88
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2012-03-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by Bob Southgate on 12.11.12 16:58

@tigger wrote:He should analyse the Australian interview from last year, they really slipped up big time there.

I like the way het points out how bad the interview technique was. Very soon they could pick and choose their questions and as I recall, Kate wrote in her diary that they sometimes rehearsed up to three hours before an interview.



What interview was that and how did they slip up?

Bob Southgate

Posts : 161
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-11-01
Age : 55

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by Bob Southgate on 12.11.12 17:13

Jean wrote:This is a link to the Australian interview topic.

[url=http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3090-mccanns-in-australia?highlight=australia
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3090-mccanns-in-australia?highlight=australia[/quote[/url]]



Thanks Jean.

Bob Southgate

Posts : 161
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-11-01
Age : 55

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by tigger on 12.11.12 17:25

Here's a part of Dr. Robert's analyses, from 'Now we know' 28th july 2011, see McCannfiles.

"Did you kill your daughter?" asks the lady journalist. Gerry answers:

"No. That's an emphatic 'no.' I mean the ludicrous thing is. Errm... 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? Cos... the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner, so if she died then, how could we have disposed of... hidden her body when there was an immediate search. It's just nonsense. So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

KM (interjecting): "And it gets even more ludicrous, that we've obviously hidden her so incredibly well, where nobody's found her and we hid her (interviewer: 'incredibly well') so well that we then decided that we'd move her in the car which we hired weeks later and you know it's just ridiculous."

Let's take this a step at a time.

"Did you kill your daughter?"

"No. That's an emphatic 'no.'"

This is Gerry speaking don't forget. For any other innocent mortal 'Absolutely not' would have been a sufficient response. Not for Gerry though. Despite his subsequent claim, he gives a decidedly unemphatic answer - 'No.' What follows is meta-language, where he is describing his earlier articulation of a word and does not address the underlying semantics in any way. Incoherent and unnecessary expansion then takes us away from the original question, referencing what has been 'purported' in Portugal, namely that 'Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body.'

Next comes a cunning locking of the incident to a specific time frame, with the suggestion that Madeleine could only have had an accident when unattended. But Gerry slips up in questioning how it would have been possible for them to have disposed of Madeleine's body. In immediately substituting the phrase hidden her body he has already told us what in fact happened. Excitedly he goes on to ask why the parents should have covered up an accident. Why indeed.

It hardly comes as a surprise that Kate leaps in at this point, before Gerry's mouth can write any more bad cheques. She loses no time in elaborating upon the 'hide-and-seek' scenario played out that Thursday night, and the 'ludicrous' idea of their hire car being involved afterwards. But the damage has already been done.

The script, charitably outlined by Goncalo Amaral and fleshed out here by the McCanns, so as to exonerate themselves, depends entirely for its effect upon the premise that little Madeleine disappeared inexplicably that Thursday night; a premise that becomes less clear the closer it is examined. And Gerry is right. It wouldn't make sense to conceal an accident.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by Guest on 12.11.12 18:59

@ Tigger: quote And Gerry is right. It wouldn't make sense to conceal an accident.Unquote.
***
I'm afraid I've gotten to that point too some time ago ... :-(
IMO, of course.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

And then!

Post by Guest on 12.11.12 19:37

The next question then addressed to doctor McCann should have been: if you didn't kill her, who did?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by Guest on 12.11.12 20:18

I tought I had read this statement analysis a long time ago,but I see its posted yesterday so it must have been another one :)
Anyway . I came to this answer from Gerry :

GM: Yeah. I mean, without doubt, they... they help us to continue, you know.
This is every parent's worse nightmare and everyone can feel
and imagine what we've gone through
but, you know,
if we'd had discovered all three of our children had gone
or if something else had happened, then, you know, we...
we'd not have had the same strength and resolution and
determination to find Madeleine that Sean and Amelie give us,
as well, because we know that they're there, errr...
life continues but we need to bring them back... bring
Madeleine back as much for them, as for Madeleine, as for us.


The bolded sentence stood out for me, at first I thought it might be a typing mistake, but it is not. I myself has experienced some very traumatic things in mylife, and I truly feel no one can realy truly feel what im going through, or went trough if they had not been in my shoes or experienced the same as me. People can TRY to imagine it, but no way do they feel it..
Then I read the analysis and they point it out also that innocent parents often feel that noone can understand them.. So confirms my own feelings, proves nothing ofcourse . just wanted to say thats how I feel to, and everyone I know thats been in troubled situation often say excacly that: NOONE understands what im going trough, or understands my feelings..
If I lied, I guess I would try to make everyone feel like me, to be one, to be safe....he ( Gerry) cant own a feeling he dont have, so everyone gets included in it..... (imo)

Analyse:
This is a very strange answer. The loss of a child is very personal, and the innocent parent who
has lost a child often feels (and articulates) that "no one" can understand the level
of pain the parent is in.
Here, he says it is "every" parent's worst nightmare, rather than his own worst nightmare
and that "everyone can feel and imagine"; whereas most parents, in such horrific
pain, say the very opposite thing.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by Guest on 12.11.12 21:28

Take this analyses rules and think of the many interviews..
Kate when she talks about what she should have said and done when Madeleine asked why they did not come when they cried, and when they explaine how normal their routins where on the holiday, just a normal holiday with friends etc... This where the first that spring to my mind when reading this:

4. "Normal" The word "normal" is highlighted in all statements. When someone refers to their own selves as "normal" it is an indication that they have been considered not "normal" (by themselves and/or others) in the past. When a day or event is "normal" in the subject's reality, it is an indication that the day (or event) is anything but normal.

5. Negative. Anything reported in the negative is important. It is the analyst's job to learn why something is sensitive. Here, Casey reveals high levels of sensitivity in reporting things in the negative. A truthful statement is not only first person singular, past tense, it tells what happened; not what did not happen, nor what was not thought, felt, etc. When someone tells us what did not happen, or what was not thought, it is to be highlighted as sensitive to the subject.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.fr/2012/11/statement-analysis-original-casey.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by Ribisl on 12.11.12 23:48

Moa wrote:I tought I had read this statement analysis a long time ago,but I see its posted yesterday so it must have been another one :)
Anyway . I came to this answer from Gerry :

GM: Yeah. I mean, without doubt, they... they help us to continue, you know.
This is every parent's worse nightmare and everyone can feel
and imagine what we've gone through
but, you know,
if we'd had discovered all three of our children had gone
or if something else had happened, then, you know, we...
we'd not have had the same strength and resolution and
determination to find Madeleine that Sean and Amelie give us,
as well, because we know that they're there, errr...
life continues but we need to bring them back... bring
Madeleine back as much for them, as for Madeleine, as for us.


The bolded sentence stood out for me, at first I thought it might be a typing mistake, but it is not. I myself has experienced some very traumatic things in mylife, and I truly feel no one can realy truly feel what im going through, or went trough if they had not been in my shoes or experienced the same as me. People can TRY to imagine it, but no way do they feel it..
Then I read the analysis and they point it out also that innocent parents often feel that noone can understand them.. So confirms my own feelings, proves nothing ofcourse . just wanted to say thats how I feel to, and everyone I know thats been in troubled situation often say excacly that: NOONE understands what im going trough, or understands my feelings..
If I lied, I guess I would try to make everyone feel like me, to be one, to be safe....he ( Gerry) cant own a feeling he dont have, so everyone gets included in it..... (imo)
Good observation, Moa. It almost sounds like Gerry saying: "See how easy it is to imagine what a parent must feel like after losing his beloved child because I've tried and found it a doddle, really, to play the part of a bereaved parent and fool everybody including my own family. In fact I'm sooo good I've convinced myself!" IMVHO.

____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

Ribisl

Posts : 807
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by tigger on 13.11.12 5:46

From amazon review of the Assassination Tapes by G.J.A. O'Toole.

The voice stress analyzer (VSA) is an electronic device that analyzes spoken words and determines if the speaker is lying. It is similar to the stress detector that measures heart rate, breathing, and perspiration ("lie detector") of a live human. The VSA does not require the knowledge, cooperation, or presence of the subject. It can be used with recordings to test the dead. George O'Toole compiled copies of all recordings of the assassination. He then interviewed as many of the principle players as possible and recorded their conversations. This book is the result. This 1975 book seems to have caused the Congressional Select Committee that re-investigated the assassination, and uncovered the facts used in the second wave of books on the subject after 1977. The first wave was the books published in the late 1960s.
The conclusion is that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, and Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent. There were two interlocking conspiracies: one small and tightly organized to shoot JFK; another large and loosely organized to cover it up. The latter involved those who became involved accidentally, reluctantly, or after the fact; they were the weakest links.
unquote

I've read this book, it's very interesting. The author detects stress in Oswald's voice when he's asking for a lawyer, not when he's asked it he's killed John Kennedy.

The bolded sentence is highly relevant here imo.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by Guest on 13.11.12 9:36

I find this statement analysis so interresting to read.

I also read the SA of the ramseys TV interviews, before I only read the SA of the note.. Very interresting indeed.

I also read an analysis from the anthony case, and wow so much of it made me think about K and G and how they are telling their story...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

from the book "madeleine" by Kate McCann.

Post by russiandoll on 15.11.12 15:37

Having
been very strong in my condemnation of the forum admin for what has
been allowed to remain posted on the Hillsborough topic, and having
stated my intention not to post here again [ although I have continued
to read with as much interest as ever on the Maddie issues], I am not
sure that this post will be allowed to remain.

I feel however,
given that there is a debate of sorts taking place with a pro- the
parents forum, that I have to post this question in the hope that a
reasoned reply will be forthcoming.
As a person trained in modern
languages and linguistics and someone who has worked as an analyst, I
was very struck by the following passage in Kate McCann's book about the
disappearance of her daughter. It was after reading the book and what I
perceived to be its numerous red flags that I decided to discuss the
issues on this forum and twitter. I had read the police files and had
many doubts about the story told by the parents, but the book was the
catalyst for my wanting to join in a reasoned debate.
The bold in the following passage from "madeleine" is mine:

"Then a lady appeared on a balcony – I’m fairly certain this was
about 11pm, before the police arrived – and, in a plummy voice,
inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ I explained
as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl
had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I
see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen
off a kitchen shelf.
I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this
woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect
that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and
to the point."

The language used by Kate McCann here is a mix of logical and illogical
when making analogies. She is very annoyed at what seemed to be an
under-reaction by this lady to what she had just told her, a reaction
more appropriate having heard some bad news concerning an object rather
than a person.
It is a nonsense to think that there would be any
reaction to being told by a stranger that a can of beans had fallen off a
shelf. Not only is it trivial, it is of no concern at all to a stranger
and nobody would impart this non-news regarding a can of beans falling
off a kitchen shelf.
What is worth close analysis is the change of
verb, illogical in the first instance. If you wish to demonstrate the
difference between something bad happening to something important to you
[ a person, in this case one remove higher than just any person, your
child] logic dictates that you use the same or a similar verb, but a
different noun to make that point.

Logically, Kate should have written about the lady's casual response :
ALMOST AS IF SHE'D JUST BEEN TOLD THAT MY PURSE
HAD BEEN STOLEN [ possessive "my" still in place,same verb]
or ALMOST AS IF SHE'D JUST BEEN TOLD THAT I HAD LOST MY NECKLACE [ again, "my" in place,similar verb]
ALMOST AS IF SHE'D JUST BEEN TOLD MY PASSPORT WAS MISSING. [ again, " my" in place, similar verb]

Why does Kate instead decide to use a different verb to make her point
in a much weaker way, a nonsensical way, as well as changing the person
to a thing to denote the lack of value which would reasonably get a
casual response from the lady on the balcony?
AND WHY USE THIS
PARTICULAR VERB...FALLEN? Kate could have used any number of verbs and
things to make her analogy..if she decided to unnecessarily change the
verb as well as the noun.
So my question is this. Why was FALLEN chosen? And not something FALLING, or FALLING OVER , but FALLING OFF SOMETHING....
THE ONLY EXPLANATION FOR ME AS A LINGUIST IS THAT LOGIC COMES INTO
PLAY HERE, BECAUSE KATE MCCANN IS DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN A VIRTUALLY
WORTHLESS OBJECT FALLING OFF SOMETHING...
AND THE MOST PRECIOUS AND VALUABLE ENTITY.. A PERSON, AND NOT JUST ANY PERSON, HER CHILD.....FALLING OFF SOMETHING.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by Guest on 15.11.12 15:59

Good observation RD.

Why would she use fallen, instead of compering to something else stolen, like you mentioned a purse, passport etc..

Interesting indeed...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by pennylane on 15.11.12 16:08

Mrs Fenn told the police in her statement that when she heard the commotion, she looked over the balcony and saw Gerry McCann and inquired what had happened.... to which HE told her "a small child had been taken."

When it comes to rewriting history, the Mc's really have left 'no stone unturned.'

pennylane

Posts : 2529
Reputation : 1189
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by Guest on 15.11.12 16:35

@Portia wrote:The next question then addressed to doctor McCann should have been: if you didn't kill her, who did?
Sorry for being late in reacting, but IMO
the follow-up question ought to be:
´how did she die'

parapono

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by aiyoyo on 15.11.12 20:47

@pennylane wrote:Mrs Fenn told the police in her statement that when she heard the commotion, she looked over the balcony and saw Gerry McCann and inquired what had happened.... to which HE told her "a small child had been taken."

When it comes to rewriting history, the Mc's really have left 'no stone unturned.'

NOT their child, but a small child!

Very indirect, cold, and impersonal - and the reason behind.......?

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by aiyoyo on 15.11.12 20:50

Moa wrote:Good observation RD.

Why would she use fallen, instead of compering to something else stolen, like you mentioned a purse, passport etc..

Interesting indeed...

Using a "falling object from a shelf" as analogy could be her subconscious speaking, comparing it to a child falling off from somewhere high.

If Maddie was stolen, she might have used a stolen valuable as analogy. Just a thought.......

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: STATEMENT ANALYSIS Peter Hyatt taking up analysis of McCann interviews again

Post by Guest on 16.11.12 9:50

This reminds me of the French book "Belle Famille" by Arthur Dreyfus. It's very obviously based on he Madeleine McCann case and brilliantly written. In his book it's a French family Macand on holiday in Italy and their son Madec [Maddie] dies by accident, FALLING from a chair trying to reach something from a high SHELF whilst having a knife in his hand. His mother finds him, puts him in a car and throws him into the sea ...

It's been discussed here before http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5105-belle-famille-by-arthur-dreyfuss-has-won-the-french-orange-book-award


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum