Marking CMOMM's 7th anniversary, member Richard D Hall has today launched his FOURTH Madeleine documentary direct onto YouTube - in 3 parts, it's an extended interview with internationally-known Statement Analyst, Peter Hyatt

All the links here:

PART ONE
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

PART TWO
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 

PART THREE
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Amazing interview, totally blown away and confirms many thoughts. Praise and thanks to Richard and Peter. 

Richard's three 'Embedded Confessions' videos have together had 17,000 views already, and they've not been up for 24 hours yet. 

That's over 1,000 new views every hour, or one new view every 3 seconds

When Peter Hyatt said the McCann's would make a confession, Richard nearly fell off his seat.
Such a brilliant interview, hat doffed to Richard Hall for this video, such an absolutely fascinating science. To see how the words they used and the sentences that were chosen to paint a picture, unravel to show the deception, is jaw dropping.  

Well worth watching the 3 vidoes a few times, so the gravity of what is revealed fully sinks in.

Thank you to Richard for permission to add these videos to HiDeHo4 Channel  What an unbelievable interview.  Kudos to Richard for producing this and kudos to Peter Hyatt for giving his honest opinion!

I have uploaded the All-in One version.  Easy to share

I will also be adding some snippets into individual videos




[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Interesting video.......I only hope the guy is as qualified as he says he is though?
         Not to be devil's advocate but have his credentials been checked?
JohnyT

JohnyT wrote:Interesting video.......I only hope the guy is as qualified as he says he is though?
         Not to be devil's advocate but have his credentials been checked?
JohnyT

Erm... it is Peter Hyatt, did you listen to what he said and who he had worked for? Perhaps if you checked yourself and saw how much valuable and verifiable work he has done on hundreds of past cases, not just this one, you may answer your own question.

Erm...... Im only asking...and I don't believe everything I read on the internet.......hence my question.
  Oh and I actually did a search.....and found some conflicting reports on him........so please tell me.......who do I believe?
Btw I really hope that he is a genuine guy who is used by the agencies that he says.
JohnyT

JohnyT wrote:Interesting video.......I only hope the guy is as qualified as he says he is though?
         Not to be devil's advocate but have his credentials been checked?
JohnyT

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
   
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
   
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
   
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
   
  
• [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
  

[size=30]Client Testimonials

Detective Carder GravittWarner Robbins Police Department, Warner Robbins, GA
“I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Peter Hyatt for his recent visit to the Warner Robins Police Department and sharing his expertise on Statement Analysis. Before taking Mr. Hyatt’s class, I attended other seminars on the subject.   Mr Hyatt’s teaching style, by far, made learning and understanding of the principles easy to comprehend! I can personally attest that his analysis skills are very accurate. The information he gleans from statements I provide him is extremely helpful in deciding which way I should lean while investigating a case. I would highly recommend and encourage other Law Enforcement Agencies to contact Mr. Hyatt and schedule a training seminar. The training you receive, will not only help you professionally, but will be a skill that will stay with you in every area of your life.”

Lt. David NaborsCriminal Investigation Division, Rowlett, TX
“I had the pleasure of working with Peter Hyatt on several criminal and administrative investigations since 2010. Peter’s in-depth analysis of statements has provided our department with insight into a writer’s intention and mindset when they wrote their statements or letters.
Peter’s analyses has given us valuable information and provided us with additional investigative avenues in obtaining a more truthful account of an incident in some instances. Using Peters insight and analysis into a subject’s writing we’ve been able to construction questions beneficial in getting to the truth in a more expeditious and direct manner. Statement Analysis has also been especially helpful in internal affairs investigations within our department.
I would like to recommend Peter as an examiner and instructor in Statement Analysis. He provides a valuable investigative tool that would be beneficial to your organization.

Michael BerroHarold Levinson Associates, Farmingdale, NY
“Peter Hyatt came to HLA twice to train on interviewing techniques and how to detect deception. Both sessions were extremely informative. We have changed the way we interview…these techniques helped us recover $600,000 from a driver who was involved in an inside job. I would highly recommend Peter…and look forward to future sessions with him.”

Thomas J. Budd Mucci, Esq.
“Peter’s analysis was invaluable to formulating a litigation strategy. Peter’s conclusions about the personalities and motivations derived from the written word proved to be always right on the mark. In future litigation, I plan on saving many hours by seeking Peter’s analysis immediately.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[/size]

Thank you HDH
Although after clicking the links and reading the info........can you class his own blog and company as a credible source?

JohnyT

ching

JohnyT wrote:Interesting video.......I only hope the guy is as qualified as he says he is though?
         Not to be devil's advocate but have his credentials been checked?
JohnyT

Hi Johnny.
Peter is as qualified as he says and his credentials have been checked.
He now trains law enforcement, FBI, Social workers and numerous other  professional people in statement analysis.
He also works with LE and if a case is one being actively investigated that he is helping on, it doesn't appear on his blog or if it is already on his blog it gets removed.
It is fascinating to see arrests made in a case he has covered and justice found.
Casey anthony was one case covered intensely , she was guilty as charged however nothing could be done to prevent a dumb and bored jury clearing her even though one juror admitted they all knew she was guilty but the prosecution didn't prove its case.

Statement analysis is long and hard work, each word has a meaning within the context, each word has a meaning to the subject in their own personal dictionary which is why the analyst needs to learn what the subjects own personal dictionary consists of and then to use only the subjects own words back to them.
This is how a paedophile can pass a polygraph.

The polygrapher asks if he abused/molested the victim and the subject says no and passes.

Had the polygrapher asked if he had touched the victim over/under their clothes and the subject had said yes, the question then becomes where did you touch the victim?
How did you touch the victim?
Even did the victim touch you (as some paedophiles say the victim was the one doing the touching not them)
If the subject denies it then they fail the polygraph.

To the victim and LE it would be abuse /molestation, to the paedophile it was tickling or cuddling.
To the paedophiles mind sexual abuse could be something that hurt the victim or a more severe form such as rape.
Since it was touching only they minimize it and see it as harmless not abuse and some would even touch ambrage at being called a paedophile.

Lying is stressful and hard work and people don't like the stress.
If you listen closely to what is said, you learn the truth.

Thank you for that Hobs......I will look forward to watching it again now !
JohnyT

Richard - Thank you for going to the USA and interviewing Peter Hyatt.  What a fascinating lesson.  I was engrossed in all three videos.

It`s amazing that my instincts or `gut feelings` have always told me the Mcs are lying, even before I knew much about the case.  Peter Hyatt has explained scientifically why my instincts were correct.

Whilst I have always believed  that Madeleine died in 5A as a result of an accident and believe  that Peter Hyatt is very good at what he does I just have one reservation . In the  part where Gerry McCann unwittingly confesses Peter Hyatt cites the fact that Gerry brings up the ' fall' version o Madeleine's death in the interview as proof of that is what actually happened because...........................''  why bring it up , no one else had mentioned it..'' ( can't remember the exact words but that was the  gist of it ) In fact of course the accusation of that very thing was well out in the open at that stage and something  Gerry might well have wanted to address for any number of reasons .

kaz wrote:Whilst I have always believed  that Madeleine died in 5A as a result of an accident and believe  that Peter Hyatt is very good at what he does I just have one reservation . In the  part where Gerry McCann unwittingly confesses Peter Hyatt cites the fact that Gerry brings up the ' fall' version o Madeleine's death in the interview as proof of that is what actually happened because...........................''  why bring it up , no one else had mentioned it..'' ( can't remember the exact words but that was the  gist of it ) In fact of course the accusation of that very thing was well out in the open at that stage and something  Gerry might well have wanted to address for any number of reasons .

I noted this also and think thwt Peter Hyatt may not have been aware of that information as he openly admitted he hadn't seen or researched the whole of the case and was specifically analysing that particular interview.  Whether or not GM wanted to address a "fell/fall" for any number of reasons, when you put the whole of his words into context he addresses "accident" "leaving" "dinner" "died" etc etc , these are his words on the aspect of his daughter vanishing, not of her suffering at the hands of an abuctor or of a paedophile..? 
Considering this is their personal "theory" ...Huge red flag in my opinion.

Just watched the 3 parts again..very interesting but can he (Peter) be carter rucked for this? Hopefully not.
JohnyT

JohnyT wrote:Just watched the 3 parts again..very interesting but can he (Peter) be carter rucked for this? Hopefully not.
JohnyT

NO!  That aspect is well covered in the first part by Richard D. Hall.  Besides, he's American.

So is Pat Brown.

Verdi wrote:

JohnyT wrote:Just watched the 3 parts again..very interesting but can he (Peter) be carter rucked for this? Hopefully not.
JohnyT

NO!  That aspect is well covered in the first part by Richard D. Hall.  Besides, he's American.

Is it? I must have missed that bit......anyway thanks for the info Verdi but what does being American have to do with it?
JohnyT

I've now watched the videos and had a good think about the content and presentation, just to clarify, I've no desire to throw a negative light on the work of Richard D. Hall - my concern is with the subject matter.  I have reservations about statement analysis, I would take great exception if I knew my future was being determined by how I use the English language.  As I've said before to Hobs, I would be behind bars within minutes is subjected to statement analysis as a witness.

Peter Hyatt and I recall also Hobs said, when analyzing a statement the analyst looks on every word as a statement of truth.  Excellent in theory but I don't believe it's humanly possible to achieve in reality - rather like telling the jury in a court of law to disregard something said, impossible once it's entered the brain.  If anyone has knowledge of a case, it must be impossible to look at a statement objectively without having a preconceived opinion.  From the perspective of a layman such as I, the art of statement analysis is nothing but a calculation of probability as opposed to definitive evidence to explain a persons train of thought.  Even Richard D. Hall appears to be a bit sceptical on occasions.  No disrespect to the analysts per se as I'm sure they fulfill an important role, so long as their purpose is not over stated.

Still, technicalities aside - why was Peter Hyatt selected for the production?  Was it because he had already analysed a McCann interview, or was he recommended by someone as the right man for the job?  In fairness, he is not analyzing a witness statement (paucity in that direction) but a media interview - anyone that's followed this case for the past nine + years will be aware that when before the camera, the McCanns do not speak from the heart, they speak from a script.  A script designed to tug at the heart strings and encourage donations - it's a studio sofa not a court of law.  Like Oprah Winfrey, it's big business.

The video tells what many people want to hear so it's bound to be popular - indeed it pretty well reiterates what so many have said over the past years, without the need for a statement analyst.  I wonder if the conclusion of Peter Hyatt's analysis was in favour of the McCanns in any way whatsoever, would the videos still be applauded on merit and the interviewees expertise?  I doubt it.

Frankly I think Richard D. Hall could have covered the subject without the need of a statement analyst or a costly trip to the US of A.  All the McCanns media interviews over the years are self evident as has been identified by many an astute observer - they never ever show any genuine concern for their precious daughter, only themselves.

Very well said Verdi

lemony snicket wrote:So is Pat Brown.

Pat Brown's e-book was removed from sale by Amazon UK.

JohnyT wrote:Very well said Verdi

I thank you !  I prefer not to enthuse about anything just because it fits in with mainstream bias.  I repeat, this is no reflection on the work of Richard D. Hall, for whom I have a great deal of respect and admiration.

For what it's worth I think the McCanns days of Carter Rucking people are over, just an opinion and as an opinion it would be a sad and sorry day should a personal or an experts opinion become such that one has to continually run to a lawyer... to defend their rights to an "opinion"? 

That's what I was concerned about too although I was unsure of his credentials etc. and maybe put it the wrong way. I'm a sceptic i suppose.
    In the last part of the interview he says he advises companies who to employ via the prospective employee telling him about themselves, so basically, if you 'say' things in the wrong way (like I often do) you won't get the job.
JohnyT

MayMuse wrote:For what it's worth I think the McCanns days of Carter Rucking people are over, just an opinion and as an opinion it would be a sad and sorry day should a personal or an experts opinion become such that one has to continually run to a lawyer... to defend their rights to an "opinion"? 

Agreed but certain people do do that to shut people up don't they.

Watched all three videos. Excellent. Well done and thank you Richard.

The videos cement the beliefs of many on this forum, and are consistent with our own expert, Hobs.

Personally though, I don't think MM suffered sexual abuse. Physically, or verbally/mentally (as a less favoured child), yes, quite possibly, but notably PH suggests that the language used in reference to abuse could be a result of KM's, rather than MM's, upbringing. Very minor point and just my thoughts.

The truth will out....one day.

PeterMac has sent this video to Operation Grange.

MayMuse wrote:

kaz wrote:Whilst I have always believed  that Madeleine died in 5A as a result of an accident and believe  that Peter Hyatt is very good at what he does I just have one reservation . In the  part where Gerry McCann unwittingly confesses Peter Hyatt cites the fact that Gerry brings up the ' fall' version o Madeleine's death in the interview as proof of that is what actually happened because...........................''  why bring it up , no one else had mentioned it..'' ( can't remember the exact words but that was the  gist of it ) In fact of course the accusation of that very thing was well out in the open at that stage and something  Gerry might well have wanted to address for any number of reasons .

I noted this also and think thwt Peter Hyatt may not have been aware of that information as he openly admitted he hadn't seen or researched the whole of the case and was specifically analysing that particular interview.  Whether or not GM wanted to address a "fell/fall" for any number of reasons, when you put the whole of his words into context he addresses "accident" "leaving" "dinner" "died" etc etc , these are his words on the aspect of his daughter vanishing, not of her suffering at the hands of an abuctor or of a paedophile..? 
Considering this is their personal "theory" ...Huge red flag in my opinion.

Whatever one may think of statement analysis, Hobs, in an excellent post in March, has already pointed to multiple involuntary 'leakages' from KM and others about 'falling' , 'banging head', being bumped on the head', 'tin of beans falling off shelf'... etc.,. when nothing in the item under dicussion, or asked by the questioner, could possibly be deemed to suggest or provoke such specific references...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]