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

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Madeleine McCann Embedded Confession: Announcement


Richard Hall did an excellent job as an interviewer in the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann documentary.

Readers here know that i embrace "Analytical Interviewing"; that is, a legally sound, non-intrusive method of interviewing a subject where no interpretation is done by the interviewer. This means the subject interprets his or her own words for us.

The Analytical Interview is based upon the subject's own words and allows us to "enter into" the language.

Richard Hall went into the interview well prepared, knowledgeable, and with the purpose of seeking information. This is not the norm in media where the 'focus' is often the interviewer, himself or herself, for the purpose of ratings. Mr. Hall sought information in his interview and has, in my opinion, bested some professionals, including some very high paid ones. He wanted information and fulfilled this role accurately.

Although we strongly follow the 'rules' of Analytical Interviewing in investigatory interviews, law enforcement knows that the rules are guides; not absolutes and will, when need be, interrupt, for example, the subject. After the interview, law enforcement will enter the interrogation phase; something unique to their roles and not part of journalism.

He came into the interview with many strong opinions on the case, but allowed me to 'allow' the parents of Madeleine McCann, to speak for themselves. Whether this agreed with his beliefs about the case or not, he did not allow anything to interfere with this flow of information. This is dramatically different than the propaganda or narrative driven journalism of main stream media today.

Mr. Hall sets a solid example for journalists interested, not in self promotion, but in information.

What's next?

Next up is the written analysis of this particular McCann interview for readers. It will be more in depth than most blog entries, and for those interested in studying analysis, it is of value to see how we avoid interpreting a subject's words, instead, we embrace them and seek to learn why a specific word was used.

On Thursday, December 1st, I intend to bring a team of analysts through the work, but with a singular focus: Sexual Abuse.

According to the words of the McCanns, Madeleine was not sold into sexual slavery but died in Portugal. This is most evidenced in that Maddie was "beyond parental concern"; something that parents who know their child is deceased often indicate. This is why so many thousands of people, particularly in the UK, felt strongly that the McCanns were not truthful. Many comments reveal the line of thinking: 'the McCanns are more concerned about themselves than the child...', of which the analysis agrees.

Was Madeleine a victim of child abuse?

This is an open question in that child abuse investigations include:

Neglect
Verbal Abuse
Physical Abuse
Emotional Abuse (which can differ from Verbal Abuse)
Exploitation
as well as the number one form of child abuse in terms of scope, "Neglect."

In all child abuse investigations, a safety "assessment" is made. Regardless of the allegation, all aspects of child abuse are explored, including:

Sexual Abuse: Doors and Lights

In statement analysis, the topic of sexual abuse is so broad that it requires not only competent study, research and application, but advanced work as well.

We do not interpret: we listen.

We also ask, "why?"

"I opened the door, turned on the light, and there she was."

John Ramsey on the discovery of murdered Jonbenet Ramsey.

First, we believe him.

We believe he opened the door.

We believe he turned on the light.

We believe she was there.

We do not interpret or assign any alternative meaning to the words.

We do ask "why?" in our analysis.

Why did he need to tell us that he opened the door? Why did he need to tell us that he turned on the light?

The "Law of Economy" says he could have simply said, "I found her in the basement."

Instead, before the 'finding', we have two distinct and unnecessary inclusions:

"door" and "lights."

Decades of research has found an association between the unnecessary use of these words and sexual activity, including childhood sexual abuse.

It is not difficult to understand why.

Here is a short lesson:

"Doors."

If a child is sexually abused in her home, in her own bed, and by a trusted adult, the trauma is more severe than we currently understand.

The heightened hormonal alert can sometimes leave imprinted sensory descriptions upon the brain that stay with the victim her (or his) entire life.

Consider repeat sexual abuse of a child where the child has a distinct and hormonally elevated memory of the sound of a door opening.

The child will suffer. This can be anything from self-destructive promiscuity to compromised immune system to un or underdeveloped brain processing, to...self loathing, substance abuse and a life time of hyper vigilance and night terrors.

The child will suffer.

Some will go on to reoffend.

Others may become "failure to protect" parents, while the vast majority of them become extremely protective; sometimes to the detriment of the child's development.

The "door" is remembered by the brain and will, at times, unnecessarily enter the language.

We do not interpret the "door" as something other than a door: We ask "why" the subject used it and we explore for possible child sexual abuse:

his own, as a victim, or possibly as a predator.

Since "doors", when used unnecessarily in a statement, is sometimes linked to childhood sexual abuse, we next look at the word "light" in the same way.

The word "light" expresses energy and we find it, when used unnecessarily, as a possible signal of sexual activity.

When someone writes, "I turned off the light and went to sleep", we see the action of turning off a light as not necessary to say. We then seek to learn why the subject felt the need to tell us the light was turned off and we sometimes find:

it is due to a negative sexual experience; sometimes impotency or rejection.

In John Ramsey's statement, we find that in the murder of a little girl who was in a "sexualized environment", was a bed wetter, and who had been treated for repeat urinary tract infections, two indications of sexual activity (including one child sexual abuse specific) in one sentence.

We then look at other statements by the parents to learn more about this.

Analysis Assistance

We often find, particularly in a confession or admission, that the subject is now willing to "help" us learn. This is one of the most marvelous educational opportunities any analyst can experience:

The subject's commentary on your analysis.

I first experienced this years ago in a case of theft where a suspect was cleared by a well experienced law enforcement investigator.

She had allowed for her person and vehicle to be searched and was cooperative with the investigation, including a thorough interview.

The officer was convinced she "didn't do it" to the point where he was angry at the analysis. This was my first encounter with "junk science" (also said about polygraph, voice stress analysis) from within law enforcement.

He did not want to do a joint interview and declined the analysis before he interviewed her, calling upon his decades of experience instead.

The statement she had written showed not only the theft, but the time of the theft, the mechanisms of the theft and her motive.

I interviewed her twice.

It is in the follow up interview that we get our most confessions or admissions. (An admission is a confession without moral responsibility. In this case, she admitted the theft, but denied it was immoral to do so as she felt justified).

After the admission, I asked her if she would "take me through" the analysis.

It was amazing.

When, for example, she wrote, "did my work assignment" without the dropped pronoun, she told me, "Well, actually I didn't do it. I went out for a smoke, instead."

Where she wrote, "I sat down with the supervisor" she confirmed:

a. "sat" as body posture was added as she was very tense;

b. "with" showed the distance between them: they strongly disagreed about work hours
c. "the supervisor" is a strong signal of a "bad relationship" between them. She said, "I can't stand her!"

When it came time to show her the exact moment of the theft and how she did it, she was amazed and confirmed it.

I finally asked her,

"How did you fool the investigator?"

She said it was "easy" and that she cried a little and he did most of the talking. She said it was like "he did the work for me."

In Analytical Interviewing, we not only let the subject do 80% or more of the talking, we do our best to use only the subject's words, avoiding introducing any new words.

Interestingly enough, local law enforcement refused to believe she had admitted the theft.

I had her put it in writing.

The twist of fate?

The original investigator had to deliver the court summons. He was not pleased.

A subject who admits or confesses is a golden opportunity for personal growth for an investigator. It increases resolve, confidence in the analysis, true enough, but much more, it broadens his understanding of how powerful this tool is.

For training at home, or through hosting a seminar, please go to Hyatt Analysis Services.

This is for police, journalists, human resource professionals, therapists, and so many other professions where detecting deception is needed.

We offer tuition payment plans, as well as an automatic 12 months of e-support: your work is "proofed."

Everyone makes mistakes. If you are formally trained, you are given the opportunity for precise correction of the error, while in study, and will learn how to spot error, and where to key in on missing information.

With this support, you will never submit an errant report or opinion, if you have your work checked by other professionals.

This is key to learning.

Stay tuned.

I hope to publish analysis and findings on Friday, December 2nd, 2016, as we continue to study the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and sift through the deception offered by the parents. 

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

I've just read this on Peter Hyatt's blog.

A glowing tribute to the estimable work of Richard D Hall !

A complimentary alternative to an interview analysis..

Profile of the Sociopath

1.  Glibness and Superficial Charm  -  tick

2.  Manipulative and Conning  -  tick

They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

3.  Grandiose Sense of Self  -  tick

Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

4.  Pathological Lying  -  tick

Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

5.  Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt  -  tick

A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

6.  Shallow Emotions  -  tick

When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

7.  Incapacity for Love  -  ?

8.  Need for Stimulation  -  ?

Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

9.  Callousness/Lack of Empathy  -  tick


Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

10.  Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature  -  tick

Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

11.  Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency  -  ?

Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

12.  Irresponsibility/Unreliability  -  tick


Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

13.  Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity  -  ?

Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

14.  Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle  -  ?

Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

15.  Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility  -  tick

Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Score:   10 ticks - 5 question marks

Other Related Qualities:

Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them  
Authoritarian
Secretive 
Paranoid
Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired 
Conventional appearance
Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)  
Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life 
Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
Incapable of real human attachment to another
Unable to feel remorse or guilt
Extreme narcissism and grandiose
May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

I'm not convinced by the interview, he makes some great observations however a couple of things bother me. He seems a bit lacking in knowledge of the case, whilst this may help for an unbiased opinion it leads to what could be deemed as errors. In particular when Gerry answered the 'did you kill' question Peter didn't recognise that Gerry took the opportunty to raise the Portugues accusation and attempt to answer it (although Gerry did seem to highlight certain questionable statements). I think Peter didn't get the context right therefore could have made a 'reading' error. Similarly when Kate mentioned the three weeks for the car hire, again Peter picked up on a false flag.

HKP wrote:I'm not convinced by the interview, he makes some great observations however a couple of things bother me. He seems a bit lacking in knowledge of the case, whilst this may help for an unbiased opinion it leads to what could be deemed as errors. In particular when Gerry answered the 'did you kill' question Peter didn't recognise that Gerry took the opportunty to raise the Portugues accusation and attempt to answer it (although Gerry did seem to highlight certain questionable statements). I think Peter didn't get the context right therefore could have made a 'reading' error. Similarly when Kate mentioned the three weeks for the car hire, again Peter picked up on a false flag.

I kind of thought that about the bit where GM mentions the table, he's doing so to counter the claims of how far away/line of sight etc.
Brilliant otherwise, at least Richards put himself out there again, and I hope all these things snowballing together ultimately helps in the end

Peter Hyatt likes to analyse statements without knowing much of the case beforehand.
That is because the words are what they are, no matter the context.

He is analysing the words which are used, and not the person saying them.

I saw one of the videos of Madeleine in Mr Hall's interview. It was Madeleine wearing some pink fairy wings and dancing. The way Gerry talks to her in that video is beyond creepy.

And I say this as someone who has never reacted negatively at any of the photos the McCanns have released before (except the make up one)

Sure, given that Madeleine may be kidnapped by pedophiles, the lollipop pic is unappropriate. But the photo itself is fine.

Versailles wrote:I saw one of the videos of Madeleine in Mr Hall's interview. It was Madeleine wearing some pink fairy wings and dancing. The way Gerry talks to her in that video is beyond creepy.

Yes I agree - not so much what he says but how he says it..

Gerry McCann:
OK spin around darling - right round - ohhh y-e-s, I can see your wings. 

Kate McCann:
Big smile [cackles]..

Gerry McCann: 
Ohhh y-e-s one more  - big smile t-h-a-t's pretty

Gerry McCann: 
She was an i-n-c-r-eee-dibly beautiful baby actually...

Kate McCann:
We sound like the most biased parents on the plante now but she was just really compact and was just really the really nice round, pefect head...and...you know...and then she, she opened her mouth... the whole world knew she was with us...

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

@ 30:26 minutes

Versailles wrote:Peter Hyatt likes to analyse statements without knowing much of the case beforehand.
That is because the words are what they are, no matter the context.

He is analysing the words which are used, and not the person saying them.

Yes, however in this case he's picked up on what was said (using a transcript) and he made issues from Gerry & Kate trying to refute allegations without knowing that's what they were doing. He picked up elements of their statement's not realising they were said for a specific reason.

PeterMac's observations on Richard's interview with Peter Hyatt:

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

Verdi wrote:

Versailles wrote:I saw one of the videos of Madeleine in Mr Hall's interview. It was Madeleine wearing some pink fairy wings and dancing. The way Gerry talks to her in that video is beyond creepy.

Yes I agree - not so much what he says but how he says it..

Gerry McCann:
OK spin around darling - right round - ohhh y-e-s, I can see your wings. 

Kate McCann:
Big smile [cackles]..

Gerry McCann: 
Ohhh y-e-s one more  - big smile t-h-a-t's pretty

Gerry McCann: 
She was an i-n-c-r-eee-dibly beautiful baby actually...

Kate McCann:
We sound like the most biased parents on the plante now but she was just really compact and was just really the really nice round, pefect head...and...you know...and then she, she opened her mouth... the whole world knew she was with us...

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

@ 30:26 minutes

His voice is like he is talking to a stripper. Very disturbing.

Not sure if already posted.....

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

Friday, December 2, 2016

Live Discussion: Madeleine McCann Disappearance Today

[size]

Today at 12PM Eastern Time (NY Time), we will host a Q & A Discussion on the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. 

 

This will be by invitation to "Go To Meeting" and will allow for  both Question and Answers about:

Analysis of the case;

Statement Analysis principles and training opportunities.[/size]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].....I agree that 'I can see your wings' sounds really creepy and seedy, but that may be simply because everything Gerry does or says now is tainted by the knowledge that he has lied outrageously over the years to save his own sorry skin. He will live out his life under the most terrible suspicion, he and his wife, and there is nothing he can do about it now. I haven't noticed the Mccanns responding to the Peter Hyatt interview.........

Cmaryholmes wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].....I agree that 'I can see your wings' sounds really creepy and seedy, but that may be simply because everything Gerry does or says now is tainted by the knowledge that he has lied outrageously over the years to save his own sorry skin. He will live out his life under the most terrible suspicion, he and his wife, and there is nothing he can do about it now. I haven't noticed the Mccanns responding to the Peter Hyatt interview.........

No, nor will you ever - they respond by proxy.  Question is who is the paymaster general to the proxy - the Limited Company?

Verdi wrote:I've just read this on Peter Hyatt's blog.

A glowing tribute to the estimable work of Richard D Hall !

Yes, praise indeed for Richard's journalism!

Nina wrote:I understand there has been alive discussion this evening with Peter, but by what I am informed it was by invitation only. Have you any news of this GeG?

Also hoping there will be a transcript - has one been mentioned?

Nina wrote:I understand there has been alive discussion this evening with Peter, but by what I am informed it was by invitation only. Have you any news of this GeG?

There is always a problem with cross referencing when there is more than one thread running on much the same subject - it can get very confusing.  This is his blog update today which was half posted earlier by another member..

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

Today at 12PM Eastern Time (NY Time), 5PM London time,  we will host a Q & A Discussion on the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. 


This will be by invitation link to "Go To Meeting" and will allow for  both Question and Answers about:

Analysis of the case;

Statement Analysis principles and training opportunities.

Please go early to see if you need to download the app for your iPhone or Android device.  The room will open 90 minutes before start time.  


New Meeting 
Fri, Dec 2, 2016 12:00 PM - 2:00 PM EST 
Please join our meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. 

[url=https://www.blogger.com/New Meeting Fri, Dec 2, 2016 12:00 PM - 2:00 PM EST Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] You can also dial in using your phone. United States +1 %28872%29 240-3412 Access Code: 302-877-197][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

You can also dial in using your phone. 
United States +1 (872) 240-3412 
Access Code: 302-877-197

If I remember rightly, Hyatt said at the beginning of the week that he was going to publish yesterdays inter-analysts conference today on his blog.  Instead there only seems to be the above - whether this is one and the same or an addition to his initial intention I know not.  Time will tell..

ETA:  Sorry, only just realised, the half posted earlier by another member is only a couple of posts above   - can't take it anywhere.

Rise like lions wrote:

Verdi wrote:I've just read this on Peter Hyatt's blog.

A glowing tribute to the estimable work of Richard D Hall !

Yes, praise indeed for Richard's journalism!

Yes indeed - and 'the proxy' under whatever guise are still trying their damndest to destroy his credibility.  He must be doing something right, otherwise why would they bother?

Rise like lions wrote:

Nina wrote:I understand there has been alive discussion this evening with Peter, but by what I am informed it was by invitation only. Have you any news of this GeG?

Also hoping there will be a transcript - has one been mentioned?

Peter Hyatt's initial intention is documented following his exemplary praise of Richard D. Hall's journalistic prowess.  I quote..

Sunday, November 27, 2016

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

  What's next?

Next up is the written analysis of this particular McCann interview for readers.  It will be more in depth than most blog entries, and for those interested in studying analysis, it is of value to see how we avoid interpreting a subject's words, instead, we embrace them and seek to learn why a specific word was used.  

On Thursday, December 1st, I intend to bring a team of analysts through the work, but with a singular focus:  Sexual Abuse. 

According to the words of the McCanns, Madeleine was not sold into sexual slavery but died in Portugal.  This is most evidenced in that Maddie was "beyond parental concern"; something that parents who know their child is deceased often indicate.  This is why so many thousands of people, particularly in the UK, felt strongly that the McCanns were not truthful.  Many comments reveal the line of thinking:  'the McCanns are more concerned about themselves than the child...', of which the analysis agrees. 

Was Madeleine a victim of child abuse?

....
Stay tuned. 

I hope to publish analysis and findings on Friday, December 2nd, 2016, as we continue to study the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and sift through the deception offered by the parents.

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







 

I attended the meeting. It was very interesting and engaging. Although Peter knows a bit about the case, he doesn't know all the ins and outs. I think it's better that way so that he can let the words of the McCanns tell him in their own language what they are hiding. He did say he would continue to look at case which imo is great news!
I believe the meeting was recorded by Lizzy Hideho and I also believe there is a copy of the transcript or a recording on the abduction or scam page on Facebook.

Hobs also managed to get in, so hopefully we will hear more from her later:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] said...
Thank you Peter for an amazing lecture on the mccann statements.
it is so obvious they are being deceptive when you showed us where, how and why.
This should be passed onto the PJ as they are the investigating force.
 
You should do more of these please and thank you.
I learned a lot.
It is amazing how one single word can reveal so much when they actively tried to conceal the truth.
 
I wonder what they and their supporters will say and do once they realize the enormity of what has been revealed.
This wasn't even the in depth analysis.
Knees will be quaking after this.
 
Thank you for your time and patience.
   
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Not wishing to be killjoy, as interesting as the study is,  I think it unwise to overrate the usefulness of statement analysis and the function of the analyst.  The more I look into the subject, the more apparent it becomes that it's not a recognised science in the field of policing but more a passionate interest embraced by the analyst - rather like a criminal profiler.  The registered trademark 'Statement Analysis' appears to be a cyber syndicate of people with a similar interest that organise training courses, conferences, online debate etc. and sell their wares  by advertising their skills online.

I understand the thirst for developments in the mysterious case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance so in that respect the work of Peter Hyatt (and of course Hobs) is a welcome topic for discussion but in my opinion, it's important not to get too carried away by it's revelations - it won't solve the case, nor even assist with any live investigation.  For anyone that's taken an interest in Madeleine McCann's disappearance, it's common knowledge that the parents and their group of friends have lied repeatedly, no disrespect to the enthusiast but you don't need a word by word analysis of a McCann interview to expose their deceit - "ask the dogs Sandra"!

Never forget the apparent true reason why this case remains unsolved.  The PJ are not the sardine munching, beer swilling incompetent buffoons as so readily portrayed by the McCanns and their team via the UK press, they were prevented from completing a routine police investigation by outside pressure - the UK establishment.   Nothing can or will ever change that elementary fact, there is a very dark serious reason why this case is being covered up.  An interview analysis by an American analyst is not going to remove that obstacle, no matter how one would like to think otherwise.

One good thing has come out of this, through the auspices of Richard D. Hall - it's generated fresh public interest in the case of Madeleine McCann.  Can't knock it!

Verdi wrote:...I think it unwise to overrate the usefulness of statement analysis and the function of the analyst...it's important not to get too carried away by its revelations - it won't solve the case, nor even assist with any live investigation. 

Wise words @ Verdi as we always seem to get from you.

Nevertheless, Richard's 'Embedded Confessions' is making waves even beyond his usual reach. One of the internet media that has picked up his latest Madeleine film is The Daily Sheeple:

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

Unfortunately they seem to have missed the point, though.

At the end of their article they suggest that although Madeleine was definitely abducted, her parents seem - from Hyatt's expertise - to somehow be involved in the abduction or 'know more about it'. 

Plus they think that the Podesta brothers might be 'Smithman'.

Oh well,

Anybody know the result of Peter's analysis where they were specifically looking for abuse. 

Whilst I'm interested to know more i have the same sceptism as Verdi has outlined.

Hi verdi, Statement Analysis is a recognized science in the field of policing.
it allows for the interviewer to learn the truth and obtain confessions or an admission using only the subjects own words against them.
If it were not why then do police forces all over the country and even the word sign up to have their officers trained in it. Why does the F.B.I. use it and have their officers trained in it?
What about all the social services let alone business and HR use it?

Although the science like polygraphs is not admissible i8n court, the analyst is classed as an expert and is then able to testify and be questioned as to how they  came to their conclusions.

In the case of the mccanns interview, Peter, and previously the other trained professionals such as detectives, physchologists, social workers and the like all went over the interview with one aim, to see if there was evidence of sexual abuse or not revealed in the interview where they spoke freely using their own personal internal dictionary.

The conclusion was there there was evidence of sexual abuse.
There was also possibilityty that the parents themselves had been a victim of abuse- at least what was learned in the lecture i was at.
There would have been a more in depth  investigation and as a result conclusion at the 'professionals' meeting which was 6 hours long.

We learned that Maddie died in the apartment as a result of sedation.
Maddie was not alive when she spoke about Maddie beiung cuddled or when gerry had his loving father moment.
Kate does know where Maddie is currently.
The mccanns at no point showed any concern regarding Maddie.
There was no concern about what she have been going through, any pain.
Dead people have no more pain or feelings.
Their concern was solely about how they were feeling, their reputations.

The introduction of doors, windows, water, hygiene all indicated for sex.
This is something learned from decades of interviews with survivors of sexual abuse, that they remember the door opening/closing, lights going on /of, water and hygiene.

That someone mentions brushing their teeth or bathing  makes it sensitive to them that they needed to introduce it to the statement.
If you had to give a detailed account of what you did in one day, you wouldn't need to describe the minutia, you would only include that which was important to you.
You wouldn't need to tell us you brushed your teeth, it would be a given that you would do so first thing and last thing when doing your ablutions.
You wouldn't tell us every time you used the bathroom or washed your hands, or cleaned your teeth after eating, that you dried yourself with a towel after a bath or shower.
We all know you dry off after a bath or shower rather than run around naked  trying to get dry.
This is why when it is introduced, the interviewer wants to know why it was important enough  for the subject to tell us what they did.

Peter  gave examples of when doors/windows/water and hygiene were introduced in an interview and what was learned when the subject was further questioned on those sensitive areas.

WE learned that kate gave the children treats, crisps and biscuits.
The crisps and biscuits were separate from the treats which lead to the idea that the treats were the sedatives.

The mccanns told us what they did, when and why.
We have to believe them.

I learned a lot in this lecture, some i already knew or suspected, some i learned the when, the how.

The mccanns indicate for deception in their claims that Maddie is alive and findable.
The mccanns indicate for sexual abuse.

HiDeHO recorded it and i think also got the text and she will be posting it shortly.

Thank you for that. Hobs, and thank you too for all your own contributions in the past.  Do you know when Peter's report will be available online please?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Verdi wrote:...I think it unwise to overrate the usefulness of statement analysis and the function of the analyst...it's important not to get too carried away by its revelations - it won't solve the case, nor even assist with any live investigation. 

Wise words @ Verdi as we always seem to get from you.

Nevertheless, Richard's 'Embedded Confessions' is making waves even beyond his usual reach. One of the internet media that has picked up his latest Madeleine film is The Daily Sheeple:

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

Unfortunately they seem to have missed the point, though.

At the end of their article they suggest that although Madeleine was definitely abducted, her parents seem - from Hyatt's expertise - to somehow be involved in the abduction or 'know more about it'. 

Plus they think that the Podesta brothers might be 'Smithman'.

Oh well,

That's the beauty of Richard D. Hall's works in my opinion, aside from the indisputable value of information, he doesn't try to indoctrinate, rather, he puts the detail out there for people to make up their own minds.  The man is a true asset.  If only people would accept that simple fact when looking for reason to damn his very existence - an attitude childlike in the extreme.

As I said, if nothing else - whether one is engrossed by the fascinating subject of statement analysis or not - at least Richard D. Hall's video interview with Peter Hyatt has rekindled interest in the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance - albeit in some cases deluded.

Tony Bennett wrote:
Plus they think that the Podesta brothers might be 'Smithman'.

What both of them or a merger of one superimposed over the other?  Personally, I think the one some people think looks like Gerry McCann, might be Tannerman - or crecheman - or eggman - or batman - or superman .

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I remain sceptical about the true value of a statement analyst, although I appreciate your reason for defending the skill and thank you for taking the trouble to respond in such detail.

I look forward to HiDeHo's transcription - never know it might have some effect on my so far inflexible opinion.