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

Get'emGonçalo wrote:PeterMac has sent this video to Operation Grange.

British police forces use Statement Analysts all the time to help them to solve crimes. They help to identify areas which are very sensitive to the suspect/witness. They also can be used to uncover contradictions and inconsistencies, either within one witness's testimony, or as between the accounts of different witnesses whose accounts differ (the alleged David Payne/Kate McCann encounter at about 6.30pm on 3 May 2007 being a classic example).

There's one problem, though. The remit of Operation Grange determined in advance that Madeleine had been abducted and that the purpose of Grange was to 'help the family'. That's why I can guarantee that the police have not used statement analysis to put the witness statements of the McCanns and the Tapas 7 under the microscope.  

In response to @ Verdi, it must be conceded that StatementAnalysis is an inexact science. More properly, it should probably be called a 'craft'. And some statement analysts are undoubtedly more experienced than others. But it cannot be denied that they have been used to ery good purpose in many police investigations.

Richard's 'Embedded Confessions' video has certainly set the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] hashtag and Twitter on fire. It also seems to have created a sudden and unprecedented agreement amongst those following the twists and turns of the McCann case - certainly judging by the tweets today (below). It was of course the main news item on Twitter's [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] News Daily.

LoveTextusa was urging folk to join CMOMM, whilst a tweeter callad susanmcbriety sent a link to Richard's film to Katie Hopkins:

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

Today's [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] hashtag tweets promoting 'Embedded Confessions'      
 

Kildara

LoveTextusa (Textusa)

LoveTextusaBlog ‏@ LoveTextusa  · 22h22 hours ago 
With thanks to @ RichardDHall [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] … Embedded Confessions [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

LoveTextusaBlog ‏@ LoveTextusa  · 15h12 hours ago 
JOIN here today, news and views! [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] The Complete Mystery of Madeleine [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]™

EdelMcArdle1

VillaRich 5015

TheCatwoman2 (KNOWTHETRUTH)

McCannCaseTweet (Isabelle McFadden)

Madeleine CaseTweets ‏@ McCannCaseTweet 5h5 hours ago
NEW Peter Hyatt statement analysis expert for FBI destroys Kate & Gerry [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in their deceit @ laurarichards99

Bugsy (Ben Thompson)

pjcottam

umweltburger (Mari Wetzel)

winnower1

lordspencer

susanmcbrierty

susan ‏@ susanmcbrierty 23h23 hours ago
@ KTHopkins Mccanns "Embedded Confessions" a must watch [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Watched this and I think this is THE watershed in the whole sorry case. There's no going back from this. I would like Peter Hyatt's analysis of Gerry talking about 'searching for a missing body', now.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:PeterMac has sent this video to Operation Grange.

Great.  

OG must have a room full of evidence considering the amount PM and TB have sent them over the years.  Whats`ername must be drowning in it by now.

Hobs wrote:Peter is as qualified as he says and his credentials have been checked.

Any chance of a link to his credentials and/or who has checked them?  Before reading your post, having seen a few rather derogatory claims about his background, I've been searching for something - anything - to confirm his claims over and above his own blog.

I did however, come across this - clearly the origin of the content of Richard D. Hall's videos, written way back in November 2012..

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

Apart from your insightful input in the comments section, being in the same field of work, I'm hoping you can fill in the gaps - anything to halt the negative vibes that are fast gaining ground in cyberspace.

Thanks.

Just because  sensitive language appears in a statement doesn't mean someone is guilty of something. A good analyst won't say they are lying because they used such and such a word.
questions would be asked to find out why there is sensitivity.
It could be that the person is in deed guilty as charged or has ill intentions towards the business.
It could also mean that they have a different issue.
For example a child goes missing and parental language shows sensitivity in relation to the child.
On closer examination and interview it turns out they had a row  before the child went missing, perhaps they are innocent of involvement in the childs disappearance but they have a substance abuse habit they wish to conceal, or they are having an afair or there are financial difficulties.
Deception is not concluded on a single word it is culmination of hours of interviews and then reading the verbatim  transcripts/written statements, noting where there are flags, where there are temporal lacunae, changes in language not warranted by a change in  reality, pronouns and  tenses.

All combine to prove truth or deception.

Statement analysis is hard work both physically and emotionally as the analyst seeks to learn what the subject knows, how they speak, their own personal dictionary including slang and dialect.
An analyst never stops learning  nor do they want to, each subject is a new challenge be it for a job interview or a criminal case

Verdi unless you have committed a crime you want to keep hidden or you have ulterior motives that are of bad intent then you will not end up in jail based on your words.
However, if you have committed a crime and you are interviewed regarding said crime, you will be found out and you will face justice.

Richard IV wrote:OG must have a room full of evidence considering the amount PM and TB have sent them over the years.  Whats`ername must be drowning in it by now.

Yes - filed under 's' for shredder I don't doubt.  Still, as with bloggers that decline to publish comments - at least you know it's been read before being recycled.

The essence here - and indeed (as noted) the wider interpretation, has been fantastic.

But we should add a few caveats before deciding (as some have - not necessarily here) that statement analysis has told us everything.

The first is in the choice of interview (legal, press, tablod, video etc), location, and greater than that, the amount of variables Peter was able to account for.

Start with the first - An Australian, Media interview of 2011.

Three important points off the bat; Not a continental interview, not a legal interview (hence the awful leading questions), and not a contemporary interview.

Let's be immediately clear - this is not a criticism of Richard. If we had video versions of the actual contemporary/Portuguese/legal  interviews, then we'd likely not even be debating this. We take what we have.

But we must accept - and filter - what we have.

For instance, when Gerry speaks of a 'fall', 'purported out of Portugal', we know this is referring to Goncalo Amaral's book/documentary, which had by now asserted the possibility of 'falling behind the sofa'. But without knowing/acknowledging that, it looks like a 'knowing' statement. This is neither a mistake of science nor a mistake of Peter Hyatt. He is merely interpreting what he sees and hears in front of him, without excessive knowledge of the case (not knowing the Gaspar statements being a good example). Indeed, possessing such knowledge would render him obsolete. His testimony and organic findings are key, over any specific minutae.

If Gerald is mentioning a fall purely as a result of the Amaral investigation's findings, then taking it out of the equation (or at least, judging it on such grounds) becomes necessary. 

The abuse quotients are more unique; Peter mentions details which we generally speaking would not have accounted for. For example the subtle victim blaming, hygiene (teeth) etc.

What of Gerald's mention of last seeing Madeleine? I have always held this up in my mind as genuine - overexagerrated for a reason. Gerald seems effusively happy in the playground photos. Kate is absent (though being in absentia is not meaning anything in itself I hasten to add). But, Gerry gushes over his last SEEING Madeleine, whereas Kate is unilaterally opposed to verifying possibly being last to see her over Gerry - Gerry literally places himself seeing her in her bed, whereas Kate can't bring herself to say whether she joined Gerry in the 'last check' before leaving 90~ minutes earlier. That always spoke volumes to me. Whatever happened, Gerry's bond with her was, on the surface at least, stronger.

Apologies for brevity at 0130. Too many talking points.

Peter's analysis seems to give us three crystalline points;

 - That Madeleine has sadly expired
 - That Madeleine's parents are both aware of this
 - That she died of an accident/her death was occulted

And at risk of pushing the findings - that both parents are aware of the reason and cause she died, posssibly involving a situation of abuse

The main debate would still appear to fall around the questions when, where and how. If we can at least (in the popular sphere) move the debate there, we are getting somewhere,

Another excellent video from Richard, I am impressed by Peter Hyatts craft and I especially appreciate the way in which he can (not only indicate red flag pointers, which would indicate issues that investigators should question further) but also explain in a simple manner WHY it is so !

HOBS has also provided us with many meaningful insights over the years for which a grateful thanks is due, thank you.

Now combine such statement analysis with the body language that various people have highlighted over the years and we have a very powerful indication of the REAL truth of what went down in PDL.

PS. A version of the truth ? wonder what Peter would make of that ?

Many thanks to Richard for bringing us Peter's fascinating
analysis of the interview which confirms what so many of us have thought over the years.

I am aware there is information being circulated on the internet discrediting Peter, please ignore this. The origin seems to come from sites with comments made a number of years ago involving a person called Deric Lostutter who is a self confessed convicted liar and hacker who seems to go onto websites makes up lies to gain notoriety and raise awareness of an Ohio rape case.

Snipped from Peter Hyatt's blog..

Saturday, November 26, 2016

The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: Conclusion

"In a sense, Maddie McCann is the UK's version of the Jonbenet Ramsey murder. This coming week, I am asking a team of experienced analysts to jointly work through the language seeking to uncover a single indicator: Was Madeleine McCann a possible victim of sexual abuse. This will be done live on Thursday, November 30th, over a period of 6 hours online. I hope to post the results of this analysis on Friday, December 1st, as well as put together a written report."

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

Parental guidance:  The comments section has attracted the usual caliber of cybernaughties - be warned, some might find the language offensive.

NB:  Hope it's OK to post this snippet from Peter Hyatt's blog - if not please delete!

Take it out of the UK - a very cunning ruse!

The McCanns wanted an American audience so now they have it.  Beware of what you wish for, it can come back and bite you on the bum..

April28th wrote:

The main debate would still appear to fall around the questions when, where and how. If we can at least (in the popular sphere) move the debate there, we are getting somewhere,

If Im reading you rightly (apologies if not), the ardent disciples following this case, CMoMM in particular, have been trying to solve that conundrum for the past 9.7 years.

Peter Hyatt's conclusions are nothing new but at least Richard D. Hall's latest videos have regenerated interest in the case and further exposed the McCanns blatant deceit.  Can't be bad!

[quote="April28th"]
For instance, when Gerry speaks of a 'fall', 'purported out of Portugal', we know this is referring to Goncalo Amaral's book/documentary, which had by now asserted the possibility of 'falling behind the sofa'. But without knowing/acknowledging that, it looks like a 'knowing' statement. This is neither a mistake of science nor a mistake of Peter Hyatt. He is merely interpreting what he sees and hears in front of him, without excessive knowledge of the case (not knowing the Gaspar statements being a good example). Indeed, possessing such knowledge would render him obsolete. His testimony and organic findings are key, over any specific minutae.
If Gerald is mentioning a fall purely as a result of the Amaral investigation's findings, then taking it out of the equation (or at least, judging it on such grounds) becomes necessary. '''"

I think what I was really getting at was this. April28th points out that GM's use of 'falling' was understandable, thus not somehow 'inappropriate'....

But KM's 'tin of beans falling off a shelf' was her response to Mrs Fenn's reaction to being told that 'a little girl is missing', an image of 'falling' utterly inappropriate and totally out of context. It therefore remains as a bizarre example of leakage, or cross-contamination of emotionally charged imagery.

Also, note again in passing the equally inappropriately cool distancing of 'a little girl' not 'our darling eldest daughter', at the most fraught moment of the drama!

Peter Hyatt has said on his blog today that he and a team of analysts are going to look more in detail at the transcripts this coming week. 
Here are the links:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Great news and much appreciated work!

Thought it was very good and easy to follow.
Would really like to see R.d.Hall do a video of R. murat

This is really starting to annoy me.  I understand everything put forward to substantiate the function of a statement analyst and irrespective of the fact that I think it to be an over exaggerated display of self worth by the analyst, still I cannot accept that statement analysis is a useful tool in terms of criminal investigation.

Rather than take the subject at face value just because it's what you want to hear, why not question the value of it's interpretation - why not single out individual aspects of the interview so open to alternative interpretation?  More than once I've seen it said that Richard D. Hall is taken aback by some of the interpretations made by Peter Hyatt, taken aback maybe but not by the sheer revelation of the moment - more by disbelief I think.  Under duress I've just watched most of the third part again,  the entire interview is based on the same premise - Gerry and Kate McCanns thoughts are of themselves only.  Maybe or may not be for reasons identified by interview analysis - maybe just because they are sociopaths guilty of a horrendous crime who care not for the victim their daughter, only for themselves
 
I think I can see through the purpose of this interview.  I feel a degree of admiration for Richard D. Hall, patiently enduring  2-3 hours of interview analysis in order to clarify what so many already think and have done for the past nine + years.

Peter Hyatt's indepth analysis on Thursday 31st November/Friday 1st December should be interesting.  Meanwhile think I'll nominate Richard D. Hall for a gold medal!

No. of views of 'Embedded Confessions' so far:

No. 1   21,833
No. 2   12,538
No. 3   11,347

Total: 45,718

Not bad after 2 days and a few hours

Dear forum members,

Yesterday I saw the new documentary made by Richard D. Hall. I thought it was quite an impressive analysis by Mr. Hyatt.

What I thought was strange in the interview was that Mrs McCann in the beginning (around 30:50') says something like "we sound like the most biased parents on the planet [....] and she was just really the really nice, round, perfect head". I have never heard somebody say something like that about a baby. I was wondering, might this be an indication that something happened to Madeleines head that may have caused her death?

In which topic may I put this question?

Many thanks,

rroloff.

Welcome rroloff, I have merged your topic with this existing one.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who considers this whole case to be baffling. I felt instictively from the moment I heard the news on the morning that Madeleine went missing that there was something wrong with the situation. As a 'normal' parent who has temporariy 'lost' my child (for a few seconds/a minute or so) on occasions I have an understanding of the utter panic, the loss of ability to properly breathe and speak that results. But I LOOKED FOR HIM and didn't stop until I found him. Sure, I enlisted the help of random passers by and shop staff but, gosh, I was the one doing the main searching whether or not anyone else was helping (I should say I'm remembering a time my child wandered off in a shop - I can picture the scene where I found him, even after 20 years). The thought that I would behave as the McCanns did is beyond imagination. Gerry went to sleep? Kate stayed in the apartment rather than calling out through the streets? Really?

As time has passed, there is overwhelming evidence that the parents were involved. 

Why oh why is nothing being done by 'the authorities'? The PJ are presumably being constrained by the UK government.

When will we (as the general public) get a government that will expose those who have been part of the cover up? What and for whom are they covering up? When will we finally get a government that is composed of impartial, not involved, people?

Rhetorical questions I know, but I do wonder how much time will pass before the 'bad guys' are superseded by those with no involvement.

Ten years? Fifty? Who the heck is it that is preventing the truth being known?

rroloff wrote:Dear forum members,

Yesterday I saw the new documentary made by Richard D. Hall. I thought it was quite an impressive analysis by Mr. Hyatt.

What I thought was strange in the interview was that Mrs McCann in the beginning (around 30:50') says something like "we sound like the most biased parents on the planet [....] and she was just really the really nice, round, perfect head". I have never heard somebody say something like that about a baby. I was wondering, might this be an indication that something happened to Madeleines head that may have caused her death?

In which topic may I put this question?

Many thanks,

rroloff.

I agree. There's something odd about a parent who refers to their missing child's physical perfection. Who cares? Who is interested in how perfect the missing kid is? All children are perfect; all look like all other children to outsiders, if that makes sense. We all as a collective care about a missing child, whatever they look like. I care about yours; you care about mine. It's not about whether the child is tall/short/fat/thin/wears glasses/hearing aid/blond/dark/red/whatever the hell. They're a person, a child, and they're missing. 

It's the same on pet forums when a dog is missing. No-one posts to say oh your dog is old, or overweight, we don't give a damn; people just care that there is a missing dog. We all love our missing whatever-it-is; it's taken for granted that because we love them they're beautiful to us. If I lost my much-loved dog I'd be saying how much I loved her and I how I miss her and how scared I am about where she is and how she's being treated and how frightened she must be, not how perfectly-formed she was. I can't even begin to imagine how I'd be if my son had disappeared but it certaintly wouldn't be focused on how 'good looking' he was.

The Mccanns seem to be preoccupied with physical perfection.....the jogging,

The Mccanns seem preoccupied with physical perfection......I think it was on the Oprah show that they were discussing Madeleine with a chap who was creating an age progression. He referred to their good genes and they were so pleased with that. The perfect head, the perfect little genitals (that description almost makes me want to vomit) -are such strange things to say about a child. If any normal parent were talking about a missing daughter, they would not be able to hold back the tears. What is wrong with this pair ??

The rapid response on the internet to Richard Hall's fourth Madeleine McCann documentary once again illustrates his 'reach' way beyond the usual range of Madeleine McCann information and discussion sites.

Already at least four individuals have uploaded 'Embedded Confessions', three of them making it watchable in one 2hr 15 min episode:

Hideo
Info Strike
British Truther, and
David Tendresse.

Five more have added it to their 'playlists':

Truth Justice
Field Interference
Elliot Stevenson
Kerravon and
Kathleen Bishop on the 'Trusted News' channel

Totalling it all up, after 4 days, 'Embedded Confessions' has by now had over 75,000 views

Interesting article on statement analysis posted up on ‘Controversy’ FB site. (There are six pages of it if you click the page links at the bottom).
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
What a lot of people don’t seem to get with Peter Hyatt's analysis is this bit:
 
‘In statement analysis, investigators examine words, independent of case facts, to detect deception. They also remain alert for information omitted and question why the suspect may have done so. Investigators then analyze the clues unintentionally provided by a suspect and use this insight during the subsequent interview.’


and his 'red flags' add further corroboration to what has already been suggested from looking elsewhere.


eta.


Apologies, it's actually come from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] FB site.

Doug D wrote:[size=33]Interesting article on statement analysis posted up on ‘Controversy’ FB site. (There are six pages of it if you click the page links at the bottom).[/size]
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
[size=33]What a lot of people don’t seem to get with Peter Hyatt's analysis is this bit:[/size]
 
[size=33]‘In statement analysis, investigators examine words, independent of case facts, to detect deception. They also remain alert for information omitted and question why the suspect may have done so. Investigators then analyze the clues unintentionally provided by a suspect and use this insight during the subsequent interview.’[/size]


[size=33]and his 'red flags' add further corroboration to what has already been suggested from looking elsewhere.[/size]


[size=33]eta.[/size]


[size=33]Apologies, it's actually come from [/size][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] FB site.

The 'independent of case facts'can lead to false analysis imo. Peter looks at what they say, what they don't say and what does this mean. You need to look at what was said and WHY. Without knowing why Gerry & Kate made the 'accident & car three weeks' statements he leaves his interpretation open to questioning

Precisely.
 
It’s not the be-all and end-all and on its own it won’t stand up but the usual process (which obviously can't happen in this case) would be:
 
‘Investigators then analyze the clues unintentionally provided by a suspect and use this insight during the subsequent interview’
 
It is another tool to be used in a subsequent cross-examination, along with any evidence gathered and all of the other discrepancies identified from the various statements that don’t add up.
  
Problem is, as far as we know, this never seems to have happened.

The 'rogs' were an opportunity for this to happen, based on the previous statements, but were just used as another, late in the day, 'statement gathering' exercise.

Peter Hyatt has done what he does - analysed statements made in a 2011 TV programme - given his feedback (which actually ties in with many people's private thoughts) and set numerous people off.

Spoken out and too close to an unpalatable truth maybe?

Doug D wrote:Precisely.
 
It’s not the be-all and end-all and on its own it won’t stand up but the usual process (which obviously can't happen in this case) would be:
 
‘Investigators then analyze the clues unintentionally provided by a suspect and use this insight during the subsequent interview’
 
It is another tool to be used in a subsequent cross-examination, along with any evidence gathered and all of the other discrepancies identified from the various statements that don’t add up.
  
Problem is, as far as we know, this never seems to have happened.

The 'rogs' were an opportunity for this to happen, based on the previous statements, but were just used as another, late in the day, 'statement gathering' exercise.

Peter Hyatt has done what he does - analysed statements made in a 2011 TV programme - given his feedback (which actually ties in with many people's private thoughts) and set numerous people off.

Spoken out and too close to an unpalatable truth maybe?

I actually think he's pretty near the mark however he has claimed 'a confession' with Gerry's answer to a question put to him without doing the other elements of the investigatory process. He would get a better understanding if he did (or knew why Gerry answered the way he did). Obviously Peter has done all he can and formed hs opinion on what was available to him

Cmaryholmes wrote:The Mccanns seem to be preoccupied with physical perfection.....the jogging,

The Mccanns seem preoccupied with physical perfection......I think it was on the Oprah show that they were discussing Madeleine with a chap who was creating an age progression. He referred to their good genes and they were so pleased with that. The perfect head, the perfect little genitals (that description almost makes me want to vomit) -are such strange things to say about a child. If any normal parent were talking about a missing daughter, they would not be able to hold back the tears. What is wrong with this pair ??

'perfect little genitals'------who  on earth KNOWS what 'perfect little genitals' LOOK like?

worriedmum wrote:

Cmaryholmes wrote:The Mccanns seem to be preoccupied with physical perfection.....the jogging,

The Mccanns seem preoccupied with physical perfection......I think it was on the Oprah show that they were discussing Madeleine with a chap who was creating an age progression. He referred to their good genes and they were so pleased with that. The perfect head, the perfect little genitals (that description almost makes me want to vomit) -are such strange things to say about a child. If any normal parent were talking about a missing daughter, they would not be able to hold back the tears. What is wrong with this pair ??

'perfect little genitals'------who  on earth KNOWS what 'perfect little genitals' LOOK like?

Must admit....that does sound weird
JohnyT

HKP wrote:

Doug D wrote:Precisely.
 
It’s not the be-all and end-all and on its own it won’t stand up but the usual process (which obviously can't happen in this case) would be:
 
‘Investigators then analyze the clues unintentionally provided by a suspect and use this insight during the subsequent interview’
 
It is another tool to be used in a subsequent cross-examination, along with any evidence gathered and all of the other discrepancies identified from the various statements that don’t add up.
  
Problem is, as far as we know, this never seems to have happened.

The 'rogs' were an opportunity for this to happen, based on the previous statements, but were just used as another, late in the day, 'statement gathering' exercise.

Peter Hyatt has done what he does - analysed statements made in a 2011 TV programme - given his feedback (which actually ties in with many people's private thoughts) and set numerous people off.

Spoken out and too close to an unpalatable truth maybe?

I actually think he's pretty near the mark however he has claimed 'a confession' with Gerry's answer to a question put to him without doing the other elements of the investigatory process. He would get a better understanding if he did (or knew why Gerry answered the way he did). Obviously Peter has done all he can and formed hs opinion on what was available to him

The confession is in this answer:

Gerry McCann: No. That’s an emphatic no. I mean the ludicrous thing is erm 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, because, the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner so ...if she died then, how could we of disposed – hidden her body. You know, when there’s an immediate [inaudible but sounds like he was about to say ‘search’] it’s just nonsense. And if she died when we were in the apartment or fell and di...why would we ...why would we cover that up?

To be more precise
I suppose what’s been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body.


Here he speaks to the  Portuguese theory that Maddie died in an accident.


it’s just nonsense. And if she died when we were in the apartment or fell and di...why would we ...why would we cover that up?


And at the beginning of a sentence indicates missing information.
Then he confesses.

If it was an accident, why would they have covered it up?
Since they covered it up, it could not then have been an accident.
This would point the finger of suspicion at over sedation or possible her dying as a result of something else happening, during another crime perhaps.

Note also her dying in the apartment when he and kate were present and falling and dying are separate actions.
He self edits and stops when he says fell and di... when he could complete the word died in relation to them being in the apartment.
Note he also stutters and repeats himself with why would we ...why would we cover that up? which makes her falling and dying sensitive to him

His own words convict him both him and kate