Re: 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

#61 · by sar 30.11.16 23:37

Hobs wrote:
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

thank you Hobs, lovely to see you again. The voice of reason!!!

#62 · by Guest 01.12.16 20:39

Hobs wrote:
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

There's no confesion, for it to be a confession you have to admit to something he admits to nothing. As for your final sentence that is your wishful thinking. Just giving my opinion which is exactly what Peter says he does (and you've given yours above)

#63 · by **Tony Bennett** 01.12.16 21:52

HKP wrote:
Hobs wrote:
HKP wrote:
Doug D wrote:There's no confession, for it to be a confession you have to admit to something he admits to nothing. As for your final sentence that is your wishful thinking. Just giving my opinion which is exactly what Peter says he does (and you've given yours above)

@ HKP I think you and Peter Hyatt/Hobs might be closer than you think, if we slightly alter the wording.

Clearly, you are correct if you were to say that Gerry McCann, in these remarkable words, has made no formal admission, or no formal confession, of guilt.

But you may be able to agree with Peter Hyatt/Hobs in that they are suggesting that his words amount to what might be termed an implied confession, or a revealed confession, of guilt.

To state that it is a confession, without any qualification, is clearly incorrect - and going too far.

What we have here is Peter Hyatt/Hobs telling us..."Using clear and established principles of statement analysis, it is our firm opinion that, for the reasons we have given, Gerry McCann by his words is in effect telling us that Madeleine died, that she died from a fall or accident, that it happened in the apartment, and that we have hidden her body".

#64 · by Guest 01.12.16 22:09

Tony Bennett wrote:
HKP wrote:
Hobs wrote:
HKP wrote:
Doug D wrote:There's no confession, for it to be a confession you have to admit to something he admits to nothing. As for your final sentence that is your wishful thinking. Just giving my opinion which is exactly what Peter says he does (and you've given yours above)
@ HKP I think you and Peter Hyatt/Hobs might be closer than you think, if we slightly alter the wording.

Clearly, you are correct if you were to say that Gerry McCann, in these remarkable words, has made no formal admission, or no formal confession, of guilt.

But you may be able to agree with Peter Hyatt/Hobs in that they are suggesting that his words amount to what might be termed an implied confession, or a revealed confession, of guilt.

To state that it is a confession, without any qualification, is clearly incorrect - and going too far.

What we have here is Peter Hyatt/Hobs telling us..."Using clear and established principles of statement analysis, it is our firm opinion that, for the reasons we have given, Gerry McCann by his words is in effect telling us that Madeleine died, that she died from a fall or accident, that it happened in the apartment, and that we have hidden her body".

Yes Tony, I agree.

#65 · by Doug D 02.12.16 0:49

Not sure what went wrong with the multi-quote, but I seem to have jumped inside HKP's quote somehow.

#66 · by curioskeptio 02.12.16 10:27

I would be very interested to see an analysis of the original interviews by the pj, I feel they would be a better topic to analyse given how much closer to the event they were and before all and sundry had a hand in managing the situation.

#67 · by **Tony Bennett** 02.12.16 14:13

curioskeptio wrote:I would be very interested to see an analysis of the original interviews by the PJ, I feel they would be a better topic to analyse given how much closer to the event they were and before all and sundry had a hand in managing the situation.

A comprehensive analysis of the original interviews, plus an analysis of the evidence in the case as a whole, can be found in the interim report of Inspector Tavares de Ameida, dated 10 September 2007.

It outlines the specific reasons why the McCanns were made suspects, and can be read at the link below. I have also appended some extracts.

Goncalo Aamal, in his book 'The Truth about a Lie' also goes into detail about some specific interviews. An English translation of that can be read on this forum or in many places elsewhere:

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

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

The child’s parents immediately attributed her disappearance to the action of a third party, promoting the scenario that she had been abducted. Abduction was only one of a number of possible scenarios, but the family publicised their claim that Madeleine had been abducted in a manner that had never been seen before. On the very next day, English television stations led their broadcasts with the news of Madeleine’s disappearance. The media presented the abduction as the truth, although we were looking at other scenarios.

As time went by, the abduction scenario was not confirmed. The abduction hypothesis did not stand up. For instance, no ransom was ever demanded in exchange for information by the alleged kidnappers or for the child herself. Nevertheless, and considering the evidence of one of the McCanns’ friends, Jane Tanner, we continued examining the possibility that Madeleine had been abducted. This went alongside the gathering of all kinds of information, working on a number of other possible scenarios.

The McCanns worked on their account of events:

The information that was initially collected from family and friends was uncertain. In addition, the McCanns and their friends worked on their account of events in order to strengthen and defend their version of what had happened Madeleine. According to their story, they all went out to dine each evening and all left their children asleep in their apartments whilst they were dining. The group told us that they held a meeting during which they agreed certain procedures for continuous checking of the children while they dined. Our files include a manuscript by one of the group’s members that backs this claim.

The group’s programme for checking the children:

This claim that the group had a shared programme for regularly checking of their had the effect on English public opinion that the whole group was exonerated from any blame. Their claim meant that any abnormal event that might last longer than 30 minutes was impossible, as they all agreed that that was the interval between the checks. The group could not sustain the claim that there was checking ‘every 15 to 30 minutes’. In fact the contradictions between their statements made it easy to see that they were all lying.

SNIPPED

The evidence of Jane Tanner:

Continuing with our analysis of information offered to us, one of the group’s members, Jane Tanner, apparently became an important witness, due to what she told us. She said she saw someone crossing the street at dinner time from the location of the McCanns’ apartment towards Robert Murat’s house. [He was later made an ‘arguido’ (suspect)]. This information directed and occupied our work for a long time. This may be an example of how information that is not correct may not only delay the investigation but could even have led to losing the little girl. Jane Tanner insisted on the truthfulness of her account. This led to certain scenarios being developed. But these scenarios were not sustained in reality despite long and intense work being carried out on that arguido [Murat].

There was a discrepancy [about the moment Jane Tanner allegedly saw an abductor] between the statements of Dr Gerald McCann and Jane Tanner. They claimed to have passed each other at only two or three metres’ distance [7 to 10 feet], yet failed to see each other. How could they position themselves as both being together in quite a confined space, yet both fail to see each other walking by; or, more correctly, one sees the other but the other doesn’t see her. Even the exact location where they supposedly crossed each other’s paths is not very well defined by both.

#68 · by MayMuse 02.12.16 14:26

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

To abuse abuse, blog by textusa.

#69 · by worriedmum 02.12.16 15:01

Just skim-read the Textusa article;she takes issue with the suggestion that Kate could be a victim of abuse as there is no evidence. I don't know if she is or she isn't, but I do remember these images which caused comment on this subject
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

#70 · by curioskeptio 04.12.16 19:56

Tony - thanks for that post, I did not know about that assessment. Funny how it didn't have more publicity in our MSM at the time. I would like to see Peter Hyatt analyse the Mccanns earliest statements and also PAynes - which im sure he would have a field day with. We all know he is blatantly lying but i'd be intrigued to know the other possible reveals.

This has all been political from the start, Blair seems to still have plenty of power, given recent moves, so I fear we may not see the truth for a while..

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