The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Mm11

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Regist10

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

Page 5 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Guest on 07.12.16 23:16

@Tony Bennett wrote:
HKP wrote:@Richard lV
So Sharon Leal is a fraud but Peter Hyatt is using scientific type analysis and he's not a fraud. I used statement analysis to deduce that.
Sorry @ HKP but I'm afraid for the purposes of your argument, the examples you've chosen are quite inappropriate. I'll explain why.

Look at the clip below where Sharon Leal declares tha the McCanns are innocent.

It's just 34 seconds long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EyT-7Zi5HMj  

The documentary plays a brief clip (seconds only) of Gerry McCann making his speech on the evening of Friday 4 May asking for the abductor to return Madeleine.

And then we get a handful of words from Leal finishing IIRC with: "I know there is a lot of controversy about whether the McCanns are guilty or innocent, but from my point of view, I think  the McCanns are 100% innocent".

Pray, what kind of analysis is that??!!  It is surely worthless. It is not based on any analysis of anything at all apart from giving us a 5-second summary of what Gsrry was saying. 

Moreover, we have to look behind the scenes and see if she might have had an agenda. Andsure enough, again i meory serves, was this not produced by shine TV which IIRC was owned by Elisabeth Murdoch & Matthew Freud. If not them, someone else with a pretty close connection to the McCanns, maybe someone else as the details.

So, quite apart from the utter vacuity and baselessness for claiming she thinks the McCanns are 100% innocent, she is manifestly not independent.

And so she is not a fair comparison with Peter Hyatt. Would you agree?  

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

No more to say about Peter Hyatt, there is a range of opinions about his credentials and expertise, no doubt he has got some things right but in other cases his conclusions might not be so well supported or even wrong. I think someone upthread pointed out that the F.B.I. used Statement Analysts - the same folk who now employ Martin Grime
Tony, I think you missed my point. Dr Leal may have had an 'agenda' which was to declare the McCanns innocent I don't know. Equally Peter Hyatt may have an agenda I stated upthread that it was principally to sell training (my opinion/analysis of his words as he continually mentions training/trained people).

As for credentials Dr Leal wipes the floor with Peter, does that make her right, no but it does demonsrate polar opposites (Verdi also highlighted another 'analyst' who also states their innocence) of opnions.

I still go back to earlier upthread where I stated there is no embedded confession but Peter states there is (for it to be a confession you have to admit to something, that never happened). He also stated on Richard's video that he knew little of the case, that is clearly not accurate. 

Too many people just want to blindly believe as he's saying what they want to hear, perhaps he should try faith healing he might be even better at that.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Richard IV on 08.12.16 0:27

@Verdi wrote:
@Richard IV wrote:
Statement Analysis does not have to be a recognised science.  Why do you keep saying this. 
Because it has been claimed on this forum that statement analysis IS a recognised science.
A black and white claim.

ok, well I wouldn`t know if it is or not, but I do know that science is a result of empirical evidence which is then tested or experiments done.

IMO PH`s work could be considered scientific if it was tested and the positive results of experiments were repeated.  Perhaps we have to know `why` before it is said to be scientific, and this is proved by neuroscience and is part of psychology.
Richard IV
Richard IV

Posts : 552
Join date : 2015-03-06

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Richard IV on 08.12.16 0:35

HKP wrote:@Richard lV
So Sharon Leal is a fraud but Peter Hyatt is using scientific type analysis and he's not a fraud. I used statement analysis to deduce that.

Eta. Personally I think Dr Leal is wrong but saying she's a fraud is a bit misguided.

http://www.port.ac.uk/department-of-psychology/staff/dr-sharon-leal.html

If you could link to Peter's credentials that would be helpful.

This deception and analysis caper is all about the individuals interpretation therefore different people are seeing different things, some are even seeing what they want to believe.
Just because she has qualifications means nothing to me - it just means she`s learnt what she`s been told or read, like kids passing exams.

Peter Hyatt and HobNob have said and written at length his credentials.  

Yes, I agree, some are seeing what they want to believe.
Richard IV
Richard IV

Posts : 552
Join date : 2015-03-06

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Richard IV on 08.12.16 0:39

Just realised - why are we discussing whether it`s scientific or not.

Who cares.  It doesn`t have to be.
Richard IV
Richard IV

Posts : 552
Join date : 2015-03-06

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Verdi on 08.12.16 0:45

I believe also, his interpretation of the interview by way of a professional analysis, has been heavily influenced - therefore leaning towards a bias which puts him in an untenable position.  He might say to the contrary but the evidence is clear for all to see - unfortunately this only invites criticism and reflects badly on the forum.

Peter Hyatt was specifically selected to undertake this exercise of McCann focused interview analysis and now statement analysis, as opposed to any other statement analyst on the planet - this simple fact is plain for all to see, which in my opinion completely negates any otherwise positive contribution he may have made to solving the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

There are far more compelling factors to consider without focusing too much attention on a self professed American Statement Analyst (registered trade mark) and his individual interpretation of verbiage a la McCann.  If the case ever gets to the stage of a prosecution (snort!) in a court of law and an analysis of witness statements is considered advantageous then bring it on!  Until then it's a destructive diversion - in my opinion.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

https://thecompletemysteryofmadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 14126
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by MayMuse on 08.12.16 1:32

Lies and deception... worth a watch 
https://youtu.be/-OLcA2o39VM

____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.” bingo

Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
avatar
MayMuse

Posts : 2033
Join date : 2016-04-15

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by BlueBag on 08.12.16 8:25

@Verdi wrote:There are far more compelling factors to consider without focusing too much attention on a self professed American Statement Analyst (registered trade mark) and his individual interpretation of verbiage a la McCann.  If the case ever gets to the stage of a prosecution (snort!) in a court of law and an analysis of witness statements is considered advantageous then bring it on!  Until then it's a destructive diversion - in my opinion.
If it gets to a court if law then statement analysts won't get in.

And even in the unlikely if they do the defence will bring in theirs.
BlueBag
BlueBag

Posts : 5051
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by skyrocket on 08.12.16 9:21

I have to disagree with those who are being disparaging about Peter Hyatt and his profession. As I understand it, each statement is looked at as a stand alone so prior knowledge or opinion should not enter into the process of actual analysis. There should be no bias - each additional statement looked at merely adds or subtracts from the bigger picture.

For an experienced professional analyst, apparently with a long standing track record of being involved in police investigations, certain language/word usage in statements must, and obviosly does, leap out at him. It is clearly a science in that, with experience or a handbook of what to look for, analysis is not subjective - set patterns/words point to /equate directly to specific meaning.

It is no different than experience/knowledge in other fields. A security guard in a shopping mall learns that certain behaviour signals a person is a shoplifter, well before any crime is committed. They can look at a crowd and pick the ones out to watch. A child protection expert/experienced teacher can watch a group of young children playing and pick out problems. Etc, etc. It is down to experience and learning signals and patterns. One or two signals should increase observation/investigation; half a dozen signals/developing patterns should raise alarm/serious concern; multiple repeated signals/patterns is conclusive (IMO anyway).

I have found Peter Hyatt's work fascinating. Individually, many of the irregularities have already been pounced on by those interested in the case but Peter's work ties all the irregularities together and gives them much more credence by comparing them with his database of past cases/knowledge.
skyrocket
skyrocket

Posts : 755
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Carrry On Doctor on 08.12.16 10:09

@MayMuse wrote:Lies and deception... worth a watch 
https://youtu.be/-OLcA2o39VM

Thank you for this @MayMuse. Yes indeed, well worth a watch.

Lack of emotion
Speaking about the victim in past tense
Distancing language
More concern for themselves than the victim
Not searching
Trying to get into the investigation

All very familiar to us haters and trolls.

Also, IMO Peter Hyatt and Hobs analysis has been very informative, and generally in keeping with many's thoughts.

With an impartial mind, whoever looks at this case invariably comes to the same conclusion.
Carrry On Doctor
Carrry On Doctor

Posts : 390
Join date : 2014-01-31

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by BlueBag on 08.12.16 11:09

@skyrocket wrote: It is clearly a science in that, with experience or a handbook of what to look for, analysis is not subjective - set patterns/words point to /equate directly to specific meaning.
It is totally subjective.

It relies on opinion.

Just like lie detector tests actually.
BlueBag
BlueBag

Posts : 5051
Join date : 2014-06-06

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Guest on 08.12.16 11:22

@Skyrocket

Your examples are not compatible, they are looking at human behaviours not black and white words. 

Your 'not subjective'; statement analysis could not be any more subjective, it's wholely based on opinion.

As an example Peter picks up on Kate mentioning the doors open or shut, the angle of the door etc. then states this could be an indicator of abuse. Eh no, this will be to backup her fairy story of her finding Madeleine missing. Totally misread because he doesnt know the background (so he says although that is questionable) or the context that it was said in. How many of us have sent or received an email and it's been misinterpreted?

He did the analysis using the transcript and was always at pains to tell us it 'could' mean this (or he could be completely wrong) and it's only his opinion.

He claims there is an embedded confession (there is no confession in that transcript, neither G or K admit anything so it can't be a confession). Hobs then states that after Peter's session with other analysists that there is evidence (not opinion or indicators) of sexual abuse. 

Not a lot of this stacks up, Peter was obviously selected by Richard because he is 'on message' other 'analysists' have opposing views.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Tony Cadogan on 08.12.16 11:27

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Tony Cadogan wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:   @ Hobs, can you help us here? Can you please point us to any literature at all on the subject, preferably peer-reviewed, where we can read what statement analysts have claimed to have discovered about the use of words like 'water', 'showers', 'doors' and 'windows' and whether they indicate or refer to sexual activity? Thanks.”

REPLY BY TONY CADOGAN 

Respectfully.

“…preferably peer-reviewed…“

Why “preferably” (as opposed to simply peer-reviewed)?

Who are the ‘peers’ you have in mind in this instance?

Let’s consider a hypothetical situation.

Let’s say you read a book on haruspication and alchemy  both of which the writer insist on referring to as  sciences.  Being in doubt as to the validity of such writer’s insistence and wishing to overcame your doubts, whose relevant opinions on the matter would you consider as having more weight in you search for a resolution of your doubts, those of the current members of The Royal Society or Thomas Becket’s and Newton’s?

REPLY : You have opened up a very big subject - and you're quite right to do so on the current issue of evaluating the expertise of Peter Hyatt.

How does one judge the degree of knowledge and expertise of an expert?

You mention the Royal Society. Presumably as a guarantor of expertise and the ability to peer review scientific subjects.

In general, I would agree with that proposition.

But even here, scientists with an agenda can give false opinions.

Two examples:

Man-made climate change. Most scientists agree that there is currently man-made global warning, i.e. that 'greenhouse gases' like carbon dioxide are making the planet warmer. I disagree, and the reason I disagree is because, having read extensively on the subject, the science tells me that increased warmth CAUSES more carbon dioxide not the other way around.  There are tens of thousands of very well-qualified scientists who can show that other factors are at work; mainly changes in the output of heat and energy from the sun. After all, the other planets having been warning up along with us. The reason why we are being fed junk climate science is because massive amounts of money are poured into those scientists who uphold the 'man-made' view. Why that is the case is yet another matter.  

The same with the theory of evolution.  There is no evidence whatsoever that evolution is true - and a whole swathe of evidence against it. The reason why secular scientists promote it is simple; they have an agenda. They do not want to believe in God - and deny the existence of a Creator who might have designed the universe and all the marvellous things within it. That is why the tens of thousands of well-qualified creation scientists are NEVER peer-reviewed by scientists who belong to the Royal Society. The attitude is simply this: "You believe in God? We will not review your scientific arguments for creation".

I agree it not easy to 'peer review' things like body language interpretations and Statement Analysis. Yet Statement Analysts ARE regularly used in police work. They are used because they give accurate interpretations. But they must be used with caution and AFAIK they are not recognised as expert evidence by any courts.

Take another example: statins. Experts say that taking statins significantly reduces heart disease. Seven million people in Britain take them. My doctor said I should take them. I have refused, because again having read up on the subject, I don't think the scientific evidence is there to support them. Most of the research is produced or funded by the pharmaceutical companies who make them. 

Would you agree that even one link to a legal case in which Statement Analysis is referred to in evidence or the judgement would be most helpful in the circumstances?  I think it would.

REPLY: No I would NOT agree with that because, as I've said, Statement Analysis guides police officers, but is NOT AFAIK ever used in courts. Mind you, juries use Statement Analysis all the time! - and I've been in jury rooms. There is usually at least one juror who will comment on a witness's evidence and point out how s/he is lying. 

What we need from Peter Hyatt, or any other Statement Analyst or body language expert for that matter, is authentic testimonials from police or other agencies who have used his analytical techniques and found them useful. I do not know if he has these on his site or not. If he does, that would be good evidence in his favour


I am most grateful for the tenor of your post. It seems that we are in agreement on several important points you have made. Please kindly bear with me and I will reply in due course.

I agree that authentic testimonials from police and/or other agencies who have used Statement Analysis techniques and found them useful would be very helpful.


I would like to bring to your attention as moderator that yesterday at 2:07 pm I posted several links to information which I thought would be both pertinent and useful to the discussion on this forum. My post has disappeared without a trace. I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to let me know what happened.
avatar
Tony Cadogan

Posts : 102
Join date : 2016-07-25

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Jill Havern on 08.12.16 11:33

@Tony Cadogan wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Tony Cadogan wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:   @ Hobs, can you help us here? Can you please point us to any literature at all on the subject, preferably peer-reviewed, where we can read what statement analysts have claimed to have discovered about the use of words like 'water', 'showers', 'doors' and 'windows' and whether they indicate or refer to sexual activity? Thanks.”

REPLY BY TONY CADOGAN 

Respectfully.

“…preferably peer-reviewed…“

Why “preferably” (as opposed to simply peer-reviewed)?

Who are the ‘peers’ you have in mind in this instance?

Let’s consider a hypothetical situation.

Let’s say you read a book on haruspication and alchemy  both of which the writer insist on referring to as  sciences.  Being in doubt as to the validity of such writer’s insistence and wishing to overcame your doubts, whose relevant opinions on the matter would you consider as having more weight in you search for a resolution of your doubts, those of the current members of The Royal Society or Thomas Becket’s and Newton’s?

REPLY : You have opened up a very big subject - and you're quite right to do so on the current issue of evaluating the expertise of Peter Hyatt.

How does one judge the degree of knowledge and expertise of an expert?

You mention the Royal Society. Presumably as a guarantor of expertise and the ability to peer review scientific subjects.

In general, I would agree with that proposition.

But even here, scientists with an agenda can give false opinions.

Two examples:

Man-made climate change. Most scientists agree that there is currently man-made global warning, i.e. that 'greenhouse gases' like carbon dioxide are making the planet warmer. I disagree, and the reason I disagree is because, having read extensively on the subject, the science tells me that increased warmth CAUSES more carbon dioxide not the other way around.  There are tens of thousands of very well-qualified scientists who can show that other factors are at work; mainly changes in the output of heat and energy from the sun. After all, the other planets having been warning up along with us. The reason why we are being fed junk climate science is because massive amounts of money are poured into those scientists who uphold the 'man-made' view. Why that is the case is yet another matter.  

The same with the theory of evolution.  There is no evidence whatsoever that evolution is true - and a whole swathe of evidence against it. The reason why secular scientists promote it is simple; they have an agenda. They do not want to believe in God - and deny the existence of a Creator who might have designed the universe and all the marvellous things within it. That is why the tens of thousands of well-qualified creation scientists are NEVER peer-reviewed by scientists who belong to the Royal Society. The attitude is simply this: "You believe in God? We will not review your scientific arguments for creation".

I agree it not easy to 'peer review' things like body language interpretations and Statement Analysis. Yet Statement Analysts ARE regularly used in police work. They are used because they give accurate interpretations. But they must be used with caution and AFAIK they are not recognised as expert evidence by any courts.

Take another example: statins. Experts say that taking statins significantly reduces heart disease. Seven million people in Britain take them. My doctor said I should take them. I have refused, because again having read up on the subject, I don't think the scientific evidence is there to support them. Most of the research is produced or funded by the pharmaceutical companies who make them. 

Would you agree that even one link to a legal case in which Statement Analysis is referred to in evidence or the judgement would be most helpful in the circumstances?  I think it would.

REPLY: No I would NOT agree with that because, as I've said, Statement Analysis guides police officers, but is NOT AFAIK ever used in courts. Mind you, juries use Statement Analysis all the time! - and I've been in jury rooms. There is usually at least one juror who will comment on a witness's evidence and point out how s/he is lying. 

What we need from Peter Hyatt, or any other Statement Analyst or body language expert for that matter, is authentic testimonials from police or other agencies who have used his analytical techniques and found them useful. I do not know if he has these on his site or not. If he does, that would be good evidence in his favour


I am most grateful for the tenor of your post.  It seems that we are in agreement on several important points you have made.  Please kindly bear with me and I will reply in due course.

I agree that authentic testimonials from police and/or other agencies who have used Statement Analysis techniques and found them useful would be very helpful.


I would like to bring to your attention as moderator that yesterday at 2:07 pm I posted several links to information which I thought would be both pertinent and useful to the discussion on this forum.  My post have disappeared without a trace.  I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to let me know what happened.
I deleted them.

I don't know if you're aware but the host of that blog has been given a Police warning for posting vile accusations about Tony on twitter.

I do not want that blog promoted on this forum. Thank you.
Jill Havern
Jill Havern
Chief Faffer
Chief Faffer

Posts : 15472
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Verdi on 08.12.16 12:50

I don't think anyone is disputing the obvious behavioral tell-tale signs of guilt - with a little attention to the subject matter, any passive observer can recognize deception without the aid of a analyst of any description.   Providing of course they look objectively.

The issue here as far as I'm concerned is recognizing the true value of Peter Hyatt's interview/statement analysis - the conclusion of which incidentally accords with the opinion of the preliminary PJ investigation and/or the opinion of many an interested observer that's followed this case over the years.  As interesting as the subject might be for some, it has little or no value outside of just another opinion to reinforce what's already known.  The chances of Peter Hyatt's analysis assisting a live police investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is about as likely as my opinion being taken on board by the police - zero.  Training, diploma, range of experience or whatever makes no difference - it is opinion, not fact, not definitive or even circumstantial evidence.  Opinion by analysis is but a thought, an interpretation, a possible guide - it is not valuable evidence.

Richard D. Hall plays no part in my overall opinion on this subject - as always, he only puts the information out there for people to make up their own minds, I do nonetheless believe that Hyatt's work on the subject of Madeleine McCann has been influenced, an opinion compounded by other analysts who have deduced the complete opposite!  For the purpose of the exercise you have to decide for yourself who you think is right and who you think is wrong - subjectively or objectively, take your pick!

Anyone with an eye for detail could see from square one, by way of the press reports and the McCanns first media interview on Friday 4th May 2007, that something was amiss - the PJ picked up on it, they weren't fooled.  They, the police, have the experience (gut feeling) to analyse the words and behaviour of a crime suspect without the need for a consultant analyst - what a pity the PJ couldn't extend their expertise to analyse the motives of the UK establishment.  Now that would be interesting..

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

https://thecompletemysteryofmadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 14126
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Tony Cadogan on 08.12.16 13:49

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
@Tony Cadogan wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Tony Cadogan wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:   @ Hobs, can you help us here? Can you please point us to any literature at all on the subject, preferably peer-reviewed, where we can read what statement analysts have claimed to have discovered about the use of words like 'water', 'showers', 'doors' and 'windows' and whether they indicate or refer to sexual activity? Thanks.”

REPLY BY TONY CADOGAN 

Respectfully.

“…preferably peer-reviewed…“

Why “preferably” (as opposed to simply peer-reviewed)?

Who are the ‘peers’ you have in mind in this instance?

Let’s consider a hypothetical situation.

Let’s say you read a book on haruspication and alchemy  both of which the writer insist on referring to as  sciences.  Being in doubt as to the validity of such writer’s insistence and wishing to overcame your doubts, whose relevant opinions on the matter would you consider as having more weight in you search for a resolution of your doubts, those of the current members of The Royal Society or Thomas Becket’s and Newton’s?

REPLY : You have opened up a very big subject - and you're quite right to do so on the current issue of evaluating the expertise of Peter Hyatt.

How does one judge the degree of knowledge and expertise of an expert?

You mention the Royal Society. Presumably as a guarantor of expertise and the ability to peer review scientific subjects.

In general, I would agree with that proposition.

But even here, scientists with an agenda can give false opinions.

Two examples:

Man-made climate change. Most scientists agree that there is currently man-made global warning, i.e. that 'greenhouse gases' like carbon dioxide are making the planet warmer. I disagree, and the reason I disagree is because, having read extensively on the subject, the science tells me that increased warmth CAUSES more carbon dioxide not the other way around.  There are tens of thousands of very well-qualified scientists who can show that other factors are at work; mainly changes in the output of heat and energy from the sun. After all, the other planets having been warning up along with us. The reason why we are being fed junk climate science is because massive amounts of money are poured into those scientists who uphold the 'man-made' view. Why that is the case is yet another matter.  

The same with the theory of evolution.  There is no evidence whatsoever that evolution is true - and a whole swathe of evidence against it. The reason why secular scientists promote it is simple; they have an agenda. They do not want to believe in God - and deny the existence of a Creator who might have designed the universe and all the marvellous things within it. That is why the tens of thousands of well-qualified creation scientists are NEVER peer-reviewed by scientists who belong to the Royal Society. The attitude is simply this: "You believe in God? We will not review your scientific arguments for creation".

I agree it not easy to 'peer review' things like body language interpretations and Statement Analysis. Yet Statement Analysts ARE regularly used in police work. They are used because they give accurate interpretations. But they must be used with caution and AFAIK they are not recognised as expert evidence by any courts.

Take another example: statins. Experts say that taking statins significantly reduces heart disease. Seven million people in Britain take them. My doctor said I should take them. I have refused, because again having read up on the subject, I don't think the scientific evidence is there to support them. Most of the research is produced or funded by the pharmaceutical companies who make them. 

Would you agree that even one link to a legal case in which Statement Analysis is referred to in evidence or the judgement would be most helpful in the circumstances?  I think it would.

REPLY: No I would NOT agree with that because, as I've said, Statement Analysis guides police officers, but is NOT AFAIK ever used in courts. Mind you, juries use Statement Analysis all the time! - and I've been in jury rooms. There is usually at least one juror who will comment on a witness's evidence and point out how s/he is lying. 

What we need from Peter Hyatt, or any other Statement Analyst or body language expert for that matter, is authentic testimonials from police or other agencies who have used his analytical techniques and found them useful. I do not know if he has these on his site or not. If he does, that would be good evidence in his favour


I am most grateful for the tenor of your post.  It seems that we are in agreement on several important points you have made.  Please kindly bear with me and I will reply in due course.

I agree that authentic testimonials from police and/or other agencies who have used Statement Analysis techniques and found them useful would be very helpful.


I would like to bring to your attention as moderator that yesterday at 2:07 pm I posted several links to information which I thought would be both pertinent and useful to the discussion on this forum.  My post have disappeared without a trace.  I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to let me know what happened.
I deleted them.

I don't know if you're aware but the host of that blog has been given a Police warning for posting vile accusations about Tony on twitter.

I do not want that blog promoted on this forum. Thank you.

II wasn’t aware of that, I do not follow twitter. I side with you in the matter of the vile accusations you refer to, even without knowing what they are.

I am aware of various unsavoury comments on the blog I posted links to and this is why I posted the links specifically to the posts of interest, not to the blog as such which would have taken much less effort. The posts contain no accusations or foul language, they are somewhat technical in places, courteous and exceptionally well written.

I would like to add that I have never accused or abused anyone, and that includes your good self and Tony Bennett, in my posts. I have been following Tony Bennett’s progress for quite a while and have no reason to question his intentions. I neither support nor have ever supported anyone in making such comments.

I did not intend to cause you or anyone else even a moment of discomfort by posting the links.

Please accept my sincere apologies for any disturbance I may have caused by posting the links.
avatar
Tony Cadogan

Posts : 102
Join date : 2016-07-25

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Doug D on 08.12.16 14:09

For those who are interested ‘Part Three’ has now been posted:
 
The Case of Madeleine McCann: Part Three Cadaver Dogs
 
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/the-case-of-madeleine-mccann-part-three.html
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 2946
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by skyrocket on 08.12.16 15:08

@BlueBag and @HKP - we'll have to agree to disagree on how subjective statement analysis is in experienced hands.

If you or I, or anyone else inexperienced or without recorded data infront of them, attempted to analyse any given witness statement or media interview we/they clearly could not claim to be objective. However, if I sat down with analysis results from a large number of past cases, showing positive correlation between certain word/phrase usage with specific actions in proven cases then the process becomes objective.

Infact, I would argue that suggesting that Peter's analysis is clearly subjective because he doesn't know the background to the case and misinterprets KM's tale about the door etc, is an example of true subjectivity. We don't know for sure why KM said what she did, we can only make an assumption from what we know of the case. But if Peter has seen the same sort of terminology/phrases used in a large number of statements/cases then his analysis surely should be more accurate than any one of us with more knowledge than him of only this one specific case (IMO).

Statement analysis (again IMO) is a form of psychology. Psychologists are used all the time as expert witnesses in court. Their testimony is based on observation and correlation with historic data - same process and no more/less objective than statement analysis. In child protection all workers are taught the vocabulary of sexual abuse. This is for a very good reason - abusers use it. There is a known correlation between the use of certain words and certain behaviour/actions. Again, such vocabulary analysis (a corner stone of statement analysis) could be argued to be subjective but it has been shown to be a valuable indicator.

I completely agree that the competency of the statement analyser is the crux and that even if the analysis was allowed into a court room (which it isn't at present) the defence would counter with an opposing analysis. But, this would have to be backed up with solid data.

Everyone will have to decide for themselves how much weight they give to statement analysis - as @Verdi commented, much of what has come out from the analyses only backs up what many have thought previously. But, IMO, it gives objective weight to my mainly subjective  opinions.
skyrocket
skyrocket

Posts : 755
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Doug D on 08.12.16 15:37

Off topic as such, but this bit from the Part 3 analysis jumped out in relation to recent reports regarding the Ben Needham case:
 
‘There is an instinctive reaction by police when they hear public praise where no success has been realized.  
 
It does not 'sit well' with investigators.  They cannot help but ask,
 
"Why are these parents praising us for not finding their daughter?"
  
The ingratiating often has the opposite effect of what was intended. It increases suspicion and could increase resolve.’
avatar
Doug D

Posts : 2946
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by JohnyT on 08.12.16 16:13

@skyrocket wrote:I have to disagree with those who are being disparaging about Peter Hyatt and his profession. As I understand it, each statement is looked at as a stand alone so prior knowledge or opinion should not enter into the process of actual analysis. There should be no bias - each additional statement looked at merely adds or subtracts from the bigger picture.

For an experienced professional analyst, apparently with a long standing track record of being involved in police investigations, certain language/word usage in statements must, and obviosly does, leap out at him. It is clearly a science in that, with experience or a handbook of what to look for, analysis is not subjective - set patterns/words point to /equate directly to specific meaning.

It is no different than experience/knowledge in other fields. A security guard in a shopping mall learns that certain behaviour signals a person is a shoplifter, well before any crime is committed. They can look at a crowd and pick the ones out to watch. A child protection expert/experienced teacher can watch a group of young children playing and pick out problems. Etc, etc. It is down to experience and learning signals and patterns. One or two signals should increase observation/investigation; half a dozen signals/developing patterns should raise alarm/serious concern; multiple repeated signals/patterns is conclusive (IMO anyway).

I have found Peter Hyatt's work fascinating. Individually, many of the irregularities have already been pounced on by those interested in the case but Peter's work ties all the irregularities together and gives them much more credence by comparing them with his database of past cases/knowledge.
......strongly disagree with this statement. My wife regularly gets watched with a security guard at a well known store (she certainly is no shoplifter), purely because she takes her time in buying something. Also, does this mean that 'all men of the cloth' never commit a crime?
JohnyT
avatar
JohnyT

Posts : 215
Join date : 2014-06-01

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by skyrocket on 08.12.16 17:00

@JohnyT - Hi.

I'm sure she isn't and I wasn't suggesting everyone who is watched is. But, I would like to bet an experienced security guard would pick up on the majority of people who are. Your wife obviously triggers an alarm merely because she takes a long time choosing - nothing wrong in that, but it must be an indicator for shop lifting. Beyond that the guard would perhaps be looking at clothing; bags; accomplices; lack of hand/eye co-ordination and hands going into personal clothing or bags; nervousness; etc. One indicator may create a heightened interest from the guard; several indicators would probably have him hovering very close by. The same with statement analysis - repeated and grouped patterns of indicative behaviour is what's important, not isolated blips.

I've also been followed around in a shop - very irritating and I didn't give them my custom.

Not sure where the man of the cloth reference fits in but I don't think anyone would be/should be exempt from scrutiny whether it be shop lifting or any other potential crime - a nun's habit would be ideal for a shop lifter!
skyrocket
skyrocket

Posts : 755
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Roxyroo on 08.12.16 19:23

@Tony Cadogan wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Tony Cadogan wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:   @ Hobs, can you help us here? Can you please point us to any literature at all on the subject, preferably peer-reviewed, where we can read what statement analysts have claimed to have discovered about the use of words like 'water', 'showers', 'doors' and 'windows' and whether they indicate or refer to sexual activity? Thanks.”

REPLY BY TONY CADOGAN 

Respectfully.

“…preferably peer-reviewed…“

Why “preferably” (as opposed to simply peer-reviewed)?

Who are the ‘peers’ you have in mind in this instance?

Let’s consider a hypothetical situation.

Let’s say you read a book on haruspication and alchemy  both of which the writer insist on referring to as  sciences.  Being in doubt as to the validity of such writer’s insistence and wishing to overcame your doubts, whose relevant opinions on the matter would you consider as having more weight in you search for a resolution of your doubts, those of the current members of The Royal Society or Thomas Becket’s and Newton’s?

REPLY : You have opened up a very big subject - and you're quite right to do so on the current issue of evaluating the expertise of Peter Hyatt.

How does one judge the degree of knowledge and expertise of an expert?

You mention the Royal Society. Presumably as a guarantor of expertise and the ability to peer review scientific subjects.

In general, I would agree with that proposition.

But even here, scientists with an agenda can give false opinions.

Two examples:

Man-made climate change. Most scientists agree that there is currently man-made global warning, i.e. that 'greenhouse gases' like carbon dioxide are making the planet warmer. I disagree, and the reason I disagree is because, having read extensively on the subject, the science tells me that increased warmth CAUSES more carbon dioxide not the other way around.  There are tens of thousands of very well-qualified scientists who can show that other factors are at work; mainly changes in the output of heat and energy from the sun. After all, the other planets having been warning up along with us. The reason why we are being fed junk climate science is because massive amounts of money are poured into those scientists who uphold the 'man-made' view. Why that is the case is yet another matter.  

The same with the theory of evolution.  There is no evidence whatsoever that evolution is true - and a whole swathe of evidence against it. The reason why secular scientists promote it is simple; they have an agenda. They do not want to believe in God - and deny the existence of a Creator who might have designed the universe and all the marvellous things within it. That is why the tens of thousands of well-qualified creation scientists are NEVER peer-reviewed by scientists who belong to the Royal Society. The attitude is simply this: "You believe in God? We will not review your scientific arguments for creation".

I agree it not easy to 'peer review' things like body language interpretations and Statement Analysis. Yet Statement Analysts ARE regularly used in police work. They are used because they give accurate interpretations. But they must be used with caution and AFAIK they are not recognised as expert evidence by any courts.

Take another example: statins. Experts say that taking statins significantly reduces heart disease. Seven million people in Britain take them. My doctor said I should take them. I have refused, because again having read up on the subject, I don't think the scientific evidence is there to support them. Most of the research is produced or funded by the pharmaceutical companies who make them. 

Would you agree that even one link to a legal case in which Statement Analysis is referred to in evidence or the judgement would be most helpful in the circumstances?  I think it would.

REPLY: No I would NOT agree with that because, as I've said, Statement Analysis guides police officers, but is NOT AFAIK ever used in courts. Mind you, juries use Statement Analysis all the time! - and I've been in jury rooms. There is usually at least one juror who will comment on a witness's evidence and point out how s/he is lying. 

What we need from Peter Hyatt, or any other Statement Analyst or body language expert for that matter, is authentic testimonials from police or other agencies who have used his analytical techniques and found them useful. I do not know if he has these on his site or not. If he does, that would be good evidence in his favour


I am most grateful for the tenor of your post.  It seems that we are in agreement on several important points you have made.  Please kindly bear with me and I will reply in due course.

I agree that authentic testimonials from police and/or other agencies who have used Statement Analysis techniques and found them useful would be very helpful.


I would like to bring to your attention as moderator that yesterday at 2:07 pm I posted several links to information which I thought would be both pertinent and useful to the discussion on this forum.  My post has disappeared without a trace.  I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to let me know what happened.

@Tony cadogen
I have noticed a few of mine have been deleted also, but i was blaming it on the new forum format, which will not work for me unless i open another tab and skip between the two tabs. Extremely frustrating and the reason why ive not been posting, usually i just give up now as its impossible to read a post in peace if when it stalls then i have to try and find where i was, then it just freezes again!
If theres some other reason theyve been deleted i would rather a mod. told me why? If not i.ll just assume its the new format.
This will probably be one of my last posts anyway as its too frustrating even just trying to read anything anymore with constant screen freezes.

Eta, i see now there was another issue with the Blog/TB, hopefully ive not been deleted because of anything like that, but my troubles with format continue anyway, so au revoir, for now.x

____________________
Everything I post is ALL MY OWN OPINION and therefore I.m allowed to think whatever I please! gm
Roxyroo
Roxyroo

Posts : 421
Join date : 2016-04-04
Location : Scotland

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Jill Havern on 08.12.16 19:38

I've checked the Admin Panel and no one has deleted any of your posts Roxyroo.
The new format shouldn't cause crashes. Try deleting the forum cookies.
No one else has reported any problems.
Jill Havern
Jill Havern
Chief Faffer
Chief Faffer

Posts : 15472
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Verdi on 08.12.16 20:37

@JohnyT wrote:
My wife regularly gets watched with a security guard at a well known store (she certainly is no shoplifter), purely because she takes her time in buying something. Also, does this mean that 'all men of the cloth' never commit a crime?
From my experience, going into a store of any description these days is a case of guilty until proven innocent.  Leave your blue sports bag at the reception area in case it contains something that shouldn't be there - have your own personal assistant trailing around after you  - CCTV camera following your every move - security geezer at the door on the way out looking to check your purchase against the receipt - woe betide if you didn't buy anything..

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Square_gallery_thumb
Book 'im Danno!

Caveat emptor!!!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

https://thecompletemysteryofmadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 14126
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Verdi on 08.12.16 20:45

@Tony Cadogan wrote: 
I did not intend to cause you or anyone else even a moment of discomfort by posting the links.

Please accept my sincere apologies for any disturbance I may have caused by posting the links.
I can't understand why you didn't post your comments on this forum in the first place.  Seems a bit pointless commenting on the blog and then posting links to the blog on CMoMM.

Still, I guess you had your reasons.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

https://thecompletemysteryofmadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 14126
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time  - Page 5 Empty Re: Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time

Post by Verdi on 08.12.16 20:50

@Doug D wrote:Off topic as such, but this bit from the Part 3 analysis jumped out in relation to recent reports regarding the Ben Needham case:
 
‘There is an instinctive reaction by police when they hear public praise where no success has been realized.  
 
It does not 'sit well' with investigators.  They cannot help but ask,
 
"Why are these parents praising us for not finding their daughter?"
  
The ingratiating often has the opposite effect of what was intended. It increases suspicion and could increase resolve.’
I thought the exact same thing as regards the Ben Needham case, in addition to the McCanns eternal gratitude to Leicestershire Constabulary and Operation Grange - although I can't recall any specific positive recommendation as to the work of the PJ.  Perhaps I dropped-awf winkwink .

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

https://thecompletemysteryofmadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/
Verdi
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 14126
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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