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

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.

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?

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.

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.’