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

by Richard IV 03.12.16 22:03

Can anyone remember the name of that woman from Southampton University who did a programme about lying and said the McCanns were definitely innocent ?

I`ve googled all sorts of combinations of words and can`t find it.

Anyway my point is - she ought to get together with Peter Hyatt

by Liz Eagles 03.12.16 22:14

Richard IV wrote:Can anyone remember the name of that woman from Southampton University who did a programme about lying and said the McCanns were definitely innocent ?

I`ve googled all sorts of combinations of words and can`t find it.

Anyway my point is - she ought to get together with Peter Hyatt

Dr. Sharon Leal.

by Richard IV 03.12.16 22:36

Thank you Aquila.

by Guest 03.12.16 23:14

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 08.10.11 18:51

'Eyes for Lies' is a blog run by an American lady, a psychologist or analyst of some kind, who proclaims that she is an 'expert in deception'. She even runs training courses in how to spot lies.

She has posted many useful articles analysing those who have lied in public and one of her most penetrating observations IMO was on a TV interview given by Robert Murat days after he famously won his £600 grand in the High Court of Justice in early 2008. We've quoted from it extensively in one of our articles about Robert Murat.

As the result of a recent TV items about the McCanns on Australian TV, she made this pronouncement yesterday:

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

QUOTE

I continue to support the McCanns are innocent and uninvolved in the disappearance of their daughter.

To read my thoughts on this case, click on the labels below and scroll down to read the posts in reverse chronological order.

UNQUOTE

Labels: [url=http://blog.eyesforlies.com/search/label/Gerry McCann]Gerry McCann[/url], [url=http://blog.eyesforlies.com/search/label/Kate McCann]Kate McCann[/url], [url=http://blog.eyesforlies.com/search/label/Madeleine McCann]Madeleine McCann[/url], [url=http://blog.eyesforlies.com/search/label/missing pesron]missing pesron[/url], [url=http://blog.eyesforlies.com/search/label/Robert Murat]Robert Murat[/url]

++++++++++++++++

23 days after Madeleine was reported missing, 'Eyes for Lies' made this observation:

Saturday, May 26, 2007

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
by Eyes at 11:23 AM

QUOTE

A reader made the following request:

"you [sic] may have heard of a case of a missing child from the UK called madeleine McCann [sic] the parents of this child have not come under suspicion for her dissappearence [sic] from the authority but many many members of the public are perplexed by their actions and statements.

here [sic] is the link to the only formal interview they have given since may 3rd when their child dissappeared [sic] i thought it may intrest [sic] you and i would love to hear your views"

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

I think the McCanns are perplexing people right now because of their lack of emotions outwardly expressed in this video. I also believe many people are judging the McCanns on their poor judgment call to leave three children unattended, alone in a holiday apartment. Both of these together, perhaps, are generating suspicion.

I believe the McCanns made an awful mistake in leaving their three children unattended, even if they were sleeping, and the McCanns checked on the children every 30 minutes. But they did it. They didn't think through the ramifications of their actions. I think all parents have made poor judgment calls to varying degrees over their life as parents, it's just that few parents get stuck with such devastating results.

For the McCanns to live with a mistake of this proportion is monumental and life changing - if they accept the fact that Maddie may never come home again. It's devastating, but why aren't they acting devastated?

For some, this may raise a red flag. For me, it does not.

What if the McCanns haven't accepted the outcome that Madeleine will not come home? What if they are choosing instead to live in the belief that she will be found--that if they try hard enough, they will be able to bring her home? Believing that Maddie will come back to them would lessen the pain--in every respect. It would take away the focus that their mistake may have cost their precious daughter her life.

Would that account for their behavior? I suspect so. I am sure the pain of that last thought is so overwhelming, it could destroy someone's life. Denial is a powerful coping strategy for survival.

When I watch the McCanns speak, I see genuine emotions supporting the situation, their actions and words. I do not see anything that is out of character for someone who is choosing to focus on only one outcome: the safe return of Maddie. While their emotions are not worn on their sleeves, they are clearly there. There is genuine sadness, feelings of pain, loss and duress, yet there is a stoic optimism that they are clinging to, perhaps to protect themselves from the devastating reality.

When I watch the two parents, they are motivated people. They are doers and goers. They are optimists and believe in the good of people. They were trusting people overall, and they didn't walk around in the world with the belief it was a dangerous place. They weren't people who lived in fear. Instead, they looked at the odds and assumed they'd be just fine - that they would be fine, if they took the basic precautions. I am sure they assumed the likelihood of their children waking up and getting out of their cribs was remote. They just never thought someone might abduct their daughter - a thought they may regret for the rest of their lives.

As a bystander, when we are not directly involved and it is not our child, nor our circumstance or our pain, it is easy for us to look at all of the potentials. But when our heart is entwined in the matter, and the horrific outcome only moves to devastate your life, it's not so easy to look at the worst-case scenario. Many people instead go into denial.

I understand and trust the McCanns are honest, caring people who are paying a horrible consequence for failing to safeguard against every worst outcome of their actions.

To read all of my opinions on the McCanns, click on the labels below and posts will come up in reverse chronological order.

Labels: [url=http://blog.eyesforlies.com/search/label/Gerry McCann]Gerry McCann[/url], [url=http://blog.eyesforlies.com/search/label/Kate McCann]Kate McCann[/url], [url=http://blog.eyesforlies.com/search/label/Madeleine McCann]Madeleine McCann[/url], [url=http://blog.eyesforlies.com/search/label/missing pesron]missing pesron[/url], [url=http://blog.eyesforlies.com/search/label/Robert Murat]Robert Murat[/url]

UNQUOTE

by worriedmum 03.12.16 23:16

Eddie and Keela?

by Rise like lions 04.12.16 3:57

What Peter has done is just confirm what we have all believed to be true for a very long time. What, in the old days, police used to call 'a hunch' is now called analysis, whatever we call it, it still works for me.

by Guest 04.12.16 13:08

Rise like lions wrote:What Peter has done is just confirm what we have all believed to be true for a very long time. What, in the old days, police used to call 'a hunch' is now called analysis, whatever we call it, it still works for me.

Policing seems to evolved over the years from the worldly streetwise tough-nut into an academic institution requiring extensive qualifications and/or training in just about every imaginable field - science or otherwise. I prefer the gut feeling anyday to the calculated approach of more modern policing - bring on Gene Hunt!

Being old school, I recall the days when a personel department dished out application forms and kept files in order - then came the dreaded Human Resources invasion! Same principle with the added irritation of staff with an over exagerated feeling of self worth and a lust for power. The dedicated worker of the past was stripped of all control over their own domain and henceforth controlled by analysis, statistics and thoroughly 'political correctness' - where's the fun in that?

Interviewing candidates for a job was a nightmare. Ability and/or suitability for the vacancy became a thing of the past, replaced by minority group priority. Once in an interview I asked a candidate how she intended to organise her working life around her expected child - the interview was immediately interrupted by the Human Resources bod, who in front of the interviewee, told me I couldn't ask question like that in an interview. My reaction at the time can't be repeated here, suffice to say I was later recommended to attend a course on 'how not to interview' - I didn't attend! I wasn't even being an 'ist' of any description - it was a genuine concern about suitability.

No, I can't go along with all this fan-dangled modernism. BAH!

Sorry offtopic

by Rise like lions 04.12.16 13:26

Verdi, not feeling good at all today but your post made me smile. I know exactly what you mean. I don't know if we all get to an age/a point in life where we just stop wanting and/or being able to keep up with, all this new fangled bollox, or if it's a case of just knowing (as an integral part of a complete accumulation of all life's lessons and wisdom) so not needing it. I'm rambling aren't I! And no offence to the lovely Peter Hyatt. (I loved his reason for getting into his work in the first place and he's such a lovely, humble guy).

agree

by Rise like lions 04.12.16 13:37

Another thing Verdi - your experience with the politically correct brigade reminded me of how I had to withdraw from a couple of long-term friends who welcomed this bandwagon with utter feminist glee. One started training to be a social worker and the other some kind of support worker and their self-congratulatory enthusiasm abd pretentiousness drove me to distraction. They actually had a conversation about the support worker's interview where that very question had been asked of her - the fury!! "They would never have asked a man that!" (by this time their men had been reduced to mere pond-life whose only use was to earn the cash so they could re-live their school days).

by MayMuse 04.12.16 14:06

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Hobs and thank you in advance to Hideho for recordingi it.
Question how do treats equate to sedation? Treats in my opinion are the crisps and biscuits Kate spoke of giving the children that evening to show she was a good mother and only gave theses snacks as "treats" and not all the time... so how is it separating them to conclude treats meaning sedation? As an add note I do not believe that scenario of treat giving and cuddles to be a true event in my opinion.

by Guest 04.12.16 23:22

Lord 'arry - for all those who think Peter Hyatt has the answer to all questions, feast your eyes on this if you have the time and/or inclination..

Sunday, December 4, 2016

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

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

Please, no blind adoration just because - if you understand a single point he is supposedly making, then let's hear the pros and cons.

I sincerely hope he's not trying to make a name for himself on the back of Madeleine McCann, let's face it, he wouldn't be the first.

Stuff and nonsense from where I'm standing.

by Guest 05.12.16 9:55

Verdi wrote:Lord 'arry - for all those who think Peter Hyatt has the answer to all questions, feast your eyes on this if you have the time and/or inclination..

Sunday, December 4, 2016

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

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

Please, no blind adoration just because - if you understand a single point he is supposedly making, then let's hear the pros and cons.

I sincerely hope he's not trying to make a name for himself on the back of Madeleine McCann, let's face it, he wouldn't be the first.

Stuff and nonsense from where I'm standing.

I agree, I'm not convinced that Peter doesn't know the 'Amaral accusation' which is what Gerry is defending himself against. It doesn't take genius to look at that interview and pronounce they are being deceitful (we've all noticed body language etc. on occasions). The examples he uses are nowhere near relevant and his own rule for 'not an embedded confession' when appled makes the analysis void.

by **Hobs** 05.12.16 14:11

When Peter or any statement analyst analyses a statement or interviews a subject, all they ask to be told is the allegation.
For example, money was taken.

The interview and analysis is then taken allowing the subject to speak freely and to answer the allegation.
The analyst uses only the words written/spoken by the subject.

In this case Peter listened only to the words spoken by the subjects kate and gerry in response to the questions.

He noted the questions asked and their freely spoken responses to the questions.
In particular he noted tttheir response to the accusation "did you kill your daughter?"

Expected would be a strong denial, no I didn't.

Had they parroted the question in their response "No, i did not kill my daughter" they would have shown themselves to be deceptive.

Instead we had the strong denial No.

Then they weakened the denial by adding "emphatic no"
Every additional word after the denial weakens the statement.
They then went further and beyond the boundaries of the question by explaining how they could not have killed their daughter and di (sposed) hidden her body indicating them for deception and guilt in Maddie's death.

Now that Peter has indicated them for deception and also that sexual abuse is involved, he is interested in statements from the rest of the group to see who knew what, who was involved and in what way.

Earlier interviews are always better si9nce it is closer to the event and memories are fresh and untainted.
They would not be speaking knowing what else has been asked or questioned about their story, they would not need to remember what versions they had previously told.

by Guest 05.12.16 14:56

HKP wrote:
Verdi wrote:Lord 'arry - for all those who think Peter Hyatt has the answer to all questions, feast your eyes on this if you have the time and/or inclination..

Sunday, December 4, 2016

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

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

Please, no blind adoration just because - if you understand a single point he is supposedly making, then let's hear the pros and cons.

I sincerely hope he's not trying to make a name for himself on the back of Madeleine McCann, let's face it, he wouldn't be the first.

Stuff and nonsense from where I'm standing.
I agree, I'm not convinced that Peter doesn't know the 'Amaral accusation' which is what Gerry is defending himself against. It doesn't take genius to look at that interview and pronounce they are being deceitful (we've all noticed body language etc. on occasions). The examples he uses are nowhere near relevant and his own rule for 'not an embedded confession' when appled makes the analysis void.

It's all too vague for my liking.

So something said in general conversation means nothing but in the context of a criminal investigation, or some other scenario, it can or may be interpreted differently? So what if particular language used turns out to be indicative of a particular behavioural pattern - it can't be proven to be relevant until such times as an investigation has concluded. By that time it's too late so the whole process is a waste of time - I can't even see how it can be used as circumstantial evidence or intelligence.

A classic case of hindsight!

I remain sceptical about the subject.

by **Hobs** 05.12.16 21:53

Verdi wrote:
HKP wrote:
Verdi wrote:Lord 'arry - for all those who think Peter Hyatt has the answer to all questions, feast your eyes on this if you have the time and/or inclination..

Sunday, December 4, 2016

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

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

Please, no blind adoration just because - if you understand a single point he is supposedly making, then let's hear the pros and cons.

I sincerely hope he's not trying to make a name for himself on the back of Madeleine McCann, let's face it, he wouldn't be the first.

Stuff and nonsense from where I'm standing.
I agree, I'm not convinced that Peter doesn't know the 'Amaral accusation' which is what Gerry is defending himself against. It doesn't take genius to look at that interview and pronounce they are being deceitful (we've all noticed body language etc. on occasions). The examples he uses are nowhere near relevant and his own rule for 'not an embedded confession' when appled makes the analysis void.
It's all too vague for my liking.

So something said in general conversation means nothing but in the context of a criminal investigation, or some other scenario, it can or may be interpreted differently? So what if particular language used turns out to be indicative of a particular behavioural pattern - it can't be proven to be relevant until such times as an investigation has concluded. By that time it's too late so the whole process is a waste of time - I can't even see how it can be used as circumstantial evidence or intelligence.

A classic case of hindsight!

I remain sceptical about the subject.

Hi Verdi.
Statement analysis can be used in any situation where information is being given, politicians, criminals, social work, family and friends (although it is not recommended you analyse them if you want to stay friends with them although if you need to seek the truth about something important such as in relation to infidelity etc it can come in handy)
The ewhole idea is to let the subject do the talking.
You make the allegation against them such as did you take the money or better still ask them to write out everything they did on the specific day from when they woke up to when they went to bed.
Based on their answers you then seek to learn the truth from the subject using their own words.
Nothing else matters and it is better if the analyst knows nothing about the case except the allegation.

In this case Peter was interested and only used the Australian interview, both in the big 6 hour conference and then in the smaller2 1/2 hr conference.

Only the words spoken in the interview by kate and gerry in response to the questions was looked at, and it looked not only at phrases, it looked at apirs of words and single words in the context of the interview and when compared to the decades of knowledge from criminal cases, social services and the like.
This is why certain words and phrases are flagged up as sensitive although they on their own do not indicate guilt, they indicate that it is sensitive enough to the subject that they felt the need to introduce it and then further investigation is needed to learn why it was sensitive.

Peter is aware of the Maddie case as i introduced ot to him on his blog.

Initially from the example i sent he could not conclude deception or innocence, I then provide a couple of other examples that had caught my attention.
After many months and prompting he did look at another example and concluded deception.

This was one case amongst the many that he covers on his blog, often involving missing children or adults.

He has been proven correct in most of them where a verdict has been found.
Others we know who why and how, just not where the remains are, and in one case everything proved that the mother killed her child or allgedly knew who had done it (she blamed her own father in the opening statements), the jury , seeing fame and money from a shocking verdict decided she hadn't done it and was only guilty of lying.
Sadly you can protect against everything except a dumb jury.

He recently had another look atthe case as he had sought an example and transcript.

The Australian one was an excellent example showing that Maddie was indeed dead, they were involved and knew where she was.
In this case he wanted to learn if sexual abuse was involved (it was) the mccanns told us so.

Peter is far too busy with his training and private work to spend all his time looking at the mccann case.
He does not benefit from it financially since if he were to be taken onto the case, he would remove all reference to her from his blog as he does with other cases or he does not post about the case in hand, Privacy and integrity of the investigation.

He may or may not be aware that the mccanns are suing Dr. Goncalo Amaral.
I doi not know if anyone has sent him transcripts, i doubt it though as it is not really relevant to the case of what the mccanns did to Maddie aided and abetted by the tapas 7.

He has asked for early transcripts of interviews with them and the group as they would be the least contaminated and almost excited utterances, where they are selling their version of events before anyone started to question them.

Even though interviews have gone on for the last almost 10 years and the mccanns are aware that their story is being questioned, they still have to say what happened and, with a lie they have to remember what they have already said and to who.

As time passes they seek to explain away a problem only to cause another problem elsewhere.
they contradict themselves, the timeline changes, what they saw and did changes, what they say changes.
Each time reveals more of the truth, we see what is sensitive, what isn't, wherte we have missing time.

Peter Looked only at the transcript of the Australian interview, nothing else they said.
There are linguistic rules to be followed, when we speak we choose what we are going to say, the tenses and pronouns all within a microsecond of thinking it.
it is these instinctive rules that do not change and lead us to learn the truth or the lie.

My own bugbear is now i have some understanding of it, TV adverts drive me nuts.

The mccanns have told us Maddie is dead.
Maddie died in the apartment.
It was accidental perhaps over sedation or a fall as a result of sedation.
Kate knows where Maddie is dumped.
There is evidence of sexual abuse.

This is what has been revealed in one short interview where they were allowed to speak freely.

by Guest 05.12.16 22:44

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

Pleased be assured, I've read your explanation on the subject repeatedly but it makes no difference to my opinion. I was hoping to generate some discussion on the pros and cons but that went down like a lead balloon. Unsurprisingly I appear to be in a minority but don't wish to disrupt such a popular topic any further - for that reason, I will withdraw unless I have a question or comment on a specific point.

As said recently, I appreciate your need to defend you interest, as I appreciate the time you take to respond and comment in such detail.

by Guest 05.12.16 23:00

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

Sorry but that's balderdash! Peter mentioned throughout the video that this was only his opinion (not science). The Australian interview answers were given after literally hundreds of interviews appearances etc. The story was in answer to Amaral's theory / accusation and anybody (without any statement analysis training) can hazard a good guess that they were being deceitful (whether that be tone, body language or hesitances). Peter has just concluded the Amaral theory was correct, how convenient for him. As for that transcript being evidence of sexual abuse.......... that's not evidence it's an interpretation

by **Tony Bennett** 06.12.16 8:18

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

Sorry but that's balderdash! Peter mentioned throughout the video that this was only his opinion (not science). The Australian interview answers were given after literally hundreds of interviews appearances etc. The story was in answer to Amaral's theory / accusation and anybody (without any statement analysis training) can hazard a good guess that they were being deceitful (whether that be tone, body language or hesitances). Peter has just concluded the Amaral theory was correct, how convenient for him. As for that transcript being evidence of sexual abuse...that's not evidence it's an interpretation

I think we may be being a little harsh on Hobs and Peter Hyatt here.

Indeed I think we have been indebted to Hobs for many years on CMOMM as she has shared certain principles with us that undoubtedly do hold good.

For example, 'distancing language', of which we have seen dozens of examples in this case: 'this girl' etc.

People like judges, the police and social workers are formally trained in how to spot liars. Leaving aside body language and facial expressions, eye contact and all of those visual things wich can tell us so much (and also have done in this case), words themselves can also tell us much.

Two common examples are these:

1. Long rambling denials, instead of a simple 'No'. Peter Hyatt would be supported by every statement analyst and expert in lie detection on the planet in analysing: 'No. And that's an emphatic no', and the long rambling answer that follows, in very much the same way as Hyatt has done.

2. When asked about an incident, where a person answers 'I would have done this' instead of 'I did this', this is recognised everywhere as good evidence of not telling the truth.

I would compare the emerging discipline of statement analysis with those of psychiatry and psychology. It is perfectly possible to have psychiatrists and psychologists who DO know what they are talking about, and are true experts. But experts can disagree; look how many court cases there are where expert psychiatrists and psychologists disagree with each other. Is John Smith mentally ill? One says 'Yes', another says 'No'.

Where I am particularly sceptical about Peter Hyatt's analysis, however (and Hobs'), is where he strays into informing us that certain words tell us to be on the look-out for sexual activity or sexual abuse.

Hobs has mentioned that the use of words like 'water' and 'shower' may be indicators that someone is thinking about sex a lot, or referring to sexual activity. Peter Hyatt has now added the concept that the use of words like 'doors' and 'windows' also reveal that someone is referring to sexual activity

I would like to see the evidence for these assertions.

@ 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.

On that point especially, I share the sceptcism of Verdi and HKP, but am willing to look at any good evidence with an open mind

by Guest 06.12.16 8:56

But experts can disagree; look how many court cases there are where expert psychiatrists and psychologists disagree with each other. Is John Smith mentally ill? One says 'Yes', another says 'No'.

Yep.

It's a voodoo science.

Whilst there are some obvious giveaways (palpable lies and evasions) I don't have much truck with opinion or interpretation of someone's ramblings.

In my opinion, innocent people can say emphatically "no" and also ramble.

People have been hanged on the say-so of experts giving opinion.

I prefer facts.

by Tony Cadogan 06.12.16 9:05

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

Sorry but that's balderdash! Peter mentioned throughout the video that this was only his opinion (not science). The Australian interview answers were given after literally hundreds of interviews appearances etc. The story was in answer to Amaral's theory / accusation and anybody (without any statement analysis training) can hazard a good guess that they were being deceitful (whether that be tone, body language or hesitances). Peter has just concluded the Amaral theory was correct, how convenient for him. As for that transcript being evidence of sexual abuse.......... that's not evidence it's an interpretation

Balderdash indeed! Hobs’s last post is almost incoherent. Perhaps she is not feeling too well?

by plebgate 06.12.16 9:31

Peter Hyatt did say that anyone can disagree with his opinion. Quite why some posters have to use such words as balderdash I have no idea. Big businesses don't seem to see this sort of analysis as balderdash or they wouldn't use his services. He also states that he has trained police personnel in these techniques.

Peter Hyatt gave an example of toothbrushes POSSIBLY being an indictator of some sort of abuse. He went on to say that this would not necessarily hold in every case, so why anyone would post that it is voodooish and that Hobbs' last post was almost incoherent, I do not know as I could make sense of what she was saying.

Peter Hyatt has gone on camera and stated quite clearly his beliefs from his analysis of the Australian interview.

It will be very interesting to me to see if any legal action is taken against him.

by Cmaryholmes 06.12.16 10:09

Peter Hyatt's analysis is extremely interesting and perceptive. The point about distancing is very noticeable in all the McCann interviews....e.g., 'you get strength from somewhere'....'you' ...not 'we'. However.......in my inexpert opinion, wouldn't emphasis on doors and windows be expected in statements from someone who was trying to convince listeners about an abduction scenario? To link references to doors and windows in this case to child abuse is speculation.

by Tony Cadogan 06.12.16 11:21

Tony Bennett wrote:
HKP wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sorry but that's balderdash! Peter mentioned throughout the video that this was only his opinion (not science). The Australian interview answers were given after literally hundreds of interviews appearances etc. The story was in answer to Amaral's theory / accusation and anybody (without any statement analysis training) can hazard a good guess that they were being deceitful (whether that be tone, body language or hesitances). Peter has just concluded the Amaral theory was correct, how convenient for him. As for that transcript being evidence of sexual abuse...that's not evidence it's an interpretation
I think we may be being a little harsh on Hobs and Peter Hyatt here.

Indeed I think we have been indebted to Hobs for many years on CMOMM as she has shared certain principles with us that undoubtedly do hold good.

For example, 'distancing language', of which we have seen dozens of examples in this case: 'this girl' etc.

People like judges, the police and social workers are formally trained in how to spot liars. Leaving aside body language and facial expressions, eye contact and all of those visual things wich can tell us so much (and also have done in this case), words themselves can also tell us much.

Two common examples are these:

1. Long rambling denials, instead of a simple 'No'. Peter Hyatt would be supported by every statement analyst and expert in lie detection on the planet in analysing: 'No. And that's an emphatic no', and the long rambling answer that follows, in very much the same way as Hyatt has done.

2. When asked about an incident, where a person answers 'I would have done this' instead of 'I did this', this is recognised everywhere as good evidence of not telling the truth.

I would compare the emerging discipline of statement analysis with those of psychiatry and psychology. It is perfectly possible to have psychiatrists and psychologists who DO know what they are talking about, and are true experts. But experts can disagree; look how many court cases there are where expert psychiatrists and psychologists disagree with each other. Is John Smith mentally ill? One says 'Yes', another says 'No'.

Where I am particularly sceptical about Peter Hyatt's analysis, however (and Hobs'), is where he strays into informing us that certain words tell us to be on the look-out for sexual activity or sexual abuse.

Hobs has mentioned that the use of words like 'water' and 'shower' may be indicators that someone is thinking about sex a lot, or referring to sexual activity. Peter Hyatt has now added the concept that the use of words like 'doors' and 'windows' also reveal that someone is referring to sexual activity

I would like to see the evidence for these assertions.

@ 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.

On that point especially, I share the sceptcism of Verdi and HKP, but am willing to look at any good evidence with an open mind

“@ 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.”

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?

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.

by Guest 06.12.16 12:23

The connotation of water; hygiene; lights switched on and off; doors opening closing; would be an issue embedded in the sub-conscience of the victim, not the perpetrator. The victim lives in fear of past experiences of sexual abuse, not the perpetrator.

The Australian interview under examination by Peter Hyatt was with Gerry and Kate McCann, not the victim. Unless he is implying that one or both parents were victims of abuse at some stage in their lives and subsequently became the perpetrator, then it's pure specualtion not worth a moments consideration when examining this isolated case.

For example - I have a deep rooted love of water. Not the stagnant type found in ponds and lakes but crystal clear pure water - does that imply that I've been the victim of sexual abuse? No, I believe it's because I'm an Aquarian or maybe I just like water. Sorry, I'm being facetious.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.12.16 12:52

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

by tinkier 06.12.16 14:11

Statement analysis helps determine how people reveal many things based on what they say. Information given can DIRECT/ASSIST officers in their line of questioning. It's an aid, a tool, nothing more nothing less. The FBI wouldn't use it or train officers in it if there was evidence to suggest it was useless!

by MayMuse 06.12.16 14:28

tinkier wrote:Statement analysis helps determine how people reveal many things based on what they say. Information given can DIRECT/ASSIST officers in their line of questioning. It's an aid, a tool, nothing more nothing less. The FBI wouldn't use it or train officers in it if there was evidence to suggest it was useless!

Such as cadaver and blood dogs, an intelligent tool to assist. All these "intelligences" seemingly ignored in Madeleine's investigation.
Not very "intelligent" eh? nah

by Joss 06.12.16 15:19

I think SA is a useful tool in criminal investigations, but is only one part of an investigation if used, because theory also has to be backed up by evidence to secure a conviction at trial. In cases where a body is not found a circumstantial case can be built on evidence too, but those types of cases are much more difficult to prove.
I think in MBM's case there is some circumstantial evidence if the findings of the blood & cadaver detection dogs were to be admissable in a trial, and among other circumstantial evidence as well, although i don't ever think this case will see a trial, unfortunately.
I have read Peter Hyatt's SA blogsite on numerous cases, and have found them to be interesting reading.

by Guest 06.12.16 15:26

Tony Bennett wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:How does one judge the degree of knowledge and expertise of an expert?

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

1. You don't - you take their word for it.

2. Scentist v. scientist also argue fundemental points of science within their own field of expertise.

by Guest 06.12.16 15:43

The South African businessman slash self appointed scientist, Stephen Birch, also made some pretty wild claims about solving the mystery of MadeleineMcCann's disappearance with a Mala ground penetrating radar machine. A reminder..

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

Even he managed to rustle up a few 'international experts' to verify his theory as sound. It's only ever as good as the expert will have you believe

Another theory bites the dust!

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