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

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

Especially if getting irate when they think they're being implicated or accused of committing a crime.. 

"No!  I did not rob the bank on the high street - when do you think I did it - in my effing lunch break.  Look at the CCTV footage and then tell me I was anywhere near even the High Street let along the bank.  If you must know I was down the pub at that time.."

Been there done it (not bank robbery you understand:).

If I were accused of killing my daughter, I would say more than just 'no' !. It was a stupid question, anyway. He was never going to say 'yes!' was he ?

Verdi wrote: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.

Yes, agreed.

An angry adult male might possibly have been abused as a child and be dominating and aggressive towards their partner. Just my opinion but, I believe, is one of the signs recognised in psychoanalysis.

It may be the abused partner who uses the `water/hygiene` elements in their speech.

But the perpetrator might have also been a victim in the past?

Cmaryholmes wrote:It was a stupid question, anyway.

But was it?

Arguably, it was a great question.

For his answer to it may have revealed more about what really happened than his answers to any other questions he was ever asked.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Cmaryholmes wrote:It was a stupid question, anyway.

But was it?

Arguably, it was a great question.

For his answer to it may have revealed more about what really happened than his answers to any other questions he was ever asked.

Good point, Tony

Verdi wrote:

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

Especially if getting irate when they think they're being implicated or accused of committing a crime.. 

"No!  I did not rob the bank on the high street - when do you think I did it - in my effing lunch break.  Look at the CCTV footage and then tell me I was anywhere near even the High Street let along the bank.  If you must know I was down the pub at that time.."

Been there done it (not bank robbery you understand:).

.....are you sure?
    On a serious note, I'm still not convinced that all the various answers mean what Peter says. Although i must admit, when he was asked if he killed his daughter there seemed to be no emotion. I'd have been livid about that question.
JohnyT

I don't think you should forget that an important part of Peter Hyatt's analysis was what was left out-what was not said. So you have both parents describing positions of tables, windows, curtains, darkness, their feelings-but omitting to appeal to the abductor, to share their worries about Madeleine's well-being, etc...

Peter has been ‘analysing‘ the Australian interview and gave an interpretation, are we to believe that the questions asked during the interview were not known to the McCanns beforehand? For them this would be unusual therefore there‘s a possibility they prepared answers (and still looked well guilty) which voids Peters analyis ( which relies on the answers given when initially asked)

You seem a tad keen to de-bunk Peter Hyatt, HKP.

Even if they knew the areas that were to be asked, it is their CHOICE of language in their answers, and what they do NOT say that provides the material for analysis. They are making the choices.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I don't think HKP or anybody else is debunking Peters' analysis....just offering a different opinion/perspective. I'm on the fence with this too.
JohnyT

Haven't had time to inwardly digest this latest blog entry regarding Peter Hyatt's interpretation of Gerry and Kate McCann's language intrigue but on the surface he appears to be backtracking somewhat..

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

The Case of Missing Madeleine McCann: Statements 2007

The Case of Missing Madeleine McCann:  Part One 
by Peter Hyatt

This will be a series of analysis articles to answer the question:

                "Was the original analysis correct?"

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

I'm getting a bit bored with this - feel like I'm being led on a fools errand.

JohnyT wrote:

Verdi wrote:

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

Especially if getting irate when they think they're being implicated or accused of committing a crime.. 

"No!  I did not rob the bank on the high street - when do you think I did it - in my effing lunch break.  Look at the CCTV footage and then tell me I was anywhere near even the High Street let along the bank.  If you must know I was down the pub at that time.."

Been there done it (not bank robbery you understand:).

.....are you sure?
    On a serious note, I'm still not convinced that all the various answers mean what Peter says. Although i must admit, when he was asked if he killed his daughter there seemed to be no emotion. I'd have been livid about that question.
JohnyT

Can't remember .

On the serious note - when was he asked if he killed his daughter?  Was there more than one occasion (can't remember off the top of my head) - in my opinion it would depend on who asked the question and under what circumstances as to how I would respond.  If it was a journalist I would probably squash his nose, if the police I would probably decline to answer.

Any interview the McCanns did on camera was staged - scripted.  The only journalistic interviewer that caught them with their trousers down was Sandra Felgueiras but she was out of reach for the likes of a British media manipulator.  Outside of that, they had free reign to prepare for their performance, therefore any attempt to interpret hidden meaning in their words is futile.  They told a story for media consumption, repeated so frequently you could almost see the lips move before the words came out.

worriedmum wrote:You seem a tad keen to de-bunk Peter Hyatt, HKP.

Even if they knew the areas that were to be asked, it is their CHOICE of language in their answers, and what they do NOT say that provides the material for analysis. They are making the choices.

I don't believe that statement analysis is a science (Peter's qualification is in bible study) and it's all down to interpretation therefore unreliable. He also seems a bit too interested in selling his courses for my liking.

He himself stated in his blog that you need to have the answer to the question without knowledge of the question and even gives an example where an officer asked the question before Peter did. He claimed the answer was unreliable because it had been asked before so the initial impact was lost. It might be the same case here.

Dance merry led being a we're.

After a great deal of thought since first watching Richard Hall's interview, I have a few problems with the conclusions made.
Richard asks Peter Hyatt if he has watched the third video in his Madeleline series, and states there is a school of thought that Madeleine may have died earlier in the holiday.
Peter Hyatt says he didn't watch the video, and there is nothing in the words (in the Australian interview) to indicate this, but he is open to all information.

This point raised by Richard Hall is very critical; Peter Hyatt's focus is on the events of Thursday evening, I don't believe any of these events happened on Thursday, so I'm not surprised he has detected lies in the "statement". It's more likely a complete work of fiction from beginning to end.

I'm not being critical of statement analysis because it's an area I know little about, but I feel this was an opportunity missed due to Peter Hyatt's lack of background knowledge of the case.
If Madeleine did die on the previuos Sunday or Monday, then anything said about brushing teeth, whooshing curtains on Thursday is irrelevant, and he didn't know that because he didn't watch the third video.

Verdi wrote: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.

When water is introduced in a statement, it does not mean that sexual activity has taken place at some time, it means that the subject felt that the introduction of water into their statement, such as washing their hands, bathing, washing dishes etc was important enough to warrant being introduced.
The interviewer then has to find out why the subject felt the need to introduce water.
In kate's case, she felt the need to introduce the children in the book as this:

"We shepherded our three little weary ones through to the bathroom to brush their teeth and for M to do her bedtime wee-wee"

You will note It is M not Madeleine and only M does her bedtime wee-wee.
There was no need to go into such detail.
A simple 'bedtime routine' would have sufficed since we all know it would include, washing face etc, brushing teeth and then toilet in no particular order.
It was however, important enough to kate to tell us in her book that we learn all three little weary ones brushed their teeth and only Maddie (M) had a bedtime wee-wee.
This would cause the interviewer to probe deeper as to their bedtime routine and what was different that night to other nights?

Was this just a way to convince us that Maddie was alive that day?


In sexual abuse cases particularly with children doors are noted as they remember the door opening when their abuser came into the room and door closing behind them and the same when the abuser left.
The same with lights going on or off, it can be a memory of the light being turned on/of prior to the abuse.
Even in young children who cannot have vocalised, the rush of hormones would leave a permanent mark on the brain and could then act as a trigger as they got older.

it does not mean that xyz introduce water in their statement therefore they were abused, it means that xyz had a reason to introduce it into their statement, it was important enough for them to include it when others would not, therefore the interviewer would seek to learn the why.
it could be irrelevant to whatever the interview is about, it could be relevant in that the subject is in an abusive relationship which could have some bearing to whatever the interview is about ( eg money went missing, the subject did not commit the crime but she was in an abusive relationship and her boyfriend threatened her to give him the codes etc so he could then break in and take the money) Or it could be that the person did whatever the interview was about and it was a subconscious cleansing/washing away of the sin.

What is clear with kate is there a lot of mentions of bathing, water, toileting, doors, windows and lights, all of which would tell us there were things going on that were sensitive enough to kate that she introduced it.
 fisrst she had the shower when payne turned up, then she had a bath when gerry was there.
We have specifics relating to bedtime routine.
We have specifics relating to door angles,
we have introduction of lights on and off.

All of the above would prompt the analyst to ask why the sensitivity, what was going on at those moments in time.

As with anything just because water, lights, doors etc are introduced, it doesn;t mean that something untoward happened, it means that the subject had a specific reason to introduce it and the interviewer would then seek the answer to why.

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.
It is also possible for it to be embedded in the brain of the perpetrator as they could  have been a victim of abuse themselves and are perpetuating the cycle.

One seeks the why it was introduced and then from that learns and uses the information to guide the rest of the interview.

That kate and/or gerry may have been victims of abuse themselves as children or  a victim of ongoing domestic abuse would be learned from a thorough interview.
That they showed sensitivity is always worth considering given the nature of the crime commited against Maddie.
Were they a victim themselves and perpetuating the cycle as if often found in child abuse cases unfortunately.

As an aside Peter has also done an analysis of their first press statement when gerry read from a prepared script.

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

Sorry Hobbs, that's just interpretation.

Pretty tenuous stuff.

I really don’t understand why so many people are out to nonsense something that is not the be-all and end-all, but just another tool that can be subsequently used to aid the investigation and develop questioning in subsequent interviews.
 
People were saying that his initial discussion with RH brought nothing new to the table and as it was nearly four years after the event was meaningless anyway, so he has now gone right back to the beginning, acknowledged the criticism, but stated that due allowance was made for this time lapse in his considerations.
 
It was only as recently as the ‘60’s that ‘Body Language’ developed into a ‘science’ (pseudo-science no doubt some will say), but non-verbal communication is now accepted and thrown at you in virtually any ‘people’ or ‘communication’ training that is given by anyone.
 
Yes we know that ‘even the most intuitive and observant people can misinterpret or misunderstand body language messages’ and you might just have an itchy ear when you pull at your earlobe, but based on analysis of what must now run into millions of interviews, it is in the vast majority of cases a sign of deceit.
 
Nobody is going to get thrown into jail just because they pulled at their ear, but non-verbal signals can help lead an interviewer to open up questions leading into the right areas.
 
Eye movement, which at one time was thought to be linked to the side of the brain someone was using when either lying or telling the truth, has been properly studied and generally debunked, but statement analysis in the context we are now seeing is still relatively new.
 
I too am skeptical about some of the word usage claims, but hopefully open-minded enough to see it for what it is, another tool in the investigatory tool box, which, from what is available to us, appears never to have been properly delved into.

  Well said DougD.

And PeterMac obviously thought Grange might be interested because he sent them links to the interview.

Doug D wrote:I really don’t understand why so many people are out to nonsense something that is not the be-all and end-all, but just another tool that can be subsequently used to aid the investigation and develop questioning in subsequent interviews.
 

I can only speak for myself - it's because Peter Hyatt's interview analysis is being propagated as the be all and end all when, as you rightly say, it's not the be all and end all.  It can't even realistically be thought of as a tool to assist an investigation because there isn't a bona-fide investigation to assist - even if there was, the interpretation of an interview shown on Australian television, wouldn't be considered of value to a Portuguese or UK police investigation.

As I recently pointed out - this interview analysis first appeared on Peter Hyatt's blog on 15th November 2012 ..

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

Why all the hullabaloo four years later?

I also have reservations about Peter Hyatt's accreditation, whether he is appropriately qualified and/or trained to undertake the function of a statement analyst for the police.  In this case alone, the number of charlatans that have claimed to be experts in one field or anoher, is phenomenal.  Sorry but it makes me very wary.

There is some small merit in profiling and various analysis.

However it's not a science.

Absolutely not.

It's an opinion and should be couched with probability factors.

We're not all the same or respond the same to situations.

JohnyT wrote:

Verdi wrote:

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

Especially if getting irate when they think they're being implicated or accused of committing a crime.. 

"No!  I did not rob the bank on the high street - when do you think I did it - in my effing lunch break.  Look at the CCTV footage and then tell me I was anywhere near even the High Street let along the bank.  If you must know I was down the pub at that time.."

Been there done it (not bank robbery you understand:).

.....are you sure?
    On a serious note, I'm still not convinced that all the various answers mean what Peter says. Although i must admit, when he was asked if he killed his daughter there seemed to be no emotion. I'd have been livid about that question.
JohnyT

I expect they had been told beforehand what the questions were going to be.

Yes, I think I`d have been livid too if I had not been expecting it and probably made some sarcastic comment if I was innocent.

BlueBag wrote:Sorry Hobbs, that's just interpretation.

Pretty tenuous stuff.

But based on empirical experience which all psychology is based on, so IMO not so tenuous.

Isn`t there a scientific model for observational analysis. Not sure.  But if it is observed that hundreds of people display the same behaviour linked to a previous happening, surely that has credit.

There seems to be quite a few folks who just want to believe in Peter and his analysis. He has all the triggers in place to hook his audience.

I would suggest that his conclusions are based around what's best for his business (training) and it's not even subtle. He agrees with the Amaral theory (many on here don't) because that is the most well known, he then adds in sexual abuse because it has been hinted about for years and it certainly gets people's attention and may lead to training opportunities.

Statement Analysis is not a recognised science (and probably never will be) however he's trying to sell it as such however he has no qualification to do so. He could somewhat be compared to Dr Sharon Leal but she is actually qualified to give an opinion and there's not too many around here who accept her opinion on the McCanns behaviour or language etc.

There is also the fact that he claimed in Richard's video that he knew little about this case, it seems Peter is not immune from a little deception himself.

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

He is now looking at their second statement just after Maddie 'Disappeared'

plebgate wrote: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.

“Peter Hyatt did say that anyone can disagree with his opinion.”

If you are referring to my post, I’ve said nothing about Peter Hyatt. Besides, I do not need a permission to disagree. It so happens that I do not necessarily disagree with Peter Hyatt in the way you seem to have implied.

“Quite why some posters have to use such words as balderdash I have no idea.”

Neither have I. I am afraid. I was echoing another’s sentiment.

“Big businesses don't seem to see this sort of analysis as balderdash or they wouldn't use his services.”

And what gave you that impression?

“Hobbs' last post was almost incoherent…”

In general or in this case in particular, do you have a problem with my speaking as I find?

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

What is the significance, if any, of the word ‘quite’ in your above sentence?


I do not propose to argue about words.

What I said in my post was not intended as a criticism of Peter Hyatt.

No matter who or what is analysed, no matter how many times Madeleine is regurgitated in MSM, no matter the non existent burglars and child trafficking theories or the amount of funding thrown at the investigation; it does not hide the fact that intelligent cadaver and blood hounds alerted to apartment 5A and items belonging to the McCann family ONLY...
That in my opinion is the most valid statement of all!

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

He is now looking at their second statement just after Maddie 'Disappeared'

Glad to see he will try to analyse the friends` statements when he has time.

HKP wrote:There seems to be quite a few folks who just want to believe in Peter and his analysis. He has all the triggers in place to hook his audience.

I would suggest that his conclusions are based around what's best for his business (training) and it's not even subtle. He agrees with the Amaral theory (many on here don't) because that is the most well known, he then adds in sexual abuse because it has been hinted about for years and it certainly gets people's attention and may lead to training opportunities.

Statement Analysis is not a recognised science (and probably never will be) however he's trying to sell it as such however he has no qualification to do so. He could somewhat be compared to Dr Sharon Leal but she is actually qualified to give an opinion and there's not too many around here who accept her opinion on the McCanns behaviour or language etc.

There is also the fact that he claimed in Richard's video that he knew little about this case, it seems Peter is not immune from a little deception himself.

I don`t know why you`re trying to denigrate the man - he is allowed to make a living and pass his expertise on to others.

Statement Analysis does not have to be a recognised science.  Why do you keep saying this.  Lots of things in psychology are not recognised by the more scientific community - it doesn`t mean their methods are not credible.  What is wrong with empirical observation which obviously Peter Hyatt has used together with some bio-scientific known reactions of the sympathetic nervous system.  

If a dog pees on a lamp-post and then another thousand dogs are seen to pee on lamp-posts then it can be assumed that in general, dogs pee on lamposts - it is not scientific but empirical.  

Much of human behaviour is not scientific.

Richard IV wrote:

HKP wrote:There seems to be quite a few folks who just want to believe in Peter and his analysis. He has all the triggers in place to hook his audience.

I would suggest that his conclusions are based around what's best for his business (training) and it's not even subtle. He agrees with the Amaral theory (many on here don't) because that is the most well known, he then adds in sexual abuse because it has been hinted about for years and it certainly gets people's attention and may lead to training opportunities.

Statement Analysis is not a recognised science (and probably never will be) however he's trying to sell it as such however he has no qualification to do so. He could somewhat be compared to Dr Sharon Leal but she is actually qualified to give an opinion and there's not too many around here who accept her opinion on the McCanns behaviour or language etc.

There is also the fact that he claimed in Richard's video that he knew little about this case, it seems Peter is not immune from a little deception himself.

I don`t know why you`re trying to denigrate the man - he is allowed to make a living and pass his expertise on to others.

Statement Analysis does not have to be a recognised science.  Why do you keep saying this.  Lots of things in psychology are not recognised by the more scientific community - it doesn`t mean their methods are not credible.  What is wrong with empirical observation which obviously Peter Hyatt has used together with some bio-scientific known reactions of the sympathetic nervous system.  

If a dog pees on a lamp-post and then another thousand dogs are seen to pee on lamp-posts then it can be assumed that in general, dogs pee on lamposts - it is not scientific but empirical.  

Much of human behaviour is not scientific.

So, what do you think of Dr Sharon Leal's opposite opinion that they are competely innocent (she also claims to be an expert in deception). Who to believe or neither