Peter Hyatt releases statement tonight (Sunday 27 Nov 2016) about his NEXT analysis of the Madeleine McCann case >> coming in a few days' time
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Research and Analysis :: Statement Analysis of the McCann case
Page 4 of 5 • Share
Page 4 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
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
It isn't.Statement Analysis does not have to be a recognised science.
Lots of psychology is quackery.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.
Guest- Guest
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
MayMuse wrote: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!
worriedmum- Posts : 2062
Activity : 2819
Likes received : 583
Join date : 2012-01-17
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
@Tony Cadogan
Glad to hear you weren't having a go at Peter Hyatt. He is as much entitled to a view as you are.
As for why I used the word "quite" why instead of just why - I do not know maybe you could have a go at statement analysis.
I also am entitled to an opinion and my opinion on your first response was that you were having a go at Peter Hyatt but I accept having read your further post that you were not.
Onwards and upwards and as Doug D has rightly pointed out - nobody is saying that this is the be all and end all just another useful tool to give food for thought.
At least he has gone in front of a camera and is prepared to take criticism, something IMO even when remaining anonymous on a forum you do not seem to like to take. Just my humble opinion of course.
Anyway, onwards and upwards as usual.
Glad to hear you weren't having a go at Peter Hyatt. He is as much entitled to a view as you are.
As for why I used the word "quite" why instead of just why - I do not know maybe you could have a go at statement analysis.
I also am entitled to an opinion and my opinion on your first response was that you were having a go at Peter Hyatt but I accept having read your further post that you were not.
Onwards and upwards and as Doug D has rightly pointed out - nobody is saying that this is the be all and end all just another useful tool to give food for thought.
At least he has gone in front of a camera and is prepared to take criticism, something IMO even when remaining anonymous on a forum you do not seem to like to take. Just my humble opinion of course.
Anyway, onwards and upwards as usual.
____________________
Judge Judy to shifty witnesses - LOOK AT ME - Um is not an answer.
If I forget to add it to a post everything is In My Opinion and I don't know anything for sure.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
plebgate- Posts : 6729
Activity : 8938
Likes received : 2123
Join date : 2013-02-01
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
Whatever her qualifications are she`s a fraud IMO.HKP wrote: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 neitherRichard IV wrote: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.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.
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- Posts : 552
Activity : 825
Likes received : 265
Join date : 2015-03-06
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
In your opinionBlueBag wrote:It isn't.Statement Analysis does not have to be a recognised science.Lots of psychology is quackery.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.
Richard IV- Posts : 552
Activity : 825
Likes received : 265
Join date : 2015-03-06
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
Plus Tony's (Bennett) astute find from the 'Eyes for Lies' blog back in October 2011, I bumped up-thread..HKP wrote: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
'Eyes for Lies' still sure the McCanns are innocent
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.]
QUOTE
I continue to support the McCanns are innocent and uninvolved in the disappearance of their daughter.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Madeleine McCann's disappearance - big business all round!
Guest- Guest
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
Because it has been claimed on this forum that statement analysis IS a recognised science.Richard IV wrote:
Statement Analysis does not have to be a recognised science. Why do you keep saying this.
Guest- Guest
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
@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.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
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.
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.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
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.
Guest- Guest
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
No.. I think I stated two facts there.Richard IV wrote:In your opinionBlueBag wrote:It isn't.Statement Analysis does not have to be a recognised science.Lots of psychology is quackery.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.
Guest- Guest
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
Sorry @ HKP but I'm afraid for the purposes of your argument, the examples you've chosen are quite inappropriate. I'll explain why.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.
Look at the clip below where Sharon Leal declares tha the McCanns are innocent.
It's just 34 seconds long: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
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
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
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
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).Tony Bennett wrote:Sorry @ HKP but I'm afraid for the purposes of your argument, the examples you've chosen are quite inappropriate. I'll explain why.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.
Look at the clip below where Sharon Leal declares tha the McCanns are innocent.
It's just 34 seconds long: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
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
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.
Guest- Guest
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
A black and white claim.Verdi wrote:Because it has been claimed on this forum that statement analysis IS a recognised science.Richard IV wrote:
Statement Analysis does not have to be a recognised science. Why do you keep saying this.
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- Posts : 552
Activity : 825
Likes received : 265
Join date : 2015-03-06
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
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.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.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
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.
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- Posts : 552
Activity : 825
Likes received : 265
Join date : 2015-03-06
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
Just realised - why are we discussing whether it`s scientific or not.
Who cares. It doesn`t have to be.
Who cares. It doesn`t have to be.
Richard IV- Posts : 552
Activity : 825
Likes received : 265
Join date : 2015-03-06
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
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.
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.
Guest- Guest
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
Lies and deception... worth a watch
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
____________________
“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.” [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
MayMuse- Posts : 2033
Activity : 3472
Likes received : 1413
Join date : 2016-04-15
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
If it gets to a court if law then statement analysts won't get in.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.
And even in the unlikely if they do the defence will bring in theirs.
Guest- Guest
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
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.
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- Posts : 755
Activity : 1537
Likes received : 732
Join date : 2015-06-18
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
MayMuse wrote:Lies and deception... worth a watch
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Thank you for this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. 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- Posts : 391
Activity : 586
Likes received : 199
Join date : 2014-01-31
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
It is totally subjective.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 relies on opinion.
Just like lie detector tests actually.
Guest- Guest
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
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
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.
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.
Guest- Guest
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
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 Cadogan- Posts : 102
Activity : 167
Likes received : 65
Join date : 2016-07-25
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
I deleted them.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 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.
____________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MAGA [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MBGA
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
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 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..
Guest- Guest
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
Get'emGonçalo wrote:I deleted them.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 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.
Tony Cadogan- Posts : 102
Activity : 167
Likes received : 65
Join date : 2016-07-25
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
For those who are interested ‘Part Three’ has now been posted:
The Case of Madeleine McCann: Part Three Cadaver Dogs
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The Case of Madeleine McCann: Part Three Cadaver Dogs
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Doug D- Posts : 3719
Activity : 5286
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03
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
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - 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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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.
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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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- Posts : 755
Activity : 1537
Likes received : 732
Join date : 2015-06-18
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
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.’
‘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.’
Doug D- Posts : 3719
Activity : 5286
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03
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
......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?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.
JohnyT
JohnyT- Posts : 358
Activity : 511
Likes received : 139
Join date : 2014-06-01
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
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - 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!
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- Posts : 755
Activity : 1537
Likes received : 732
Join date : 2015-06-18
Page 4 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Similar topics
» VIDEO - McCann Online STATEMENT ANALYSIS Meeting Peter Hyatt Dec 2 2016
» Peter Hyatt, Statement Analyst, makes an appearance on TV in the case of missing Ayla Reynolds
» Statement Analysis by 'Hobs' and Peter Hyatt
» Peter Hyatt Statement Analysis of McCann 10 Year Interview with Fiona Bruce
» Peter Hyatt compares an innocent mother's statement with others, including Kate McCann
» Peter Hyatt, Statement Analyst, makes an appearance on TV in the case of missing Ayla Reynolds
» Statement Analysis by 'Hobs' and Peter Hyatt
» Peter Hyatt Statement Analysis of McCann 10 Year Interview with Fiona Bruce
» Peter Hyatt compares an innocent mother's statement with others, including Kate McCann
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Research and Analysis :: Statement Analysis of the McCann case
Page 4 of 5
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum