Peter Hyatt Statement Analysis of McCann 10 Year Interview with Fiona Bruce

by Divide by Zero 01.05.17 13:51

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

by plebgate 01.05.17 15:27

Thanks for posting - really interesting and some good comments.

Is there any way of finding out if the tapas groups did make a statement of memory video?

As someone suggested in the comments section that would be great for Peter H. and others to analyse.

by MRNOODLES 01.05.17 15:29

Has somebody paid Peter to do this or is he doing it off his own back now?

by Divide by Zero 01.05.17 15:39

MRNOODLES wrote:Has somebody paid Peter to do this or is he doing it off his own back now?

As far as I am aware, he is doing it off his own back as he was intigued by the case after being interviewed by Richard D Hall. IIRC correctly up until then he had very little knowledge of the case at all. It piqued his interest. I think I also recall him saying he would continue with it as it provides excellent training material for him to use on his students.

by Mirage 01.05.17 15:47

A very interesting read.

Fiona Bruce comes in for some of the treatment too over her very poor interviewing technique.

by MRNOODLES 01.05.17 16:02

Divide by Zero wrote:
MRNOODLES wrote:Has somebody paid Peter to do this or is he doing it off his own back now?
As far as I am aware, he is doing it off his own back as he was intigued by the case after being interviewed by Richard D Hall. IIRC correctly up until then he had very little knowledge of the case at all. It piqued his interest. I think I also recall him saying he would continue with it as it provides excellent training material for him to use on his students.

Thanks, I did wonder if that was the case thumbsup

by Theslayer16 01.05.17 16:16

Very interesting. The first statement analysis was mind boggling - to say the least! Well done Peter! clapping

Hopefully he'll continue to follow the case.

by JulieC 01.05.17 17:06

I was just going to post the link to the analysis.

It's another excellent piece from Peter and very cleverly dissects the interview to easily see where the lies and deception are located.

To me, the sheer lack of appeals to the "kidnapper" and wondering how Madeleine is now is most telling.

I always remember Kerry Needham wondering what Ben may look like now, was he working, did he enjoy life? The difference is startling.

by joyce1938 01.05.17 17:46

Oh my God,what n experience reading this from peter.it just sounds so Right.dont yet know what else to say .joyce1938

by ChippyM 01.05.17 17:50

He doesn't seem to attach any significance to where Gerry coughs and seems to correct himself when saying 'Madeliene (cough)...was taken. It's as if he was going to say 'When Madeliene ......." just one word then corrected himself.
Also when Kate is asked if she still buys presents for when her daughter returns she says 'Whenever we find her' and rolls her eyes and adopts what seems a sarcastic tone of voice, or at least one expressing improbability for that scenario.

I know statement analysis is not going to look at tone of voice or expressions but those parts stood out for me.

by JulieC 01.05.17 18:55

ChippyM wrote:He doesn't seem to attach any significance to where Gerry coughs and seems to correct himself when saying 'Madeliene (cough)...was taken. It's as if he was going to say 'When Madeliene ......." just one word then corrected himself.
Also when Kate is asked if she still buys presents for when her daughter returns she says 'Whenever we find her' and rolls her eyes and adopts what seems a sarcastic tone of voice, or at least one expressing improbability for that scenario.

I know statement analysis is not going to look at tone of voice or expressions but those parts stood out for me.

Does he analyse that part? I don't think he does. It's a longer interview than the analysis shows.

by ChippyM 01.05.17 19:46

JulieC wrote:
ChippyM wrote:He doesn't seem to attach any significance to where Gerry coughs and seems to correct himself when saying 'Madeliene (cough)...was taken. It's as if he was going to say 'When Madeliene ......." just one word then corrected himself.
Also when Kate is asked if she still buys presents for when her daughter returns she says 'Whenever we find her' and rolls her eyes and adopts what seems a sarcastic tone of voice, or at least one expressing improbability for that scenario.

I know statement analysis is not going to look at tone of voice or expressions but those parts stood out for me.

Does he analyse that part? I don't think he does. It's a longer interview than the analysis shows.

He covered the part where Gerry coughs and says "was taken''.....but I don't think he did the whole interview, not sure why.

by princess_leia 01.05.17 19:56

If only SY were as bothered about this case as the likes of Peter Hyatt, we need more Peter Hyatt's in this world! Fantastic, I absolutely love reading his analysis. On reading his analysis everything he says is 100% spot on, hitting the nail, square on the head! I am no expert, far from it, but everything he says makes perfect sense. I am in awe! thanks

by pennylane 01.05.17 20:01

Peter Hyatt's statement analysis of the McCanns 10-year interview is absolutely spot on!

by dhpaul 01.05.17 20:46

Having seen part of the Fiona Bruce interview, it occurred to me whether only one of the two parents knows that Maddie is dead, and that the other doesn't. Apologies if this question has already been covered.

by Guest 01.05.17 20:57

Divide by Zero wrote:
MRNOODLES wrote:Has somebody paid Peter to do this or is he doing it off his own back now?
As far as I am aware, he is doing it off his own back as he was intigued by the case after being interviewed by Richard D Hall. IIRC correctly up until then he had very little knowledge of the case at all. It piqued his interest. I think I also recall him saying he would continue with it as it provides excellent training material for him to use on his students.

I don't know where your information comes from but if you refer to the Statement Analysis (registered trademark) blogspot, a genre of advertising, you will see that Peter Hyatt was 'statement analyzing' the McCanns as far back as November 2012.

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

It's a lucrative industry.

by Okeydokey 01.05.17 23:11

PH seems to be a pretty good analyst. Sometimes he appears a bit over-emphatic or less than 100% on context but he makes lots of good points and this sort of analysis needs to be seen in the context of all the other evidence (contradictory or revised previous statements, cadaver dogs and forensic evidence...or lack of).

by Guest 02.05.17 0:10

Maybe I would find the statement analysis subject more palatable if it didn't incite a flood of 'would be if I could be' analysts.

From what I've read, Hobs I think being a leading voice, statement analysis is a skill attained by expert guidance, experience, time and study - not by assuming the ability with blind ignorance and a desire to appear knowledgeable.

Although I don't have much faith in the skill, I do however feel the subject is best left to the professionals in the field. Many of us have the ability to identify language and/or behavioural alerts but that doesn't equate to a professional experienced eye and ear.

by Okeydokey 02.05.17 0:53

Verdi wrote:Maybe I would find the statement analysis subject more palatable if it didn't incite a flood of 'would be if I could be' analysts.

From what I've read, Hobs I think being a leading voice, statement analysis is a skill attained by expert guidance, experience, time and study - not by assuming the ability with blind ignorance and a desire to appear knowledgeable.

Although I don't have much faith in the skill, I do however feel the subject is best left to the professionals in the field. Many of us have the ability to identify language and/or behavioural alerts but that doesn't equate to a professional experienced eye and ear.

Are you saying you think PH is a professional in the field? - or not?

I would say although not a professional analyst I have previously picked up some very interesting hesitations, mispronunciations, gestures and similar in analysing Team McCann statements at a micro-level (but it's noticeable how, as the years have gone by, they have got better and better at controlling their utterances and body language gestures...whilst of course becoming more stilted in the process). It is only recently I have become aware of the broader Statement Analysis where, really, you are looking at the emotional flow of people's words and how these vary depending on various factors including guilty knowledge. My view is this sort of analysis can only be held to be evidential in the context of other, more physical, evidence. But I don't doubt its validity.

by Guest 02.05.17 15:48

Okeydokey wrote:
Are you saying you think PH is a professional in the field? - or not?

Statement analysis is a skillful profession that requires extensive training and experience, Peter Hyatt is remunerated for being in the profession so yes, I do recognise him and indeed Hobs, as professionals in their field of work. The fact that I don't hold the skill in very high esteem is neither here nor there.

I regard dentistry as a profession but that doesn't mean I want a qualified dentist excavating my chops with a pneumatic drill and then asking me to pay for the privilege that I never asked for in the first place.
big grin

by Guest 02.05.17 16:40

Verdi wrote:

The fact that I don't hold the skill in very high esteem is neither here nor there.

And neither do I.

Too much cherry picking and confirmation bias going on.

by Constablekid 02.05.17 17:59

"GM: I think the situation is that we tried everything in our power to not have a long protracted missing person case like this"

Wowzers!!! Why couldn't he just say "we've tried everything to find our daughter" ???