Forensic Linguistics: A fresh look at the evidence

hi everyone. I just joined today. I have been following this case for a while.
Does anyone know of transcripts and analysis of each other McCann's when questioned or interviewed? e.g tv interviews, peter hyatt et al.

If there are comprehensive transcripts and analysis thats fabulous, if not i am considering getting trained in FSA (forensic statement analysis) with the intent of sharing both the transcripts and analysis.

Look forward to hearing from you and i hope working with you .

BrentM wrote:hi everyone. I just joined today. I have been following this case for a while.
Does anyone know of transcripts and analysis of each other McCann's when questioned or interviewed? e.g tv interviews, peter hyatt et al.

If there are comprehensive transcripts and analysis thats fabulous, if not i am considering getting trained in FSA (forensic statement analysis) with the intent of sharing both the transcripts and analysis.

Look forward to hearing from you and i hope working with you .

BrentM and to our dedicated forum.

You present a tall order after 15+ years of McCann media/press coverage, off the cuff you can start here - you might find something of interest..

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

And here you will find a number of analysis reports from Peter Hyatt..

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

For the moment I think your best course would be to start here - I imagine training in FSA can't be achieved overnight so it might be some while before you can flourish. Still take your time, we're not going anywhere .

Good luck!

More links that might aid your initiative..

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

I'll have a rummage about to see if I can find anything else.  Meanwhile if we can help with anything else just say the word - we are at your disposal.

Happy hunting!

Madeleine McCann: Key witness statement about blood in rental car should be explored

By Mark Saunokonoko • Senior Journalist

1:05am Apr 25, 2017

A law enforcement expert who specialises in detecting lies and deception has pinpointed an "area of concern" in a key witness statement in the Madeleine McCann case.

Mark McClish, a former US Marshall and Secret Service agent, has analysed a statement given to police in 2008 by Gerry McCann's brother-in-law, almost one year after Maddie vanished.

Parts of that statement which relate to blood and a strange odour in the back of a rental car should be explored further, McClish said.

In the aftermath of Maddie's disappearance Alexander 'Sandy' Cameron flew into Portugal from England with his wife Trish, and spent nearly three months with Kate and Gerry.

During that time Sandy was listed as a registered driver for a silver Renault Scenic that had been rented by the McCanns.

In late July of 2007, that vehicle became a lightning rod of interest to both Portugal's detectives and the huge media pack that had descended on the small town of Praia da Luz.

As the hunt for the missing four-year-old intensified, a pair of British police dogs, one a specialist in sniffing out human cadaverine, the other a human blood canine, were brought to Portugal.

The dogs were filmed alerting inside the McCann holiday apartment, next to a shelved wardrobe in Kate and Gerry's bedroom and behind a couch in the living room.

Later, both dogs again registered hits on the Renault Scenic which had been hired by the McCanns 25 days after Madeleine disappeared.

Swabs were taken from the boot of the car and sent for forensics, revealing 15 of the 19 markers matched Madeleine's DNA.

The report from British forensic scientist John Lowe stated the results were "too complex for meaningful inclusion and interpretation".

In an attempt to try and make sense of the forensic results, Portuguese investigators requested Sandy Cameron make a written statement, which included answers to several questions about the Renault car.

Cameron wrote how he would sometimes use the car to take black garbage bags from the villa where he and the McCanns were staying to the local dump.

He also explained how blood from meat, fish and shrimps had leaked from shopping bags into the boot of the car, which was where human blood dog Keela alerted.

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

McClish, who now trains police and military interrogators in the art of statement analysis, said Cameron's overall statement appeared truthful but that the part about leaked blood warranted further investigation.

It was an "area of concern", according to McClish.

Like cadaver dogs, statement analysis is not evidence admissible in court. Law enforcement agencies use these tools to assist investigations and zero in on potential line of inquiry.

McClish told Nine.com.au that careful examination of words, phrases and language could help ascertain deception or truth.

"A truthful person's language will usually remain consistent.

"Deceptive people will sometimes use synonyms because they are making up a portion of their story they cannot relate to and consequently do not always follow their personal dictionary."

Throughout his statement, Cameron used the word "vehicle" to describe the Renault until he reaches the point where he talks about the odour. Then the Renault becomes a "car".

While recounting the blood and odour, Cameron also made a change in language between past and present tense.

"The use of present tense is an indication this part of the story may not be coming from memory," McClish told Nine.com.au

The former cop said every small word in a statement has a meaning and justification.

He added that, if he were an investigator, he would be inclined to ask Cameron more about the odour and the trips to the supermarket.

McClish noted how Cameron, despite have a much closer personal relationship to Gerry, ordered the pair as "Kate and Gerry" significantly more often throughout the statement.

"It may be that he feels that Kate needs more support than Gerry, which caused him to mention her name first," McClish theorised.

The McCanns have resolutely denied any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter.

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

you do not, never, use a translated text for statement analysis. 

because you do not work any longer from the original, it also means, not direct from his own words.

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

TRANSLATION BY INES

so we have a first person who had to translate it all from cameron to this report in english, and that to portuguese, and then it had to be translated back to english, so we all could take a look at it. 


so after cameron there have been 3 people who had a hand in this text. the first made this report in original english, the second had to look for the nearest portuguese wordings, and the third one had to look for the nearest meaning in english to translate it all. 


also these are answers given to open questions, and questions are able to steer the choice of wordings always a bit. the text does not give us the asked questions by the police officer itself. 
it was needed because this persons was not in front of the portuguese officers. 


and if you look at the wordings in the full write up, it never was a full and free spoken text, but a written one. and it is not clear if this is just taken from the original rogatory statements, or otherwise, and done by these people themselves in full, or just a selection of their answers. that became the answers on the questions asked by or through the portuguese investigation. 

so too much chances these are not the original words written, or spoken by cameron himself. so not usable for a statement analysis at all. you need personal words for that, and also the exact question asked. 

it is not helpful at all. this is just a investigation report, an extraction of answers out of a much longer conversation. and that is done, so you do not have to read up time after time the longer versions, but could use it as a reference piece.   


and i have a bit of a problem, statement analysis is for a large part founded on language use, the behavior in using your words, but brits are no americans, and each have become their own versions of english as a language. not only in the words used, but also how they could be used. that problem would be less if it was done by a native english speaking brit.

and if you look at the questions down under this statement, these are made to inform a police officer in another country what you want answered. and it is the quality of that officer in abilities to ask questions without offering information in the question itself. 

because it is very common,for a witness to reuse a part of the wording you put in a question to form his/her answers. actually as we all learned to do in our schooldays!

so when i ask did you use the vehicle renault scenic, the majority will reuse vehicle, renault scenic or scenic in his/her answer. it is called feeding a witness, and you can not fault a witness for that happening. it means i did my job not in the manner i was trained to do it. the question is meant to gather information, and not giving it away. so i can ask; 'could you tell me a bit about the means of transportation you have available when you were in portugal?' you get a more personal answer.  the don't mention the war!-principle. 
and could just use what the witness uses, to further questioning, like;'i like to talk a bit more about that second one, .....'

all the europeans have the habit to keeping up appearances, not only reserved for the brits, most of the people do not use a standard form of language daily, but only try to do that when something official happens.
most will loose that after the first set of questions, so it is very normal practice, that you see a far more personal used wording at the end of every form of questioning. and that could be extremely cryptic some times. certainly when full blown dialect takes over. i miss that aspect far too often when it is used to the public.

so it is very difficult to ask an opinion of someone that misses out on all that little information that is not part of his usual experiences.  but from any expert i do expect, that they at least first look in to at the originality of the material they use to expert on.

I've expressed my opinion about 'statement analysis' a number of times here on the forum as I have about translated documentation - I don't uphold either as reliable.

Examples used by 'trained' - for want of a better word, statement analysts I use in everyday language. I wouldn't like to be rigorously questioned in a court of law because of my use of the English language!

Without success I've tried to see how 'statement analysis' can assist in a criminal investigation, not even as a useful tool.

Post crime, what they say is important but only when weighed-up against the evidence, the contradictions. Not trying to interpret what they mean through words they use.

Some folk seem to swear by 'statement analysis' and the interpretation of 'body language' - I don't subscribe!

Evidence is the only way forward.

I won’t be the only one on here who’s watched Peter Hyatt’s Embedded Confession video. I have, however, viewed numerous other training videos from the same man and find his understanding of linguistics fascinating.
When ‘red flags’ pop up to an expert they can be so obvious to them yet things that those of us with no understanding would pass without looking twice. This is due to the ‘red flags’ being consistent with deceptive or revealing/sensitive subject within their use of language.
Statement analysis is peer reviewed and not one other analyst from planet earth has come out against Hyatt’s conclusions re: the McCann interview.
Coincidence?
He even said recently that it wasn’t exactly a hard one to work out.
How could anyone dismiss this without any great knowledge or understanding of the field themselves?!
Verdi, you’re entitled to your opinion, but if I’m looking for insight and explanations then I’ll trust the expert in this case

The experts who analyse statements have been trained to look for certain red flags, Peter Hyatt is American.

Unless I am very much mistaken, he has been trained to look for certain things from the American point of view.

The English have a different way of saying things, and a different way of talking.

The Scots have a different way of talking that is different to the English.

When you start to add local dialect and different words for the same thing, it get's complicated.

It could be argued some red flags span all languages, I think that needs to be proven.

If you have grown up with people talking in the "old way", you pick things up and you know what you mean, but another person will think it means something else.

Has a British statement analysist looked at the statements and given his opinion?

When all is said and done by the various experts, there is a good reason why it is not admissible in a court of law.

Even on a basic level a statement analyst would look at a comment like ‘Has a British statement analysist looked at the statements and given his opinion?’ and ask why that person would have to be male and not female.
That would be rather insightful as to the make up of the person having such a gender defining perspective
Red flags are red flags for a reason.
They are repeated time and again by guilty parties.
Hyatt trains the FBI- has he been proven irrevocably wrong by any of his conclusions or asked repeatedly to help due to his expertise helping cases?

Are you analysing me Keelafreeze?  

A statement analysist would have his/her training tested with me.

first there is not just on way to use statement analysis. victims, witnesses and possible offenders, each have  different ways to make use of sa. so it is not on size fits all. and even the best ai software gets one in 10 analysis wrong.

but look back to the story in the paper some messages up, so let's play cameron did lie. in itself it will tell you nothing, because statement analysis would not tell you why he tells porkies. you can analyse it all you want, but this statement would tell you never why. and from my own experience i dare to state a lot of people do tell a lot of porkies when questioned by the police. but most do not lie because they are part of the crime you are investigating, but because they have their very own reasons to lie. 

a crime never happens in a vacuum of only that crime, but in a living community, and most people have all their very own business to keep hidden. other criminal things, or just personal reasons, or just something stupid. when honesty cost you your job, a relation, money or just things, telling it a bit different than it was in reality is easier, people choose the easy way they themselves have the most profit from. they could have chosen to just kept their words in, but most people just tell something that looks harmless.

but knowing a person tells porkies would not solve your case. and statement analysis in all type and forms do not lead you magically to the evidence you do need to prove a case. 

and i know it sounds a bit magical, just like the dogs do, and dna, well it is not, praising statement analysis is the same as praising the microscope or a testtube, because they are needed to get a dna result. 

they all just are some steps in an investigation, but not the gold standard, that always will be evidence. depending on the crime at hand, and the specifics of a case, you can make use of many kind of tools. 
i never see anything happening about forensic lights, fingerprint powders, extremely useful to find traces. 
but in itself it is okay, because tools are only to get you to find things, you still have to find out if it is truly a part of your case. a lie told, a dna profile found, a finger print found, nice, but all need the story about why they are there, how the gotten there, when, and other little silly questions not sounding as much fun as statement analysis. but the answers on those questions are the ones that made the finds into evidence or not. 

profiling was also quite a hot item, but i am no fan of that at all. the common factor with statement analysis is, both are based on known people and known cases, but i do not like it when someone painted a picture of who we have to look for, and i do not like guesses, even informed guesses can put some blinkers on your view on a case at hand, and that gives room for errors. 
and besides that i never have seen a perp that truly did right to the profile of first instance. 
for me the question always was en would be, what do we know, and building up from what we do know. 

and looking back on most cases i worked on, the reality is that all information did count, not one form of information on its very own has solved a case, just everything has a need to be there, to get to the evidence you need. 

and it is not a bit of peer reviewed science that will bring it to a form of evidence, that is up to the law of a country and its judges, who can make it acceptable by jurisprudence. 
the problem is often that people who use it are not peer reviewed, or even have acceptable credentials at all.

on average a trained and experienced police officer, meaning trained and experienced in questioning, gets 55% of the porky tellers, without a separate training in the statement analysis. some are possibly of the same quality as the ai, others are hopeless. and it takes time and practice, but knowing someone is just story telling is just never enough. also when done in person, how could you check it is done by the book of the trade, or just personal opinion. or how simple is for the defendant later on in court, to bring his own expert that throw it out of the window. 
so yes they are working on easier to use software instead of people expertises. 

and i still know you can not use this so called 'statement' from cameron for statement analysis. not his own words. to say it simple, it is just rubbish when used.

i agree with crusader in calling a statement analist a he, i try in today's world to put he/she behind it, but it is not the correct way, because analyst is a masculin noun that has to be followed by a he, . that is just from those old days, when people had still words and the idea even words had to be he, she or even an it. the french and even more the germans still do it, the dutch lost most as the english has done. but formally they are still around.

and analyst as a word is not about who it is doing, it is not a person but a thing. and things do not need to be woke. an analyst does not mind, the analystin maybe could feel offended. 

you know, in parts of the netherlands it is quite common to become bitten by a nephew, and it is not a crime if you hit it till the nephew is dead as a doornail. all perfectly legal. in the rest of the country nephews are pretty save and is it very illegal to hit them even when you still keep then alive.

Keelafreeze wrote:
Verdi, you’re entitled to your opinion, but if I’m looking for insight and explanations then I’ll trust the expert in this case

Then take yourself over there, wherever that might be.  Meanwhile you are here ....

I thank you for allowing me 'an opinion' on statement analysis.  A word in your shell-like - it is not a science, it is but opinion of word interpretation.

Business acumen, not expert in this case.  Yet another money making venture under the guise of expertise..  How I detest this duplicity.

As an aside, this debacle is in response to a new member's aspirations - a new member who forgets common decency according to British code of conduct, like a few words of thanks or acknowledgement or appreciation  for the assistance offered.

When you, Keelafreeze, have some forum respect as a new comer, you might like to reconsider your approach!

Think about it!

I bid you goodnight.

Food for thought:
The original Madeleines Fund had the strap-line of "leaving no stone unturned'
This is a little unpicking I did of the meaning and origin of the phrase:
Meaning: make every possible effort, to try every possible course of action in order to achieve something, looking in every possible place in every possible way
The phrase is normally ‘leave no stone unturned.


Is the “Madeleines Fund: leaving no stone unturned” hinting at a continuity, perpetuity, rather than a definite complete, achievement of the goal? Is the search meant to make people look in every possible place, and thus exhaust people? Why not identify where it is most likely and look there? Scattergun approach rather than a targeted approach, sweeping rather than focussed.


Peter Bartlett (American Historian) mentions a story supposed to have taken place in 479 BC, when the second invasion of Greece by the Persians, in the reign of Xerxes I (circa 519-465 BC), was brought to an end. According to a rumour, Xerxes’s general, Mardonius, who was killed at the battle at Plataea, had hidden a treasure under his tent or close to it. A certain Polycrates of Athens or Thebes, trusting this rumour, bought the site and dug for the treasure. Finding none, he asked the Delphic Oracle how he could find it, and received the reply Πάντα λίθον κίνει (= Pánta líthon kínei), literally, Turn every stone.


Note: 
The origin and cause of the fable is the person who BURIED the treasure! 
Obfuscation is the reason why many many stones have to be turned. 
Something valuable is hidden and we must find, discover, reveal it in direct opposition to the person who BURIED IT.
The Treasure has NOT been lost, discarded, stolen (abducted!) or removed, but placed in a location we do not know yet the originator does! 
Be aware of someone who declares that 'I will leave no stone unturned' if there is doubt about their character- they may be misleading you to not look where they 'buried' something, especially if they were the last known person to have seen it and don't look for it themselves!

Interpretation Act 1978
S.4
Unless it is clear there is a contrary intention, wherever in any [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] there are words importing the masculine gender, the words should be construed to incorporate the feminine and vice versa. Also, words in the singular include the plural, and as with the interchangeability of words importing gender so it is with the plural and singular.

Hello again BrentM.

In due course I will move your insightful post over to the new members thread, along with your initial post on much the same subject.

The last post on this thread was way back in the year 2014, eight years ago.  A lot of water has passed under the bridge (another idiom used in common parlance) since then.  

To give the subject fresh perspective it needs to be refreshed.  When we see how it develops, I can then decide it's rightful place on the forum.

Thread locked.

ETA:  Having given it further thought, the subject is worthy of a new look.

I ask that you, BrentM, and other interested members continue discussion here..

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

I will move over all relevant posts later when I have more time.

Thanks!

Ian Huntley, Stuart Hazell and the McCanns; experts reveal how to spot the liars from the innocent in famous missing child cases

Forensic psychologists and behavioural analysts have re-examined some of the most notorious criminal cases from the past 20 years, explaining how to spot a liar and a criminal…

by Kayleigh Dray | Posted on09 01 2014

Ian Huntley and Stuart Hazell were both convicted of different crimes, but they had one thing in common; they lied on camera about crimes they themselves had committed. And now, in ITV's The Lying Game: Crimes That Fooled Britain, forensic psychologists and behavioural analysts have re-examined the footage, revealing how to spot a liar.

   "Either movement or speech has to slow down when someone is thinking hard; you cannot do both"

Dr Sharon Leal explained: "People aren't good at detecting lies because they look for the wrong clues - my job is looking for the right clues."

Leal, alongside clinical forensic psychologist Kerry Daynes and behavioural expert Cliff Lansley, have looked back over some of Britain's most notorious crimes, offering a fresh insight into the people who stared into the camera and begged the public for help finding Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, Tia Sharpe, Azaria Chamberlain and Madeleine McCann.

Can science help us spot a liar? The experts think so. And, for the first time ever, they've explained on television how to spot the difference between the innocent and the guilty...

Double child murderer Ian Huntley is one of the most reviled killers of the past 20 years; a school caretaker, Huntley found himself in the media spotlight after being identified as the last person to see Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman alive before they went missing

What local police and the public didn't know was that Ian had been under allegations of assaulting children in the past, had strangled a disobedient puppy in front of school children and been accused of two counts of rape.

Despite his seemingly genuine appeal to the cameras, it turned out that Huntley had lured the girls into his home and murdered them.

Now, looking back at tapes of his interview with the press, the experts have revealed several ways to spot Ian's lies.

Cliff Lansley, looking at Huntley's body language throughout the clip, explained that micro-movements were very telling. The murderer gave a slight shrug and shake of the head - both of which were very minor and difficult to spot without looking - which suggested that, while his voice was saying one thing, his body was saying another.

The day after the interview aired, the police took Ian in for questioning and, once again, he appeared calm, composed and concerned for the missing girls. But his body language gave him away again.

Dr Leal explained: "There are signs of thinking hard - we call it cognitive load… a motivated liar will appear calm, quite still, they're not fidgeting they're not moving around.

"You want to keep your story straight, you don't want to appear suspicious and your brain has to conceal the truthful responses… this has a physical effect on us, in that it actually stills your behaviour.

   "He clamps his right arm and starts manipulating - it's a form of self comfort, because he's under stress"

"Either movement or speech has to slow down when someone is thinking hard; you cannot do both."

What little movement Huntley does make is, according to Lansley, extremely telling. When the killer is directly asked if he made any physical contact with the girls, he shifts position, uncrossing his legs and clamping his arms down in front of his crotch.

"He clamps his right arm and starts manipulating - it's a form of self comfort, because he's under stress here… and when he says 'no', the volume of his voice drops by 50%"

According to the experts, adjusting volume is a form of distancing oneself from a lie that has been told.

Ian Huntley was given a double life sentence for his crimes.

MAXINE CARR

The reason Huntley was able to get away with his lies for so long was due to his girlfriend Maxine Carr, who offered him a false alibi when her partner told her he needed her help to prove his innocence. So, while she hadn't even been in Cambridge on the day of the girls' disappearance, she told the press she was at home, with Huntley, and had seen the girls walk past their house.

During the interview she seemed animated and at ease, but, as Karen Daynes points out, it is easier to lie for someone else - you can convince yourself you're doing it for all the right reasons

"I think that Maxine must have convinced herself that Ian was innocent"

   "When you're in love with somebody you have truth bias - you want to believe they're telling the truth"

Leal added: "When you're in love with somebody you have truth bias - you want to believe they're telling the truth"

During the show, a sound clip - which reveals Maxine's reaction to the news her boyfriend did kill the two children - is revealed. The overwhelming grief is apparent in her voice as she became aware of the extend of the lies she had helped to cover up.

The court accepted that she had only lied to the police to protect Huntley because she believed his claims of innocence, not because she was involved, and she was sent ends to three-and-a-half years in prison. She was released in May 2004 and has been living under a new identity.

STUART HAZELL

In 2012, a young girl named Tia Sharp was reported to have gone missing from the home of her grandmother in New Addington, London. Her grandfather, Stuart Hazell, was one of the men who campaigned for information as to her whereabouts - but it soon became aware that he not a relative by blood. in fact, he was an unrelated adult male who had spent the night alone with Tia before she went missing.

As pressure mounted, his family - who believed in his innocence - convinced him to appeal to the press. And it appeared to be genuine; he claimed to have loved Tia Sharp like a daughter.

Nobody could have known that Tia's body lay just a few feet above Stuart's head - and that he had hidden her there after sexually assaulting and smothering the 12-year-old to death.

   "Liars will try and come across as being a very nice and genuine person"

"The verbal signs are the best signs… liars will try and come across as being a very nice and genuine person. They will be trying to manage how they look… liars are far more aware of this than truth-tellers"

"One of Hazell's main strategies is to emphasise the fact that he's a care giver, that he loves Tia and would do nothing to harm her.

"You get that a lot… people will slip in how nice they are - and liars do that more than truth tellers."

As seen in the interview, Stuart stresses that he gave Tia a ten pound note, that he had given her breakfast and sweets and a sausage roll - all intended to be indicators of his caring personality.

Stuart also goes into a great deal of detail about his day, talking about what he cooked, what he did, how he shook the rug and so on.

Leal explains: "Liars will talk a lot but not about the event - they will try and take people off on a tangent, away from the event.

"Truth tellers summarise; they give an overview of what happened, of what they think is important for you to know.

"They don't perceive that there's any gaps there."

However, while Hazell can go into great detail about everything he did that day, he leaves one very obvious thing out.

   "He can't come up with any credible conversation that happened between him and Tia"

"Tia's mumbling, she's blabbering - he's not giving any interaction because there was no interaction… he can give every single detail but he can't come up with any credible conversation that happened between him and Tia."

It is also worth noting that Hazell speaks about Tia in the past tense and, after saying he doesn't want to find her in a field somewhere, a momentary expression of fear flashes across his face. This is the moment when he realises he's deviated from the original story, in which he claimed Tia was alive, and has now revealed he believes her to be dead.

THE INNOCENT

Liars are very concerned about their appearance and how they have presented themselves during an appeal to the press. They can fake facial expressions; both Ian Huntley and Stuart Hazell can be seen to bring their brows together and squeeze them to fake concern. This is often an expression used by children to fake sadness.

It is also worth noting that liars CAN, contrary to belief, look you straight in the eye to tell their story, and they will look you straight in the eye. As children our parents have said to us 'look me in the eye and tell me the truth' but, of course we learn how to lie to our parents. Adults continue these practises in everyday life.

If you don't know the signs to look for, the innocent can appear guilty. Although innocent, many disbelieved Lindy Chamberlain's account of her baby being taken by a dingo, suggesting she was too erratic.

She spent over three years in jail before the truth was revealed.

Kate and Gerry McCann were also criticised by the public and accused by many of murdering their own daughter, Madeleine. This all stemmed from their very first press appeal and their awkward behaviour - but, understandably, how they seemed was the last thing on their minds.

Leal says: "[Gerry]'s brought out the list of things he must be certain to remember - he won't think that looks suspicious, but a liar might believe that is suspicious."

Leal went on to explain that she believes the McCanns had nothing to do with the disappearance of their daughter.

"From my point of view, they are 100% innocent."

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

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THIS?

The Lying Game: The Crimes That Fooled Britain demonstrates how we can all have a better chance of spotting the liars in our own lives - and has revealed that new face recognition technology may asset police in place of lie detectors in the future.

The high tech 'Silent Talker' tracks facial expressions and has proven to be relatively successful in separating liars from truth-tellers.

However the experts were quick to stress that the technology will never be used without hard evidence to back up its claims.

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

So it appears the 'skill' can be very selective when it suits.

I'm sorry if this all appears a bit jumbled - unfortunately I can't change the time and/or date of a post.

It should run smoothly from here on in !

Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

It's already been pointed out here on the forum, Peter Hyatt is American, I don't think ti's ever been explained why he took an interest in the case of missing Madeleine McCann. Whatever he is for sure a successful business man strengthened by exceptional public relations. A must for anyone who wants to globally sell their product - Peter Hyatt does that with great eclat, in parallel with other businesses such as Dr Mark Perlin and his ambitious TrueAllele. enterprise.

Whatever, much like Dr Perlin, Peter Hyatt has jumped on the Madeleine McCann bandwaggon to further his cause - whatever that might be.

This video is a prime example, why does he see the necessity to mention the case of Madeleine McCann if not to use the tragedy as a means to and end?

Statement Analysis with Peter Hyatt | Body Language Podcast Episode 35



Like so many of these fringe pseudo science ventures, it lacks substance - it lacks tangible belief.

Just checking in to say to you Verdi that I am so disappointed with your unjustified attack on Peter Hyatt. He is one of many expert statement analysts used successfully by police forces the world over. Like many other statement analysts, he offers comment on public cases where he can detect obvious signs of lying, the Madeleine McCann case being a clear example of where multiple witnesses have lied comprehensively. Richard Hall's 3-part 'Embedded Confessions' series brought the Madeleine McCann case to a wider audience. His analysis of statements made by the McCanns was in my judgment clear and unarguable.

He certainly talks a good job Tony but my opinion isn't confined to Peter Hyatt - it's a general view of the pseudo science of linguistic forensics. As can be seen elsewhere on this thread, Sharon Leal has also used the name Madeleine McCann to further her cause.

I've said many many times before, I despise the act of making money or career advancement on the back of a missing, almost certainly dead, three year old child.  I don't care who they are or what they are, it's the act that I strongly object to

Besides, with the greatest respect, the case of missing Madeleine McCann doesn't command the skills of a statement analyst, so blatant are the contradictions.  

The PJ have been vilified over and over again for alleged ineptitude, they the local yokels, realised within hours that the witness statements and evidence didn't add up.

Whoever can promote themselves and/or their company/organisation far and wide but it doesn't make them any more believable.  Statement analysis is an interpretation of the spoken word, we all speak and interpret differently - as can be seen up-page .... Peter Hyatt vs. Sharon Leal.

Never the twain shall meet.

The evidence is there, all that's needed to develop that evidence is good old fashioned policing - prior to the pressure of academia.  A degree in some enforced contemporary man-made study does not solve crime - policing is all down to experience and instinct.  At least it should be.

As an aside, I can easily tell when someone is lying to me and I've got a gut to prove it!

Feeling a little overwhelmed by the responses so far, we all have opinions...
Just to say, thank you verdi for the orignal reply indicating where i can find many transcripts from past interviews. I have copy and pasted these to make a start on collating things.

I did originally reply quite quickly to you but i think my unfamiliarity with the operations of the forum it ended up unposted, so here i am again.
My intention is not to cover all of the interviews, that would indeed be a  big undertaking, but my intention is to focus on the first two years, and perhaps some of the more extended interviews of the McCanns from later years. The more we hear the mccanns talk, the more likely they drop their guards are reveal things they didn't  intend to.

I do see that many will consider this as a waste of time and a money making exercise by those providing training, but its something I think could be worthwhile.
I do appreciate Hyatts' take on things and his 'expertise' in this area.
I have been in touch with his company (hyattanalysis) to get more info on courses available. 1 and two year course are available to the lay person.
My reason for considering this avenue isn't to catch the lie, or understand the lie or liar through analysis, but to find Maddie, or at least what happened to the body. 
This would be the breaking of the case and good grounds for criminal charges and closure. My reasons are not for person ones, but for the case itself, justice.
I do believe, at this juncture, that the revealing of 'leakage' through language is fundamental to this search for maddie (in absence of confession or a miracle discovery), and a persons choice of words will reveal things that they haven't thought could be possible.
I might be wrong, Peter might be wrong, and I  could be wasting my time and resources, but its worth trying.

You all have a good day.

Verdi wrote:Ian Huntley, Stuart Hazell and the McCanns; experts reveal how to spot the liars from the innocent in famous missing child cases

Forensic psychologists and behavioural analysts have re-examined some of the most notorious criminal cases from the past 20 years, explaining how to spot a liar and a criminal…

by Kayleigh Dray | Posted on09 01 2014

Ian Huntley and Stuart Hazell were both convicted of different crimes, but they had one thing in common; they lied on camera about crimes they themselves had committed. And now, in ITV's The Lying Game: Crimes That Fooled Britain, forensic psychologists and behavioural analysts have re-examined the footage, revealing how to spot a liar.

   "Either movement or speech has to slow down when someone is thinking hard; you cannot do both"

Dr Sharon Leal explained: "People aren't good at detecting lies because they look for the wrong clues - my job is looking for the right clues."

Leal, alongside clinical forensic psychologist Kerry Daynes and behavioural expert Cliff Lansley, have looked back over some of Britain's most notorious crimes, offering a fresh insight into the people who stared into the camera and begged the public for help finding Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, Tia Sharpe, Azaria Chamberlain and Madeleine McCann.

I don't think we can trust Dr Sharon Leal's opinions very far.

She had some interesting - to say the least - connections. Here are some brief notes made a long time ago. I have quite a lot more somewhere in my archive - and The University of Huddersfield was connected with Sharon Leal, a team of them did an analysis of a Twitter thread basically proving that anyone who said Madeleine McCann wasn't abducted was a swivel-eyed, tin-pot-hatted conspiracy loon - or something like that. 

Admin and Mods will be able to find a link to that somewhere on here:

==== 

Dr Sharon Leal is a fellow at the University of Portsmouth.

The Centre for the Study of Missing Persons is based at the University of Portsmouth. Jo Youle, CEO of Missing People, is Chair of the Advisory Board.


Jo Youle, CEO Missing People: Of whom the '100% innocent Kate McCann' is an 'ambassador' for.


"The charity Missing People is delighted to be working in partnership with the CSMP.


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


SMALL WORLD, INNIT?


Someone on Facebook says the programme was made by Shine TV - part of Shine Group - Co-founder and Chairman none other than Elisabeth Murdoch. 


Married to Matthew Freud for whom Clarence Mitchell works or worked!! 


All becomes clear now.

BrentM wrote:Just to say, thank you verdi for the orignal reply indicating where i can find many transcripts from past interviews. I have copy and pasted these to make a start on collating things.

At your service !

Verdi,
‘Then take yourself over there, wherever that might be.’ is a command.
I’ll decide.
Not you.
You stink of an overinflated ego- ex copper perchance?
And Peter Hyatt trains the FBI- who do you train?
No one?
And here’s a simple question you can’t and won’t answer- if Hyatt is wrong with his conclusions then can you give me even one example?
For instance, if it’s only his opinion then where do you disagree with his linguistic analysis?
Where specifically is he WRONG?
Many thanks!

My my my - how brazen!

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Who invited Peter Hyatt to analyze statements in connection with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?  Who invited Sharon Leal?  Who invited Mark Williams-Thomas to probe and make a documentary about Madeleine McCann's disappearance?  Who invited Jon Clarke of the Olive Press to capitalize on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Colin Sutton;  Martin Brunt;  Netflix;  Sandra Felguieras;  Discovery+ .... who invited them?

Peter Hyatt trains the FBI !?!  A misnomer with delusions of grandeur and a self promotional claim of expertise in scrabble?  Contemporary policing is nothing more than a joke, no more can they rely on bog basic policing, instead they are expected to rely on a university degree and peripheral 'expertise' for guidance. In contemporary parlance I believe it's called wokeism.

I don't think the hard working experienced reputable cop needs guidance from someone who thinks s/he can crack the case with word-mongering. The chief of police, Sr Amaral ,assigned to coordinate the case in Portugal certainly didn't need a statement analyst to assist his investigation - he was perfectly capable of conducting an investigation without sufferance of the perpetual insistence of pseudo science or any other fringe interference.

I don't feel the need to explain myself to your Keelafreeze, you on the other hand ....

Verdi wrote:My my my - how brazen!

Peter Hyatt trains the FBI !?!  A misnomer with delusions of grandeur and a self promotional claim of expertise in scrabble?  ...

I don't think the hard working experienced reputable cop needs guidance from someone who thinks s/he can crack the case with word-mongering.  The chief of police, Sr Amaral ,assigned to coordinate the case in Portugal certainly didn't need  a statement analyst to assist his investigation - he was perfectly capable of conducting an investigation without sufferance of the perpetual  insistence of  pseudo science or any other fringe interference.

From his own website:
Peter Hyatt is a Statement Analyst and instructor who teaches statement analysis and analytical interviewing to law enforcement and corporate America.  He has authored the investigator training manual for DHHS, State of Maine...etc
HIDTA Training: Deception Detection September 23, 2016 Phoenix, AZ
Lecture: Psychological Profiling from Statement Analysis: FBI Academy Behavioral Science Unit; Fall Semester 2016
October 31, 2016 FBI National Academy, Quantico, Virginia Behavioral Science Unit Training 7:30am – 5pm.

November 2017 FBI National Academy, Quantico, Va

November 15 2018. Anchorage, AK Psychologists, Social Workers, FBI, State & local Law Enforcement





It is clear Peter gives lectures at or to the fBI, works with the FBI and talks at their academy.


How extensive this is, and how useful the FBI finds it, is not clear, but for sure he does have some involvement in the training provided to the FBI.
I don't know how clearer Peter could make it, unless of course he's lying!


But i do fully agree with you that the PJ did a fantastic job without the need for statement analysis, by the dogged legwork of the humble policemen and women. Amaral was about to solve the riddle before he was taken off it (for political reasons I surmise.) A real shame he was. But others have completed it for him, but alas, it is unlikely to be taken up anytime soon by the police for further investigation and charges. 


I see statement analysis as another tool in the box of techniques, like behavioural analysis, profiling etc. Pseudoscience? If it solves crimes, it works, and thats what matters in the end. Its not a perfect science for sure, with many gaping flaws, but it is no doubt helpful to law enforcement with the correct checks and balances, which Peter is very keen to operate with.


Can I ask you why you have such a strong opinion on it, and why the antagonistic attitude that comes across the page? I am just starting out on my proper digging in this case after years of fascination, and the greatest obstacle to finding  the truth seems to be open mindedness, not just for my part. And i realise open-mindedness is a close cousin of gullibility!


So, do spill the beans if you are comfortable with it.
P.s. as my first thread/posting on this forum has been an awkward mix of information and heated debate and personal attack, i probably will avoid  future discussions and postings but will share my work when i dig into the source material.

My problem with statement analysis and profilers are the end result.

They may be 100% correct in what they do and can guide the police as to weather the suspect is guilty of the crime they are suspected of, but unless the suspect confesses to the crime, or their DNA is found or some other irrefutable evidence comes to light, you are no nearer to solving the crime.

The McCann's are widely believed to be involved in knowing what happened to Madeleine and of hiding her body.

It's believed, Madeleine died of an accident and was not murdered by one of her parents.

This is what Peter Hyatt believes, nothing new was descovered by him analysing their statements or interviews and nothing to take the case foreward.

The Portuguese employed 2 of the best dogs in the world at the time, one to find blood and one to detect cadaver odour, which they did.

The evidence of the dogs moved the case along from looking for a lost/missing child to suspecting the parents and making them arguido's.

All the profilling and analysis in the world will not get the McCann's into a court room, so I ask, what is the point.

BrentM wrote:Can I ask you why you have such a strong opinion on it, and why the antagonistic attitude that comes across the page? I am just starting out on my proper digging in this case after years of fascination, and the greatest obstacle to finding  the truth seems to be open mindedness, not just for my part. And i realise open-mindedness is a close cousin of gullibility!

So, do spill the beans if you are comfortable with it.
P.s. as my first thread/posting on this forum has been an awkward mix of information and heated debate and personal attack, i probably will avoid  future discussions and postings but will share my work when i dig into the source material.

The only place I spill beans is the kitchen I'll leave it there!

Please don't feel disheartened, isn't opposing views what debate is all about - surely?  Carry on regardless .

I appreciate statement analysis and other fringe pseudo-sciences are used by law enforcement across the continents but (that word again) I don't share the opinion of some who appear to think it the be all and end all.

Anyway this isn't helping develop this new thread created for members to contribute their views on linguistic forensics.