The Deception Detective: Statement Analysis Videos

Sounds like Aunty Phil.

 This person didn't fill the entire tv screen, so I'm not certain.

there is still a lot of aunty phil on youtube, the problem phil could said it patricia, but i would not even dare to leave kate her side of it, she had aunty janet kennedy. 

but i only found a sweet old lady interview, such a difference with her statement, there was no love lost between janet and madeleine. 

even na so many years if you look back at the mccann siblings they gave far more an impression it was just a big , uhh, padded opportunity than something dead serious. 

would you expect brother john, after he just was told his young niece was taken by a pedo abductor on the run, in that kind of reaction. the guy acted as if he just was offered a chance of a lifetime. the supposed head of a great fund, he even said he quit his job for it. but his cv on linkdn does not show any break in 2007. 

only for others who have an account, i think. so i will copy that bit too.

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


integrated healthcare specialistintegrated healthcare specialist
[size=18][size=18]AstraZenecaAstraZeneca2002 - mei 2011 · 9 jr 5 mnd2002 - mei 2011 · 9 jr 5 mnd[/size]
[/size]

• • Initially as GP rep then as IHS(Integrated Healthcare Specialist)in CV/diabetes productsInitially as GP rep then as IHS(Integrated Healthcare Specialist)in CV/diabetes products
    
  
  
  
  
• • Vaardigheden: Customer Satisfaction (CSAT) · Patient Support · Workable Solutions · Market Share · Customer Satisfaction · Marketing Strategy · Sales Management · Project Management · Sales Processes · Sales · Account Management · Account Planning
    
  
  
  

How to DERAIL an INVESTIGATION

43:06 minutes

Released one day ago

'More Words Liars Use' - a Deception Detective video on Youtube at 8.30 tonight.

CaKeLoveR wrote:'More Words Liars Use' - a Deception Detective video on Youtube at 8.30 tonight.

15 hours ago



1:02:23 hour/minutes

How to spot a COVER UP

1 hour ago

Did Christian Brueckner really confess to abducting Madeleine McCann in 2007? Let's examine media misinformation.

i think this video makes it far more clear, this is not the classic statement analysis, but more taking on the full story, i like that, because it takes a lot more context in with it. classic statement analysis is far more detailed on each use of words and wording. so how they are been used in themselves, but far less on the full story.
and it is not even impartial, because the question is; is there deception, is already on the table. 

if you go back to the part of the interview with kai feldhaus on talk tv, what i always end up in having a problem with is saying do you believe, or i believe in these settings. 
because believe is actually a very soft word, believe is something with an open end. it is easy said and accepted.
when you use i think it becomes very different, because you say you have let it play around in your mind, and after that, you decided to follow on with the result. thinking processes are very usable in this, because you have to weigh the pro's and cons, and believe is often more from the heart than from the mind. 
if you talk crime or possible crime, the mind goes over the heart. it is okay to reserve the heart for the victim, but the rest can do better without the emotions. 

believe has usually the inclusion of because i was told that opinion, or use parts of other opinions, or because you are still out on a fence about something and have still to go from an impression, it still can have too much emotions in it. and believing almost has the result , there will be a defense of the beliefs. not a statement about points you used to build an opinion by your own.

kai feldhaus believes he say, because he is not the only one, and why could he not be the only one who beliefs something, it is not a crime to believe something by your own. and because a german officer of the law also believes, that does not really tells something, it is not information even. 
there is actually nothing in kai his words that is factual information. he talks a lot but nothing that shows he had let it through his mind and made a conclusion and from that his opinion. 
by using believe you can easily escape owning a set opinion. 

and believe in its basic meaning is an important part of being religious, and as a concept that means taking words and feelings for granted, you know you could not expect to get facts to prove religious words. and for me that is okay in that line of living a life. i am not religious myself, but i did see how and why it means a lot to others and i can respect it. i even like to debate about it, but only one-to- one, not so much about if it is a reality, because that is easy we would never can get that substantial at all, but how that inflicts on a daily life and influences living together in the same spaces. it is simply nice to know where people have starting points, if you live together with 22 to 26 different ways to be religious as groups of people and all individual lines that are a result of it, in the same small town. 
believe used in the context of a religion has a much stronger meaning, than how it is often used in day to day life about all kinds of other things.

and if i go back to kai feldhaus, who writes about the story around madeleine mccann from the start, and who likes to present himself as being a investigative journalist, and well known of all parts of this story, i would have expected not a personal believe, but a short comment about the facts that makes this part of the story something that means something and/or that he could check. 
a journalist does not have to believe something, that is not his job. he is just the middleman between information and the public. the investigative part stand for checking and looking for other information that could make the information weaker or stronger. 

what is functional in kai feldhaus his own opinion, certainly when it needs a defense by okay it is said by a criminal, a shady figure, and because a german officer of the law said he believes it, he never stated that actually in these wordings at all. 

and maybe this way of working is what makes it just interference in making your own mind up as a member of the public. we do not see much about people who have a role in this case, but we are been telling hearsay by journalists and reporters, that in reality have no meaning for the case itself. 
some journalist and reporters do some homework, but most already have to declare being bound by an allowed opinion by the hands that pay them, they are long forgotten, that it is still their public that bring that payment in reach. because it is still the hand of the public that is really feeding them, the outlook of money is changed, it is no longer about how much you pay for a subscription, or by paying for a paper at a kiosk, but we pay mostly because we have to look to advertisements. that part is growing far more important. it is still the hand of the public that pays them.

but kai feldhaus has interviewed helge b., but even directly from hb his mouth it it still hearsay. hb did not deliver anything that could be checked. but the words are out there, why do we need a opinion or a believe in these words from kai feldhaus. when we just can hear the same words ourselves. we have no need for a middleman anymore, that job was done. and kai has no role that is needed to hear an opinion about what he believes, or does not believe, or why he thinks that.

it could be interesting if kai started telling what he could check in that story, that would be extra information for us to form an opinion about and the only good reason to put him on the news. kai is not important and his believes or opinion is as equal as any other member of the public. and his believes and opinions are sold to the colour of the company that pays his bills. 

kai is not news, his opinion is not news, the story was not really that fresh any more, and hb is very old news, he gave his first musings already in 2017 to a greek newspaper, what only tells the newsboys just use the same google thingy alerts as the public can, google has a bit of a problem when it is about indexing news in lesser known languages of europe, than english. that must have been hard for the english media, they lost out for 3 years of just flut stories. flut is dutch , but i could agree if you adopt it as short for fluent language utterly trashed. well they showed they can catch up in that.

you know when a journalist or reporter is asked for a personal and professional coloured opinion it will be no news, not even fake news. 
and i do not understand it, why they just not made their own bit about that story, the material was already out on the streets. they had no need for kai at all. kai is only a middleman, he has no other role in the case, never had. 

and how mitchell ended up in this case, was not even from uk political desks, he has it on his linkdin;

FCO Media Liaison OfficerFCO Media Liaison Officer
[size=18][size=18]Foreign and Commonwealth OfficeForeign and Commonwealth Officemei 2007 - jun. 2007 · 2 mndmei 2007 - jun. 2007 · 2 mndLondon, PortugalLondon, Portugal[/size]
[/size]

• • Seconded as FCO Media Liaison Officer for Gerry and Kate McCann, the parents of Madeleine McCann, as part of the exceptional package of consular assistance extended to them by HMG following the disappearance of their daughter in Praia da Luz on May 3rd 2007. Daily on-the-ground liaison in the Algarve with 80+ international print and broadcast journalists, with 24-hour briefings, interview bid processing and material distribution via laptop. Also organised, via the respective British Embassies, the McCanns’ campaign visits to the Vatican, Madrid, Berlin, Amsterdam and Rabat. Based in Praia da Luz, Portugal for one month
    
  
  
  
  
• so he ended up in that very strange embassy entry in this case, and for me the most likely reason still to get that happening, was , if the portuguese justice system, had gotten the bold idea to just keep all uk citizens and others on the grond, until they had spoken to all. it is still the only reason why they would send in the big wig to play that differently from the start. 
  
  

think it was probably all come together at friday morning, and that is usually not the best time to ask the minister of foreign affairs to just talk portugal out of that by phone alone, hardly any one who can make decisions is working on the friday.  so a nutter just decided to send the full big wig party to praia da luz and portimao, to not disturb a lot of uk citizens, a uk investment and the idea alone any foreign government could ever rule about uk heads and get portugal out of that fancy idea, what it not was, because it is a very common stance to keep around people you still have to get statements from, or that even in potential could be suspects. 

the uk would have taken their stances at that time from the same statics, that when young children are not where they supposed to be, it is usually a incrowd matter, so portugal could keep the full tapas 9.
but it is a ball that when the shot is taken, can never be stopped, and the media on home turf was already fully awake and on a roll. embassies in means politics have to follow through. and that was why they send in mitchell the first time. 

and all of this would have been played out on a much higher level than amaral was part of. 

there was a new episode yesterday evening.

he walked through pat brown her last reaction where she reacts they both should join up in a comment.

dd; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h2Mjq7bmgE

and to pat her video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAnTadAm3Vw&t=0s

one of the points both talked about was how this case still could become solved.
pb got it together in a direct confession of one of the mccanns, or when a body is found with clues to the mccanns. 
dd agrees with that but thinks a person in the know also could start talking.

i think i do find ways to get around a talking head. he choose mitchell as an example, that when a guy like him would end up in a very bad spot, he could start talking. 

i do agree there are possible mouths that can end up speaking, but i think it is all so deeply buried in the tale of choice, even that would not be something that will work really well. it is to easy to just say it was just a bout of madness, or a person fallen out of grace, that becomes a wild attention seeker, the person could be talked into having mental illnesses.

pat brown already put reserves on finding a body, that this in itself would not crack open the case, there need to be clues left with the body, and time is not always a good keeper of that. 

both also talked about the ideal patsy. 
cb is a bit of second best, a dead one like they found before is much easier, only you need one with little ties, and that one left a capable wife behind. 
cb is a loner, there always was talk about having a brother, but it never became known if it was a biological brother, cb was given up on a very young age by his biological mother, so if she did that to his brother too, or brother is just because both had been placed with fosterparents. even there a lot is unsecure, it is often called adoption, and cb changed his, or his last name was changed in that of his surrogate parents.
but there look to be no ties left.

his friends if he had them, have already successfully alienated with the help of the media.

so there are no people who will or can fight his corner.

dd talks also a bit about the latest uproar around hb, and even gets a bit out how unexpected it was that this came out after he made a video about telling hb was not the reliable kind.
still most media do not tell of course the complete story.

that it was indeed ff from cb his lawyer team, who made an official complaint about hb, after he heard that hb his lawyer had makes a change known about where the virtual video footage was hidden by hb, it still was not a very coherent story, first there always was used the camper van saga, he put them in and sold the van with the tapes in it to the scrapping yard. that story line supposedly was changed to be hidden by hb in a house where he once lived. the problem for the prosecution is mostly that hb was a strong and by the court accepted witness for the prosecution in the 2005 rape case. 

dd thinks and likes that ff as a lawyer is fighting for his client. i think it is too much over the top, ff is just a patient man, and is from the start trying to get the conviction in the 2005 rape case overturned, or at least back in court.

that case is what connects cb to the irish holiday rep case of 2004 in the next lot of cases that could face trial in the future. so if the 2005 case loose the connection to cb, that will be halve a job done.

the hair that is the second as strong evidence against cb in the 2005 case, is for much longer in dispute, i can not find it, in a pot cast that speaker had a expert on dna and that lady was given insight in the trial material about the hair, and was not in agreement it truly was handled correct and that cb could be the only owner of the dna. 

for the witnesses it was just waiting until it got screwed up. hb and ms already had multiple very different understandings of their adventures, and even ms talks hb his words down in public. ms was talked down by others and by the list of 5 cases, the prosecution also not take the case of the italian lady of an age within the dating range of ms one. and another thing is, the media likes to talk it in two cases about the only known fact was both taken place in the little finca in praia da luz, cb rented. that is incorrect, the case of unknown victim of older age is placed happening in a holiday let, in the court listings. 

i think hb told more lies, calling a special madeleine help line at scotland yard, is just a fantasy, there was no such line in 2007 or 2008. scotland yard came in much later. 
it resulted from his saying that bild a german tabloid news outlet written an article with the question if scotland yard missed out on that, but it has little research in exactly the bit , if there was such a help line when hb put a time around the orgiva festival in march 2008. 
it is not noted in the debrief operation task, as the uk called their adventures in the uk and portugal around this case, and there is also beside it nothing ever written about such a help line. 

of course hb could call out, even in court he was mistaken and talked to another organisation, but his video presentation makes that hardly possible. 

dd sees a second way to use cb as a ideal patsy and that is when they could offer him a plea deal. for that he sees the need to get a conviction in another case, heavy enough to get them in to negotiation of a false confession. like better living quarters in jail. i think that plea deals are less attractive in most european countries.

in germany and the netherlands jail accommodation is already very different from the usa style ones. 
but suspicion of child abuse is often enough to be singled out, and that means a separate wing or even solitary confinement. and that is not something chosen by the client. 
long stay prisons are already having a basic luxury, like your own cell and more often even access to communal tv and even internet access, and he is not the only very bad apple after court rulings have made him that, so they have very little room to negotiate about, his listings does not make him a big fish at all in these parts of the woods. 

so i understood germany has a like wise system to keep serial offenders in for ever, usually these facilities can be pretty ordinary, norway has the most open system in that segment of the market.  but under most laws this is not to be seen as doing time, or being in jail, but just kept under supervision, but in most systems it becomes a patient, with much more moments these people will be examed on their mental state, and the chance of repeating the crimes they are in for can decide the freedoms given. 

countries like germany, the netherlands, even belgium and all the skandinavian ones, do not see prison as a long term solution, and the guarded systems also not. it is a punishment in prison, but not a forever state, but temporary. we had a true live long conviction possibility, that even before brexit was the last true forever being locked up way in the eu. and under agreement policy of the eu, there is now a moment when 25 years in, there has to be taken a look at the offender, if rehabilitation could still be possible. also our forever in jail punishment could not be combined with a treatment option obligation by court orders. 
the only way to escape life sentences always have been given grace by the queen or king. 

the guarded treatment systems handle them as patients under treatment, mostly of the mental kind. but they always have points in time to look if the patient can return into society, in the netherlands even each 2 years. it are psychiatric doctors who do the consultations and they have to bring their verdict up to the court and the judge will have to rule about keeping in, or a way to rehabilitate them and go back toi be part of society. 

but a lot of guys with the chance on a high change on long jail time would not want to get into such guarded systems. the will just take their chances with many years, because after 2/3 of doing their time, and in germany even half way they could ask a seating of the parole board. with mixed sentences they first have to do their time in jail, and after that as a inpatient in the guarded system. the do not like to stay with the lunatics, and having to fool for years and every minor mistake would restrict then another 2 years, and if there is a want that can be kept going on. 

for a true lunatic it is often not so bad to live in such systems, but the ones who only have in common society very well accepted bad behaviour do not want the outlook to live with them. 

there is in jail not so much to offer in extra's and the guarded facility has a much higher standard of comfort, but is very low on the wish list of harded criminal minds. 

jail in north western europe is more a in between a youth hostel accommodation and very restrictive parenting. cells are just rooms with a locking mechanism, most electronic, so the guard with the key to lock you in hardly exist anymore. the punishment is more in having no say by your free will in what your days look in rhythm and activity. freedoms have to be earned to a certain standard. 

a plea deal in a lower sentence is not a given, because in the german system it will be the judge who rules on that. and there is no obligation to listen to how nice the soon be convicted assisted in his own conviction at all. it is always also up to what the books of law give as instructions for each type of crime. 

and if we look at the 2005 case, and for this moment accept the full story of the victim, 7 years up to that is still very low. judges have guidelines, and repeating crimes could not truly been said in this case against cb, because it all happened before he got a conviction in a later case. repeated crimes are in law usually with a conviction in between the repeats. so it gets a hard burden to use that as a plea deal in the 2004 case. 

and ff is just getting that case reeled in by destroying the 2005 rape case. and the prosecution would not want that, because they need that case standing. and also destroying the crown witness means 2 cases of the table, because both are only resting on the same crown witness. and each of the 5 have elements needed if the prosecution want to set through in a madeleine mccann case. the two others give one with a question mark, that is just one to win on arguments. the other on the beach always was questionable. 

so a plea deal is not very likely to be of a realistic offer.

Is it this one onehand?

Pat brown's reply to Deception detective's video.

yep, these too are the ones. it was still early , i even forgot to check if the links worked. 

thanks crusader!

What does an EMBEDDED CONFESSION look like?

4 days ago

1:21:03 hours and minutes

The Deception Detective is beginning to reinforce my opinion of statement analysis - zero credibility.

I know the mantra so frequently stated by Hyatt, the one being analysed says something so the analyst must believe what they say but .... really? The interpretation of McCann words can't possibly be woven together to form an opinion of their actual meaning - by example, he uses Kate McCann's throw away comment about regularly returning to Portugal to be close to Madeleine, I don't think there is any truth in what Kate McCann allegedly said. From recollection the only time they returned to Portugal was in connection with their attempts to ruin Gonçalo Amaral and Gerry McCann's return for his mock-up reconstruction - produced by, directed by and featuring himself in the star role. For some unknown reason his wife didn't join him on the jaunt.

Listening to the Deception Detective's latest exposé of the McCann spoken words, he literally takes everything they have said as factual and a basis for his analysis - no matter how contradictory.

Seems to me the pseudo science of statement analysis can mean whatever you want it to mean - you can see examples of individual interpretation every day of your life. Just look back over the years on the various platforms that discuss the case of Madeleine McCann, we all think and see things differently.

Whilst I don't think the Deception Detective to be damaging to the overall cause, his analysis doesn't have any impact but it would be helpful if he had a better understanding of the case. Even an independent statement analyst should have knowledge of their subject - surely?

How to analyze EMBEDDED CONFESSIONS

1:07:40 hour/minutes

16 hours ago

I don't put much faith on the American statement analysts, they may be very good in America but I don't think the same aplies in the UK.
Words the American's use mean something totally different here.

I don't have any faith in statement analysis full stop!

The first 2 minutes was enough for me to get the general gist.

Pseudo science.

the fixation on a word like well, just for letters, but it has multiple meanings. 

i mean, if you ask me how i feel, and i say very well, thank you, it does not really translates as i am in a put or whole with water. but just as it says, i am feeling good.

using words as very well have never had the meaning of anything watery in europe, a well has still that bonding to it, because it means source, but the well from very well does simply mean good, correct.

but we always can blame the germans, it is old high germanic for wave with the water connection, and to will for the other one, so it always have had a different meaning. 

and it can only be a personal shortcoming when you do not understand the very different meanings of four letters formed to a equal word, that grown into very different meanings. 

we use wel in exactly the same manner, only we use it with just one l. and in today's languages kwel has taken over from wel as a source of water. but we can most likely blame the french for that, they do use it with water as quelle de eau. and quelle or words taken from that is used in almost all southern languages too. 

and our watery kwel has also the meaning of hurting so that would not work very well overhere too. by the way, we do not need any water while doing that. 

for me it is the same with the fixation on pronouns, people do use them far too often not in a consequent way. but i remember my very good dutch teacher, who learned us not to often restrict what we say from i, because it could be offending, too much self promoting to start each of your sentences with i did, i said, i tell, i know. but there is so much diversity in how they are used in speech, some use it in a pattern, but only their own pattern, some restrict themselves from pronoun, it is even quite populair at the moment. 

i have many times ended up in almost nasty discussions, because in my native local tongue, we say you must, but not meant as an obligation the only choice, but we do net even speak the full words, in dutch; je moet= you must, but; da moye or je moye. it means locally then you can ...., not then you must....
so when even two generations pure bred dutch people can start a easy fight over some meaning of a spoken word, do not tell me americans speak the same english as the english do, because they do not. 
i have been in ireland, england, scotland and wales, do not try to tell me all english is the same and used the same. i am still not sure what some actually said and it was not celtic language.

and no there is not even the start of consensus about statement, or speech analysis. 

there is nothing wrong with trying to learn to what people really say to you, because we as humans have the habit to fill in the words before they are usually spoken, the more we expect to hear something, the more we do it. so learning how to listen to the words truly said, i am okay with that part. 

but speech analysis was a spinn of from statement analysis, and that was about written statements, and also was not much better to find out what happened. behaviour analysis is the same miracle, just still a lot of boys and girls that are biting each others heads of. only they do it now on youtube too. 
very american also, very commercial too.

I am amused when people say of somebody famous 'I'm a big fan'. Why would you describe  yourself as a large cooling device?

there is a new one about the mccanns.

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

title what does a guilty denial look like?

for a trained guy he is still very fixed on people telling lies. but that is exactly what is most people do, thinking someone must telling porkies. but even statement analysis does not fixate on lies at all, it looks for deception, misleading, and people can do that in more ways than telling lies. 

i do not get why this guy fixes himself in the telling lies aspect. 

people can have something to hide, but statement analysis will simply not tell what they want to hide at all. or why they want to hide something.

and i also see a lot of little bits of different interviewing techniques seeping in. like letting people retell about the same event in many different ways, that has nothing to do with statement analysis.

people can lie of course, in the meaning of telling a untrue, or very different story, but they also can escape telling anything, relaying a story is another way. or telling a true event, but use it to tell about it in a different time setting. or formulation an answer in a way they think you would like more. 

not telling a true story is not simply the same as telling lies. and we most times have no clue why it is important for that person to wanting to hide things. it is easy to fell in the hole of reflecting it all to the crime you want to look at. there is never just one thing that matters to a person in front of you that they do not want you to know in all details.

it is very hard to find transcripts that have telling people they used the toilet and actually telling you what they exactly did, most of that information will be kept hidden. not once i heard telling a possible suspect they worked their noses out, or that picked scabs from their skin, or played dr. pimple popper. 

and people are known for leaving detail out of stories, we take a awful lot of things together. like putting a diner on the table, well that could be done in at least 10 minutes, but also 3 days. 
we had worked during a day, but that is not really what you have done all day. and if you had a day of escaping as much work, and you was supposed to do actually quite a lot, you would not like to tell me that at all, so even there will get a seeping of wanting to hide that in. 

the problem is always the same, knowing you do not hear a true story, that is not that hard. but why they do not want you to know that part is always a guess. 
and there are people who are masters in feeling uncomfortable easy. so it also could be just a lot of influences from the surroundings and people in that around you, that can make you say very odd things. 
and also the human mind works in mysterious ways, we hardly ever really spoke from our minds, we learned from a young age to not do that, but first think before you open your mouth.

so we are even trained to tell lies in daily life too. the white lies are even very much appreciated. it would not work out easier if we just spoke from our minds. i mean when you met mrs. jones, you would maybe thing, you silly old bitch, i do not want to talk to you, is usually translated by our mouth as , o, hello mrs. jones, and the usual nicer conversation with a excusing to walk out of it. 

large parts of our upbringing is just learning to tell porkies, or hide things in a acceptable manner. and many of the parental ideas, and they are not to get in good or bad ways, can make you even a good hider of truth.
schools do it too. and even a lot of jobs ask you to lie, or hide true thoughts. 

only when you look about criminal aspects, it is easy to forget there is always more important in the total of someones life, than only that bit of talking they have to do to you. and it is not a reality they are trying to hide something specifically from you, but just something that could have consequences in the rest of their life. and telling you it can result in telling the world of course. 

a very different influence is also often present from other sources. people are usually bad witnesses about what did really happened at any moment. first because we put our eyes and ears often much later in a story, because of sounds or movements that happen during an event. so we ofte do see only the result, but not so much about what was leading to the event.

and we do not walk anywhere, or sit or be anywhere with our minds fully open, registering what all others do, and concentration on other things can block large parts out too. still our minds do like it to get it in a complete story. much of the blancs our own minds fill in automatically. or we use what others say and tell. and it is pretty easy to fill in gaps in other people their minds too. 
if you can not look again, it is hard to check it, so if others show with confidence or authority a bit different opinion, we are prone to take that on.

at least there is a nice lie in the mitchell shot from about 1.35 minutes in. it is easy to find in the files that the dna was checked against the other 4 people and was not theirs. 
but many people never read the files, or missed the forensic index, and by saying it with authority makes it easy to believe. because people simply thing, he would not say that on tv if it was not true. or people would think the tv producer would have checked it before putting it out. most simply accept others would have done their job. so it is much easier to accept as truth. well it is not.

the video started with a bit that we know now was long times not in the same way to hear and see. and that is the horrible thing, if it not fully live with the people both to see in front of you, they could leave bits and pieces out of what you get to hear and see. 

if i say;'well that is wet'. without anything else, you can only get from it , it must about something wet. but yoy do not know if i talk about rain, melting snow, a shower, a bucket i spoiled, a toe put in the sea. or even a baby diaper. or because the tumble dryer did not work well. but yoy could easily just put any of these with it with some illustrations or footage. 

even on live tv, it is easy to switch to another talking head and mute other talkers out, the showing the public scenes often are used to hide something said too. in not live entertainment it is much easier, and it is even possible to do a full retake of the presenter, and just put her in again in a different kind of reaction. 

we simply have no idea if these interviews are very much near the truth at all. we can not even know if this was the real presentation in this order of the questions. we know at least that the australian blond presenter one was cut out some bits. we have nothing to be sure, the answers are given to the questions we hear.

and because of that it is hard to use questions and answers in relation to each other and that does matter. 
so this is not the best practice to use it for statement analysis at all too. 
and i already hear him say, new interview and it is not, it is all from older ones, just clips. 
the greatest fiddler is usually to find in the name of the producer, not even the guests. because it will be the producer who have the say what will be in it. and in what order. and they want all eyes and ears looking at it, so they have to serve both sides, and all opinions in between. 

and with mitchell at the helm, team mccann is still the other party that have a say in what we will be see on our screens.  

it can never be analyzing a statement, when you use something different than a statement, and in this meaning it is about police statements. 
statement analysis does not tell you what happened, people still must do that, and you still have to get the facts, circumstances and from there getting your hands to possible evidence, so a court of law can give a verdict. 

i d agree with the parts where it is about fixing your attention on what is told, because even there we are used to fill in from our own minds what we expect to hear, and because of that we forget to listen to what is said real time. and that last bit is the part that is informative.

and because our minds are fed constantly information, much more than we even realize, or you must have a autistic mind, we already put a lot of filters in that, but we do not know how that gets together in a specific mind, and we can not say , all words spoken are only fed by an aspect of some event. we do not have a clue how fixated the person in front of you is on that specific event. so it is unknown how much other events take a share in how they say things at all. 

also it is quite easy to learn from experience, meaning the reactions to an earlier presentation will be of assistance of the next one. humans are easy to train.

and in a real time interview in a police station, it is not so much about spot the lies, but much more in first gathering information, and find the spots people are out of line, say unexpected things, or behave unexpected, and it only means that when you can pout a question mark, you work around that matter and look for a way to clear that question up. for a witness it is a shame, the witnesses itself often do not understand that they only can tell the truth, but the one that is listen to them has to accept there words only can be the true reflections, they hardly ever are. 

i do not think i ever heard even a complete true story from anyone, witnesses and possible criminals alike. 
all people do like to hide something, and there can be even mistakes in places, days and times.
but because you do not have to work with just one statement, you will get it all into a pattern that shows such little things easy. most are not things that even reflect on the case at all. not all untrue bits are put in a story with a purpose even. 
and looking for a pattern in it all is something that becomes second nature, and outlier information is not always given from menace, or even to misled at all. and it usually is very time consuming. but the strange thing is, that when 5 say we did go left, and just one said we did go right, that the 5 are correct. all 6 could tell even the wrong way, because none ever did go left or right at all. it is much more that is is a question that can have need of an answer. only it is often hard to see if it matters at all in the story of the case itself. because most is just noise.

there is also the well experienced porky teller, and the nasty thing is, they are not always also part of a case.
and if they are, they can even lie about things that have nothing to do with the case.

so yeah, i do understand there is put a lot of effort in looking for more tools to escape that all quicker, so you get much earlier in working a case the pattern of the event. but nothing is truly that helpful. 
most only work for the low picking fruits, and you have hardly a need for that. 
and hiding things by a human is just not the easy stuff as it made out. 
proving someone is telling not a true story in itself  is never a kind of proof they also did something in your case. it is not a kind of evidence that is very useful. 

and there is something else, ever looked for credentials of the people who are so called experts in these fields, because none of them are to be checked by independent sources at all. 

and i am getting a bit lost with this guy. telling you are a lawyer is not something that proves a thing. there is no name, no credentials at all, he does not do fresh cases, most are done to dead long ago by others, it is quite simple to pick and choose what you want to use, so hardly original stuff. nothing that really puts him to the test. fishing in his followers to connect him to the more known names.  

also quite a lot of commercials for himself in it, to buy a card set, to become a paid member. 
you tube put quite a stop to monetizing the so called true crime stuff when they do not use their own work.

A lot of nuances are missed by watching a video, face to face is the best way to interview, imo. I believe  that the eyes are the window to the soul

I can usually tell if someone is lying by watching their mouth, I don't look at the eyes at all.
They do little sighs and purse their lips at certain times, together with slight movements of the head and shoulders.

media interviews are even very different, because most are not just a plain teken interview, besides the competence of the interviewer, there are such more influences from others. you do not know if there have been bits retaken, or that there was a rehearsal of it all. it only is a very big chance you look at a manipulated video of some people. 

yes, in person with nothing that can disturb anything, is very different. and you would also have the freedom to just put other questions in. or ask the same in a different way. just letting them talk does not always work, some people can talk for an hour, without a lie in sight and escaping to reach into any information at all. 
others never say simply no word at all. but at least you get a look at the full person.

in most continental law we can not convict on a confession, it makes little differences even, because you still have to prove the case. so a simple 'i dit that' does not mean you can put the case into a court. 
that little point of law in no one is obligated to work with you into its own conviction, stands in the way of that, and because of that a suspect can keep its silence, but is even allowed to lie in every possible way or manner and cab even retract all that is said. 

i never believed in formats for each case, or each person, it is much easier to go by what a case asks, you know what you do have, and what you need to complete the case. but how you get to it within the boundaries of the law, can be very different in approach. there is simply not a golden standard that always works. 

i can give an example about the dutch saying, where the heart(or mind) is full of the mouth would speak, or will flow over. there are locally a bit different ways this is said. but you can not know if the mind is full with taking a nice dip in the hotel swimming pool, because you are seated under the hot lights in a studio during your interview, or if that mind is full of the case and it is something with a meaning to that case. 

so fixing yourself on the water element as is done in many of the video's is quite a bridge to far for me, because there is no way to know what is in the mind of that person. it failed even with mri testing about lies and meaning of words for the test object. 

but i am getting the feeling is is just the next made up guy. no name, no credentials, and he is not doing what he sells you. he does nothing in learning others in how to spot deception at all. 
i get a bit smelling a rat about his concept. the choice of cases to hark in a public and a paying public.

if it was a email in your mailbox, it has long overdue the marking it as spam mail. 

you do not know who sends a message, why he does it, is not what is used to learn you in the video's, there is nothing original at all in his sayings. he let others make connections to other known names. 

and he goes on about lies, instead of the correct term deception. there is nothing that not is to find by just googling it, or look to work of others already on you tube. he did not read up in any of the cases, and does not mind misconceptions he made out of his wrongly fed opinion, and does not correct these at all. 

it is way beyond what i think about the system of statement analysis, the guy not even tells you what system he uses, there are quite a few different ones. 
his voice and the use he makes of it, is much better than a peter hyatt, who is missing independent credentials too by the way. dd is better in making video's too. 
he is much better in feeding his public too, and he wants gets fed by public too. 

so my poppycock meter is going up from it. you know you nicked that word from the dutch, where the original was as bad as the cow version.

Any form of video footage is questionable - adapted to deceive.

The first few seconds of this latest click bait reflects again on the Deception Detective's credibility, he takes everything at face value, doesn't for on moment consider veracity.

Anyone with a grain of savvy can see that Australian video tape has been doctored to produce the desired effect - shock horror scandal, the show's presenter is a minx of the highest calibre.

Journalists are all cut from the same cloth, they write and speak in such a way to incite interest with a heavy dose of sensationalism then maintain that interest by creating a false image - in short what they don't know they invent.

Geeez, this is like having fleas.