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

Tony Bennett wrote:

HKP wrote:@Hobs

Sorry but that's balderdash! Peter mentioned throughout the video that this was only his opinion (not science). The Australian interview answers were given after literally hundreds of interviews appearances etc. The story was in answer to Amaral's theory / accusation and anybody (without any statement analysis training) can hazard a good guess that they were being deceitful (whether that be tone, body language or hesitances). Peter has just concluded the Amaral theory was correct, how convenient for him. As for that transcript being evidence of sexual abuse...that's not evidence it's an interpretation

I think we may be being a little harsh on Hobs and Peter Hyatt here.

Indeed I think we have been indebted to Hobs for many years on CMOMM as she has shared certain principles with us that undoubtedly do hold good. 

For example, 'distancing language', of which we have seen dozens of examples in this case: 'this girl' etc.

People like judges, the police and social workers are formally trained in how to spot liars. Leaving aside body language and facial expressions, eye contact and all of those visual things wich can tell us so much (and also have done in this case), words themselves can also tell us much.

Two common examples are these:

1. Long rambling denials, instead of a simple 'No'. Peter Hyatt would be supported by every statement analyst and expert in lie detection on the planet in analysing: 'No. And that's an emphatic no', and the long rambling answer that follows, in very much the same way as Hyatt has done.

2. When asked about an incident, where a person answers 'I would have done this' instead of 'I did this', this is recognised everywhere as good evidence of not telling the truth.

I would compare the emerging discipline of statement analysis with those of psychiatry and psychology. It is perfectly possible to have psychiatrists and psychologists who DO know what they are talking about, and are true experts. But experts can disagree; look how many court cases there are where expert psychiatrists and psychologists disagree with each other. Is John Smith mentally ill? One says 'Yes', another says 'No'.

Where I am particularly sceptical about Peter Hyatt's analysis, however (and Hobs'), is where he strays into informing us that certain words tell us to be on the look-out for sexual activity or sexual abuse.

Hobs has mentioned that the use of words like 'water' and 'shower' may be indicators that someone is thinking about sex a lot, or referring to sexual activity. Peter Hyatt has now added the concept that the use of words like 'doors' and 'windows' also reveal that someone is referring to sexual activity

I would like to see the evidence for these assertions.

@ Hobs, can you help us here? Can you please point us to any literature at all on the subject, preferably peer-reviewed, where we can read what statement analysts have claimed to have discovered about the use of words like 'water', 'showers', 'doors' and 'windows' and whether they indicate or refer to sexual activity? Thanks.

On that point especially, I share the sceptcism of Verdi and HKP, but am willing to look at any good evidence with an open mind

Tony Cadogan wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:   @ Hobs, can you help us here? Can you please point us to any literature at all on the subject, preferably peer-reviewed, where we can read what statement analysts have claimed to have discovered about the use of words like 'water', 'showers', 'doors' and 'windows' and whether they indicate or refer to sexual activity? Thanks.”

REPLY BY TONY CADOGAN 

Respectfully.

“…preferably peer-reviewed…“

Why “preferably” (as opposed to simply peer-reviewed)?

Who are the ‘peers’ you have in mind in this instance?

Let’s consider a hypothetical situation.

Let’s say you read a book on haruspication and alchemy  both of which the writer insist on referring to as  sciences.  Being in doubt as to the validity of such writer’s insistence and wishing to overcame your doubts, whose relevant opinions on the matter would you consider as having more weight in you search for a resolution of your doubts, those of the current members of The Royal Society or Thomas Becket’s and Newton’s?

REPLY : You have opened up a very big subject - and you're quite right to do so on the current issue of evaluating the expertise of Peter Hyatt.

How does one judge the degree of knowledge and expertise of an expert?

You mention the Royal Society. Presumably as a guarantor of expertise and the ability to peer review scientific subjects.

In general, I would agree with that proposition.

But even here, scientists with an agenda can give false opinions.

Two examples:

Man-made climate change. Most scientists agree that there is currently man-made global warning, i.e. that 'greenhouse gases' like carbon dioxide are making the planet warmer. I disagree, and the reason I disagree is because, having read extensively on the subject, the science tells me that increased warmth CAUSES more carbon dioxide not the other way around.  There are tens of thousands of very well-qualified scientists who can show that other factors are at work; mainly changes in the output of heat and energy from the sun. After all, the other planets having been warning up along with us. The reason why we are being fed junk climate science is because massive amounts of money are poured into those scientists who uphold the 'man-made' view. Why that is the case is yet another matter.  

The same with the theory of evolution.  There is no evidence whatsoever that evolution is true - and a whole swathe of evidence against it. The reason why secular scientists promote it is simple; they have an agenda. They do not want to believe in God - and deny the existence of a Creator who might have designed the universe and all the marvellous things within it. That is why the tens of thousands of well-qualified creation scientists are NEVER peer-reviewed by scientists who belong to the Royal Society. The attitude is simply this: "You believe in God? We will not review your scientific arguments for creation".

I agree it not easy to 'peer review' things like body language interpretations and Statement Analysis. Yet Statement Analysts ARE regularly used in police work. They are used because they give accurate interpretations. But they must be used with caution and AFAIK they are not recognised as expert evidence by any courts.

Take another example: statins. Experts say that taking statins significantly reduces heart disease. Seven million people in Britain take them. My doctor said I should take them. I have refused, because again having read up on the subject, I don't think the scientific evidence is there to support them. Most of the research is produced or funded by the pharmaceutical companies who make them. 

Would you agree that even one link to a legal case in which Statement Analysis is referred to in evidence or the judgement would be most helpful in the circumstances?  I think it would.

REPLY: No I would NOT agree with that because, as I've said, Statement Analysis guides police officers, but is NOT AFAIK ever used in courts. Mind you, juries use Statement Analysis all the time! - and I've been in jury rooms. There is usually at least one juror who will comment on a witness's evidence and point out how s/he is lying. 

What we need from Peter Hyatt, or any other Statement Analyst or body language expert for that matter, is authentic testimonials from police or other agencies who have used his analytical techniques and found them useful. I do not know if he has these on his site or not. If he does, that would be good evidence in his favour

tinkier wrote:Statement analysis helps determine how people reveal many things based on what they say. Information given can DIRECT/ASSIST officers in their line of questioning. It's an aid, a tool, nothing more nothing less. The FBI wouldn't use it or train officers in it if there was evidence to suggest it was useless!

Tony Bennett wrote:

Tony Cadogan wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:How does one judge the degree of knowledge and expertise of an expert?

But even here, scientists with an agenda can give false opinions.

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

Verdi wrote:The connotation of water;  hygiene;  lights switched on and off;  doors opening closing;  would be an issue embedded in the sub-conscience of the victim, not the perpetrator.  The victim lives in fear of past experiences of sexual abuse, not the perpetrator.

Cmaryholmes wrote:It was a stupid question, anyway.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Cmaryholmes wrote:It was a stupid question, anyway.

But was it?

Arguably, it was a great question.

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

Verdi wrote:

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

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

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

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

JohnyT wrote:

Verdi wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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