I haven't even attempted putting this blog onto any of the 'anti' Facebook pages that actually allow me to be a member because I know it will be rejected. Most Facebook pages follow their own accepted party line, and alternate views are strictly forbidden.
The majority of antis accepted without question, the final verdict of Peter Hyatt, and anyone who didn't was a spoilsport at best or a shameless scavenger (courtesy of the charmless Ben), at worst. Not to mention a defender of the parents.
All these people who run the Facebook pages and the Forums and tweet on the #McCann hashtag all day, it seems, are happy to accept absolutely anything at face value if it is critical of the McCanns. Questioning it's validity or source is seen as an act of treachery. They have in fact gone full circle and become blind believers like those on the other side. Once again, they have been left with the customary egg on their faces, still arguing on the trail about whether to follow the shoe or the gourd.
Though I have many reading and commenting, I have only had one retweet of this blog, because I have now become the enemy! As I have said many times, I am beyond the point of reasonable doubt where the abduction story is concerned, but I find the 'new' allegations from the armchair detectives abhorrent. They are not introducing new evidence, they are trying to sex the case up because the facts just aren't juicy enough.
Those who are members of the large Facebook pages and Forums should ask themselves why I'm barred, and why my blogs are rejected? Are those the actions of people who are genuinely seeking the truth? People like Ben, or as I like to think of him, 'Tony Bennett - the Early Years', who rages against me on twitter and gawd knows where else?
Just to be clear, I'm no fan of Kate and Gerry's, and I doubt they like me very much either, but just as their being 'nice' put them above suspicion, their being horrible doesn't make them guilty of EVERYthing that is thrown at them. Unfortunately, it is because of those who are so quick to believe the very worst that there has never been any credible opposition to Team McCann.
If I were Gerry and Kate McCann, I wouldn't be worrying too much about the 3 hours of statement analysis given by Peter Hyatt in Richard's Hall's continuation of the Madeleine McCann saga.
As interesting and lucrative as Mr. Hyatt's hobby might be, it is a not recognised as a legitimate science and he won't be called to a witness box anytime soon. Turning the tables on Mr. Hyatt, in his opening statement to Richard Hall, he relates how his hobby became his business. He started by reading a few books, then in his employment he was given 200 hours of training. Ok, let's stop there. What kind of training? What, if any, university? Then he states, he went onto more formal training. Again, who with? what qualifications did he achieve?
Though vague, he is actually describing his employment history as social work, he is not part of law enforcement. He yadayadas his way through his achievements and employment history, in the same way we all do when we have to account for missing years on our CVs. However, regardless of not producing anything of substance, such as letters after his name, he still manages to put forward a reasoned argument to back up his own thesis.
I have to admit I was mesmerised the clarity of Hyatt's explanations and his own 100% belief in his work, His enthusiasm for his subject is so strong, he is disturbingly convincing. He leaves no room for doubt. And this is where I have a problem. All the academics and scholars I have ever known always leave a little grey area for doubt, aware that others may come along with further knowledge and more advanced theories. Those who have reached that point where they are right, dead right, have stopped learning.
In fairness to Mr. Hyatt, he does say that statement analysis is an ongoing learning process, but regardless, with only the statement analysis skills he has acquired thus far, and without reading the police files, he claims to have solved the Madeleine mystery solely by analysing the words used by the parents. That is quite a grandiose claim, but one of many made throughout the marathon interview.
I have to say I came away from the videos wondering how such an apparently educated and sane chap could be associated with Richard Hall, Tony Bennett and the Cesspit. It didn't take too much 'research' (ha ha) however, to discover Mr. Hyatt's degree is actually in bible studies and like his protégé Hobbs, he is scarily anti Islam.
The reality is, the statement analysis doesn't reveal anything new. Many of us without expert knowledge, have seen through the lies of Gerry and Kate for many years. Their lack of concern for Madeleine's fate hasn't passed us by either. The conclusions reached by Peter Hyatt, are almost identical to the conclusions reached by Goncalo Amaral in his book and documentary The Truth of the Lie. Madeleine had a fall, it was accidental, the parents hid the body.
I am not dismissing statement analysis as mumbo jumbo, far from it, the study of language is my own particular passion, but it is a huge leap to assume guilt on words alone. Much as I hate to burst a few more bubbles, those getting carried away with this supposedly damning evidence, really ought to have done a few cursory checks.
I'm afraid that I was so traumatised by the vicious backlash with the paypal button that I never actually activated it! Many thanks to those who have contacted me, your kindness has lifted my head back up above the parapet. The button is now working for those who understand the life of a struggling writer! Many thanks.