I really did go into this subject with an open mind, and found the interviews with Peter Hyatt absolutely compelling. But the more I think about it, the more sceptical I become.
The beauty of language and the meaning of words lies in the fact that it is continually evolving, elst thou woudst ad infinitum be speaking middle England circa 1600. It doesn't stand still, if it did, we would unashamedly be having wicked gay festivals every Sunday on the village green.
Added to which we come to every text we read as a unique individual, that is we already have a fixed set of values and beliefs, and indeed prejudices, and we will take from the text we are reading, exactly what we want.
For those interested in deconstructing literature, there is a very important essay by Roland Barthes entitled 'Death of the Author' which basically raises the question of whether the text is influenced by the author's life. Do they bring their own lives into the words they are writing? Well clearly they do, Charles Dickens exposed the cruelty and injustice of Victorian values by recreating his own poverty ridden childhood. Charles Chaplin through his tramp and underdog. They created fictional characters to attack the 'system' - writers, artists, musicians have historically expressed the pain of the common man through their art. It is a safe way to throw a custard pie at the establishment.
But I digress, the point I am trying to make, and struggling it must be said, is that language, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. When we are staring at that painting on the gallery wall, our brain, at the speed of light, is sifting through every memory it has trying to find a match, something that will explain what we are looking at. Mostly it is seeking pleasure signals. Ergo, what is seen in the eye of every beholder will be entirely different.
I am only touching the surface of the study of language. Whilst I pretend to be interested in the linguistic and cognitive science work of Noam Chomsky, the truth is, it is way above my head!
Every word is open to interpretation, and the most important part of comprehension is understanding the context in which he word is used. As my dear old dad got older (and grumpier), he became obsessed with quality of his socks. To stress his point, he explained some socks became so tight around the ankles they became ferocious! From then on all socks purchased had to be strictly of the non ferocious kind. Did his use of the inappropriate 'ferocious' reveal his hidden serial killer? Not at all, Christmas was on the way and he was very particular about his socks.
Those defending the statement analysis by stressing Peter Hyatt's lack of knowledge about the case are doing him less favours, not more. No credible scientist would go into research saying only tell me that bit, nothing more. It would be reckless at the very least and would leave their theory wide open to attack. As has happened.
But lets return to Mr. Barthes, can you separate the analyst, Mr. Hyatt, from his work? He is a religious zealot. He believes, he, and his kind, will be raised to heaven on the day of Judgement and the rest of us, will, quite rightly, burn for all eternity in the fires of hell. Some could interpret that as despising anyone who is not like himself.
Now, is it really a good idea to have people who hold those kind of lunatic beliefs working within Law Enforcement? He, like Bennett, believes there are all sorts of sexual shenanigans going on in the suburbs all round him, to which he is excluded. And like Bennett, he wants to root them out and start their own personal bonfires in this life. I have always wondered how to sum up pure evil, but that need to witch hunt nears the top of the list.
But here is a direct challenge. Who, apart from Peter Hyatt and Tania Cadogan would say doors and windows signal child abuse? Especially in a case where it is alleged the crime scene was staged and the doors, and window especially, played a vital part in the collective alibi. Their interpretation is fanciful on their part, and loaded with their own prejudices (everyone is at it, bar them) and they want to add a juicy aspect to this case, and sign people up for the course.
Having lived with, and alongside, children who were regularly being abused, these claims by so called 'experts' as to how abused children act, sicken me. They are clueless, and their claims are not only disgusting, but absurd. Most of what they allege happens, is a product of their own sick imaginations and bears no resemblance to reality.
It is clear to everyone in the world, the real experts, their family, their friends, their teachers, their doctors, and the clearly, bright, outgoing, kids themselves, that they are not now, and never have been abused. And it is unethical and immoral to suggest they have been. We are each responsible for our own behaviour on the internet, we answer only to ourselves. We can't censor Hyatt or Bennett, nor should we. But we can counter their distasteful accusations with sanity and common sense.