Tuesday, 6 December 2016


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. 


  1. If I were you I'd lay off the sauce. Did you delete your previous blog entry accidentally while frantically typing this nonsense?

    The title reads: The Problem with Statement Analysis

    That's a claim made about Statement Analysis in general, not a particular example thereof, whether conducted by Peter Hyatt or anyone else.

    O.K., so what IS the problem with Statement Analysis? Whatever it may be the reader is not going to discover it here, only a pot pourri of bizarre grammatical errors, as if the author were a one-handed typist clutching a bottle of vodka with the other free hand.

    As I said earlier - lay off the sauce.

    1. By sauce do you mean impudent disrespectful language?

      A one handed typist does not have another hand.

      What would Hyatt make of you?
      A wanker as you mention hands?
      Food for thought!

    2. Wow, inform the Grammar Police 18:32, I'm sure they will get a SWAT team on it straight away.

      As the thrust of my argument appears to have gone straight over your head, let me explain. All words are subject to the interpretation of the reader, and if that reader is already predisposed to believe or not believe, the actual words won't change anything. Words make up a very tiny part of the way in which we communicate. The study of language cannot be reduced to one tiny area of research, excluding everything else. It makes no sense!

      You will not read a text in the same way as I will, because we hold such polemic differences of opinion. The Irish 'problem' for example. I will see the history of Ireland from the side of the freedom fighters, you from side of the colonists.

      As for the 'sauce' my guilty pleasure is green tea, in a china cup of course. I very rarely drink alcohol these days, the spirit is willing, but the body objects! I have little to zero tolerance, and become giggly and loud on just the one glass, by glass 2 I'll have a sing song, and by glass 3 I am comatose, lol. Embarrassingly, not before telling everyone I luuuuve them.

      Returning to the beauty of language, is there possibly a more repulsive or debased expression than 'one handed typist'? The vodka adds nothing, it's dirty and filthy enough as it is. It's not even original 18:32, it is something you have copied because you admired it, it reflects your thinking and immature, lavatorial sense of humour.

    3. I am eager to learn 18:32. What is the correct spelling: pot pourri or potpourri?

    4. 'Google' it. You'll find both.

      "The beauty of language and the meaning of words lies in the fact that it is continually evolving"

    5. JJ @19:40

      "By sauce do you mean impudent disrespectful language?"

      No, but the article's full of such isn't it?

      "A one handed typist does not have another hand".

      They do if you read the whole sentence. Try it. Or would you view Roger Federer's one-handed backhand as the stroke of an amputee?

      "What would Hyatt make of you?"

      I don't know. I doubt he'd be interested.

      "A wanker as you mention hands?
      "Food for thought!"

      Only if you're that keen to swallow.

    6. Rosalinda @19:56

      "is there possibly a more repulsive or debased expression than 'one handed typist'?"

      Try your own paragraph which begins: 'Now, is it really a good idea'.

      I fail to see how personal attacks on others advances your arguments in any way. Instead of telling readers what is wrong with Statement Analysis you have simply taken yet another opportunity to denigrate a sole practitioner, with claims as presumptuous as they are inappropriate. Nor is your manner confined to your prime target:

      "You will not read a text in the same way as I will, because we hold such polemic differences of opinion. The Irish 'problem' for example. I will see the history of Ireland from the side of the freedom fighters, you from side of the colonists."

      How on earth do you presume to know this to be the case?

      I am not challenging your 'opinions', which are neither of interest to me personally nor in fact
      germane to the title of your piece, which constitutes a question you fail to address.

      Statement analysis, at least as far as I understand it, is not to be compared with exercises in comprehension, and not therefore bedevilled by the sort of interpretive bias you allude to.

    7. This is exactly what is wrong with statement analysis without context
      If one said the author was typing with one hand(one-handed) while clutching a vodka bottle with the other free hand, no problem.
      If you state a one-handed typist it means exactly that.

    8. "If one said the author was typing with one hand(one-handed) while clutching a vodka bottle with the other free hand, no problem."

      No problem then. It wouldn't make sense to refer to the 'free hand' if there weren't one, would it?

      "as if the author were a one-handed typist clutching a bottle of vodka with the other free hand."

      I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase 'single-handed', commonly used to describe someone acting alone - not someone with only one hand.

      As to statement analysis without context, I dare say the techniques practised during the course of a police investigation are necessarily governed by the overall context of the investigation itself.

      Attempting an analysis 'cold', as it were, may be inappropriate. I wouldn't like to say. If that's a factor worthy of discussion then Rosalinda ought to discuss it, with appropriate examples for or against.

      I happen to think that, in this instance, describing Peter Hyatt as a prudish religious zealot fails to address the very question she appears to raise at the outset.

    9. You have also failed to see that I was replying to a personal attack on myself 00:19. The phrase 'one handed typing' refers to masturbation and it is commonly used in Cesspit II (JATKY2). The correspondent was actually implying I had 3 hands, one to type, one to masturbate, and one to hold a bottle of vodka.

      I have given an example. Hyatt claims doors and windows indicate sexual abuse, completely ignoring the fact that doors and windows are being used in this context to demonstrate an abduction had taken place.

      As for your final paragraph, my description of Peter Hyatt as a religious zealot, illustrates all the prejudices he brings with him to any analysis. He is already preconditioned to believe that he is surrounded by sexual deviants, he is actively looking for evidence to support his confirmation bias. Like Bennett, it's his life work.

      I don't claim to be a psychologist or even an expert, but I have spent a lifetime studying human behaviour and indeed the English Language. My quest is to discover what it is that makes people evil, and extreme religious fervour is usually in one of the top spots.

      Peter Hyatt's analysis is worthless because it is tainted by the beliefs and agenda of the author. Unlike credible experts, he is going into his investigation with a very narrow, shut off mind, he is right, dead right. Thankfully, that is not how discovery and enlightenment works.

    10. Should add, I was astounded by your final sentence that statement analysis is not be compared with exercises in comprehension! It's ALL about comprehension!

    11. Anonymous 6 December 2016 at 22:22

      I appreciate the astuteness of your comments and your sense of humour.

      However. Would you not agree that the meaning of ‘one-handed’ is different in ‘Roger Federer's one-handed backhand’ and ‘one-handed Roger Federer’?


    12. I’m not 22:22, but is it a matter of standard and slang?



    13. No, it is not.

    14. I am 22:22 and I agree that the meaning is different in the examples you give.

      Nevertheless the phrase 'one-handed typist' ought to be perfectly understood where sufficient context is given.

      Reference to use of the other hand to hold a bottle makes it absolutely clear that 'one-handed' is here referring primarily to the activity, rather than the person in the strict sense.

      Describing someone as a 'two-fingered typist' (or pianist even) would not normally be taken to imply that the person concerned lacked the other six.

      As it happens, the Wikipedia entry for Chay Blyth reads: "He was the first person to sail single-handed non-stop westwards around the world."

      Of course he completed the mission with both his hands intact.

    15. Rosalinda @10:54/11:02

      It would seem your presumption knows no bounds.

      "The phrase 'one handed typing' refers to masturbation"

      In your lexicon perhaps, not mine.

      "The correspondent was actually implying I had 3 hands, one to type, one to masturbate, and one to hold a bottle of vodka."

      I, being the correspondent, implied no such thing and it is scurrilously misleading of you to say so. If that is the interpretation you choose to place on what I actually wrote, then I suggest you cease reading the web-site(s) you refer to as your linguistic authorities and turn instead to sources more becoming of an aspiring author.

      Two paragraphs further on and your tone is no less libellous of Peter Hyatt before you go on announce: "I don't claim to be a psychologist or even an expert."

      What therefore is the basis for your outrageous claims, other than 'women's intuition'? (Allow me to pre-empt your inevitable accusation of misogyny and acknowledge instead your lifetime spent studying people and the English language).

      "It's ALL about comprehension!"

      Had you read Mark McClish on the subject ('I Know You Are Lying?') you would perhaps appreciate just how wrong you are. I can recommend it as a vehicle for 'discovery and enlightenment' in this instance.

      "Peter Hyatt's analysis is worthless...Unlike credible experts"

      Since this is the true subject of your piece, you would have done well to make that clear in your title, i.e., 'The Problem With Peter Hyatt's Statement Analysis'.

      Instead of which you offer one thing yet deliver another. If I buy a can of beans at the local supermarket I don't expect afterwards to discover it contains peas. Nowhere do you address yourself to Statement Analysis per se. Instead the reader is treated to yet another poorly substantiated personal attack on Peter Hyatt.

      "My quest is to discover what it is that makes people evil"

      So you say. If that truly is your 'quest' then may I respectfully suggest you dedicate more of your time to the discovery aspect and less to the vociferous denigration of other people/practices about whom and about which you are, on your own admission, largely ignorant.

    16. Ah! The Mark McClish, business associate of Peter Hyatt.

      McClish the man credited with the theory of 3, as 3 is the liars number.

      Hyatt tells us whenever McClish sees the number 3 no matter where it appears he questions it. McClish doesn't assume its deceptive but he looks at the number 3 and goes, Hmmmmmmm.

      So finding Madeleine went missing on May 3rd from a bedroom with 3 kids, they were on holiday with 3 other couples and Madeleine was 3 years old, his cup would runneth over.

      Is it any wonder people question statement analysis.

    17. I am duly scolded, and indeed quite eloquently, if I may say so!

      However, you are using your methodical mind to draw me into an analytical argument that holds no appeal whatsoever. For one thing, in a second viewing of those videos, I would be statement analysing Peter Hyatt and life is just too short.

      I am fascinated by any claims by anyone, of being able to 'spot lying', however, I have over the years, become very discerning, where lie detection is concerned at least - for Paul Ekman and Pamela Mayer, I have all the time in the world.

    18. JJ @20:35

      "..finding Madeleine went missing on May 3rd from a bedroom with 3 kids, they were on holiday with 3 other couples and Madeleine was 3 years old, his (McClish') cup would runneth over"

      Even though...

      "McClish doesn't assume it (the number 3) is deceptive"

      "Is it any wonder people question statement analysis."

      It would be if they were to do so on this basis. I guess one man's justification is another's non sequitur.

    19. Oops, I forgot to pick up on the feminist prod, lol. I am not sure I have ever claimed feminine intuition for anything. In any event I am a post feminism feminist and then some - vive la difference!

      I intensely dislike women who use feminism to get an unfair advantage, or use it as a shield when they just don't have a better argument. As for the cavalier use of the word misogynist, it's true meaning has been diluted and trivialised.

      Those Labour women in parliament shame strong women everywhere, women who don't faint when voices are raised and bad language is used. And women who inspire their daughters to be just as confident and strong as their sons.

      All these language laws are driving me nuts, we will eventually be left with nothing but bland, PC monotone conversations, probably with a new arm of law enforcement to ensure we all comply.

    20. 21:57

      You can recommend Mark McClish to Ros to show how wrong she is
      I am just informing her and other readers McClish and Hyatt are business associates.
      They sell the same packages so McClish is hardly likely to rubbish Hyatt and vice versa.

      The sentence ends McClish doesnt assume the number 3 is deceptive but thinks Hmmmmmmm
      I've seen a number 3 I need to look at this a wee bit more.

      Many people believe what the tea leaves foretell many think its bunk
      Statement analysis is a valuble detection tool as in the way it is employed by the FBI it cannot possibly work as used by Hyatt in the Mccann case

    21. "Statement analysis is a valuble detection tool as in the way it is employed by the FBI it cannot possibly work as used by Hyatt in the Mccann case."

      If only Rosalinda had made that distinction somewhere (anywhere) in her original post!

    22. Rosalinda 7.12 @22:58

      I agree. Moral indignation is too often a stratagem of first resort where genuine answers to genuine questions are elusive.

  2. I'm on the pro-abduction side, and often post on here to vent my contrary views, but must say for once that I agree with pretty well everything you've written here. Well done!

    1. Unfortunately 18:37, both sides have been so entrenched for so long, rational discourse has been impossible.

      Too many people have been misled by self righteous tub thumpers who use other peoples' faults to make themselves feel less inadequate. The neglectful doctors gave many the opportunity, to stand up and brag about their own perfect parenting. And the biggest creep among them took a private action against them for neglect.

      I have often wondered over the years, why questioning the Madeleine abduction was seen as so heinous. And to be honest, it is only in recent times that I have taken an even further step back, that I can see just how darn right wicked most of the accusations are.

      Justice should be based on truth, not the crazy rantings of religious zealots. I have no problem with them making themselves look like idiots, I just don't want to be linked to them.

  3. What I didn't understand was how he could accuse the McCanns of not showing concern for Madeleine when their responses were to specific questions and were 'analysed' in fragments. Surely they couldn't be expected to express concern for Madeleine at the end of every sentence? Not that I believe a word they say, but Mr. Hyatt does seem a little woolly in places.

    1. Good point 18:44, that's what I love about this place being so interactive - I think we all missed that one!

      They were of course answering SPECIFIC questions and the interviewer would have thought they had lost the plot if they kept wandering off topic.

      Besides which, EVERY interview they gave had an agenda, an agenda that could probably be directly linked to the events that were going on at the time.

      There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that Clarence Mitchell was steering the content of the interviews. That is, getting the interviewer to agree the questions beforehand and forbidding certain topics. At the time he could, McCann stories were very much in demand, it was a case of highest bidder and most compliant.

      Unfortunately for Mr. Hyatt, the McCanns lack of concern for Madeleine was the bloody great big red flag that attracted all the sleuths to this case in the first place!

    2. I also take issue with Hyatt over the door analysis. Apparently, anyone who makes mention of a door, is reverting to a time in their childhood, when an abusive parent opened their bedroom door and lingered there before molesting them. Many times there were valid reasons to mention the door being opened. Hyatt also suspects anyone who says my child over my kid was also molested.. several of his statement analysis do not make sense.

  4. Hyatts analysis is "we must believe Kate as she tells us her memories of that night are really vivid and we must believe Kate as her hormones were on super high alert, as that evening was anything but normal" and we must believe Kate when she said she gave her kids treats (sedatives) on that night.

    Why would Kate speak this way about Thursday 3rd May if Madeleine disappeared on the Sunday/Monday.

    Do all the village idiots join CMOMM?

    1. It would appear so

    2. Appearances can be deceptive. I think some of them camp out here.

  5. Mr. Hyatt said he wasn't impressed by the interviewer questioning the McCanns, but he didn't seem to notice when Richard steered him in the direction of his own theories about when Madeleine actually disappeared.

  6. How can Peter Hyatt make accurate determinations from watching TV interviews when he has no idea what might have been edited out?

    1. That's an absolutely excellent point.

      The objections to the Hyatt stuff I'll leave to others. My question would be, why are people so keen on those who merely reinforce their own views?

      Doing so is a guarantee that you're shutting your ears to everything that doesn't agree with what you think you already know. In other words, a guarantee that you'll never learn uncomfortable truths. But life is largely made up of uncomfortable truths.

    2. 17: 32 I agree with John, excellent point!

    3. John Blacksmith @19:29

      "life is largely made up of uncomfortable truths."

      Ain't that the (uncomfortable) truth. Best hope we're all sitting comfortably when the truth is established in this case.

    4. John Blacksmith @19:29

      "...why are people so keen on those who merely reinforce their own views?"

      Human nature? (cf. Labour/Conservative, Republican/Democrat etc., etc.).

      Scientists are also rather chuffed when a different lab. replicates their experiment(s) with the same outcome. It reinforces the original finding.

  7. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 December 2016 at 21:04

    17: 32 I agree with John"
    No surprise there then!

    1. Yes. Coming at the case from completely different standpoints and angles we often agree on major aspects of it. Sorry about that.

    2. It appears you've just answered your own question as to why people are 'keen on others who support their views'.

    3. If you believe that, my friend, you'll believe anything. And you probably do.

    4. I believe you are no less prone to dogma than anyone else.

      Why should being keen on someone who supports a particular point of view 'guarantee' shutting one's ears off to adverse opinion, and thereby 'guarantee' against learning uncomfortable truths?

      Being keen on Shakespeare does not mean a person will not read Marlowe.

      Favouring one explanation of events over another does not mean that alternatives are never considered (I take it you're familiar with the Programme 'Question Time', even though you may never have seen it).

      Ultimately one has to reckon on and accept the concept, 'weight of evidence', my friend. It is not a question of belief.

    5. Hello. I was talking about reactions to the Hyatt junk.

      Since it is not in any sense evidence that can be used in court but opinion, it adds nothing to the "weight of evidence".

      The weight of publicly known evidence demonstrates that there is no prosecutable case against the McCanns that wouldn't be thrown out of court after one day.

      Nine years after the Portuguese prosecutors stated that fact (and no, they were not "exonerating the McCanns), how does getting yet more opinions from yet more "experts" actually achieve anything?

      The issue now is not a shortage of opinions but of evidence and the only way that such evidence can emerge and be used is via the judicial system. But that system, it seems, is something that neither the McCanns, with their contemptible attempts to sabotage or bypass it, nor most antis ("it's all a fix") believe in, a quite extraordinary piece of self-delusion by both parties.

      Now, why, in your second sentence, are you deliberately misquoting me - when the actual words used are a few centimetres away? I said nothing about "being keen on someone who supports a particular point of view". I spoke only of "why are people so keen on those who merely reinforce their own views?"

      And I added that "doing so is a guarantee that you're shutting your ears to everything that doesn't agree with what you think [note the word think] you already know."

      The point is quite elementary: if you wish to find out the truth about anything you don't need the people who agree with you. You need the other view. If I believe that in France one drives on the left and I'm due to drive to France tomorrow who do I depend on to save my life? The person who agrees with me or the other one?

      It might have been better to deal with what I wrote, not the misleading parody of it that you produced.

      And, in case you have missed it, Hyatt was not about "favouring one explanation of events over another"; he was claiming that there are occult signs not accessible to mere laypeople that give away guilt - which, of course, is exactly what people claimed about ducking witches 700 years ago.

      I make no claims to be free of dogma. As an "anti", however, I will always look at STM and (when it was sentient) JATYK and anywhere else that supports the parents, to see what others are deliberately leaving out and thereby deceiving themselves and us. And, by Christ, there is a great deal of that.

      Attempted falsification, as modern philosophers say, (carried out by the enemies of your theory) is a better route to establishment of truth than verification (carried out by your supporters).

    6. "Hello. I was talking about reactions to the Hyatt junk."

      Then perhaps you too ought to express your thoughts more clearly. I wasn't (talking about that 'Hyatt junk').

      "The objections to the Hyatt stuff I'll leave to others."

      So, having dissociated issues relating to that 'Hyatt stuff':

      "My question would be, why are people so keen on those who merely reinforce their own views?"

      A rather more general misgiving it seems to me.

      "Since it is not in any sense evidence that can be used in court but opinion, it adds nothing to the 'weight of evidence'."

      Obviously not, but I did not once refer to Hyatt's interpretations - at all, never mind in terms of their being 'evidence'.

      "Now, why, in your second sentence, are you deliberately misquoting me - when the actual words used are a few centimetres away?"

      With respect, I did not misquote you. It is a paraphrase - distinguished from a quote by the absence of quotation marks, as you are no doubt aware.

      "It might have been better to deal with what I wrote".

      Again, with respect, I did. It was you who set the 'Hyatt stuff' aside with your very first sentence. In so doing your subsequent 'question' became generalized.

      Now you say you were 'talking about reactions to the Hyatt junk' after all. Well excuse me if I misread your intentions.

      "And, in case you have missed it, Hyatt was not about 'favouring one explanation of events over another'"

      So you are really concerned about 'Hyatt's junk' after all. Forgive me if I should steer clear of getting into that argument.

      I thank you for your lecture on the elementary point of 'falsification', an important principle to which I was introduced by others some 40 years ago.

      But please do not fool yourself into supposing I must have forgotten all about it when making my earlier comments. I was making a general point in response to your own (general point).

      As it happens even the police will be 'keen on those (witnesses) who reinforce their own views' of a suspect considered a 'likely one' - until their alibi checks out and suspicion is allayed.

      I see nothing intrinsically abnormal, devious or dangerous in such behaviour, unless of course it is taken to the extreme of deliberately ignoring contradictory information.

      But that is not 'guaranteed' to happen, is it?

    7. I'm sorry, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about or what your "general point" is. The fault is probably mine.

      Thanks for the reply.

    8. John what do you think the craic is now with the case. I found Hyatt interesting enough but like you know that it has no evidential value and therefore adds nothing to the case. I'm also not a believer in the SY are about to deliver us a patsy.......my god what year do people think we live in I,m Irish and they even stopped trying to fit us up in about 1971. There really is no way that this investigation has been going on for all these years without enough progress to bring them to court is there ?

    9. Don't mention it. The pleasure was entirely mine.

    10. john blacksmith 8 December 2016 at 21:05

      May I ask if you are John Blacksmith of The Blacksmith Bureau?


  8. Ain't that the truth John! So many people go through this life wearing blinkers, but whilst they avoid much of the pain, they also miss out on the pleasure.

    Some I fear, have taken the stuff of their worst nightmares and taken it to create fantastical stories about the McCanns, simply to demonise them. They can't understand why Maddie disappeared, so they are using their imaginations to fill in the blanks.

    Child abuse does of course go on (mostly physical)but it is rarely, if ever, a group activity. I am struggling to think of one single case where a group of parents have sexually abused kids. I have always found the works of Ray Wyre disturbing on a whole different level before anyone cites the Satanic stuff from the 80's.

    It just doesn't happen, and it certainly doesn't happen among a group of aspiring, middle class professionals desperate for adult time and adult company.

    The majority of adults have no sexual interest in children whatsoever, they spend much of their time conspiring how to get away from the kids. When the drinks come out and the conversation starts flowing, the last thing you want is a small child demanding a drink, needing the loo (every 5 minutes) and throwing tantrums.

    Children are delightful, but grown ups NEED grown up time, without it we would go nuts. If these children were being abused, they would not have been taken on holiday, mixing with other kids and being looked after by the resort's nannies. As I have said before, when you have small children, every family 'secret' becomes instant public knowledge.

    Those making the revolting accusations should stop and consider how would they feel, if their kids read something like that about them.

    1. "Some I fear, have taken the stuff of their worst nightmares and taken it to create fantastical stories about the McCanns, simply to demonise them. They can't understand why Maddie disappeared, so they are using their imaginations to fill in the blanks."

      The McCann story supplies plenty to send imaginations running wild. It's like the story itself is planting as many conspiracy seeds as possible.

      They're from Rothley. So straight away its Rothley Temple, Knights Templar, Freemasons, etc etc

      Kate is an anaesthetist. She must be drugging the children. Well of course, she is an anaesthetist, that's what they do !!!

      Gaspars, Podesta, EVR dog, DNA debacle, government involvement. The story has everything. Whenever someone comes out with a theory like - they're all in a secret cult of paedophiles who practice child sacrificing - I'm like, yeah, I know exactly why you think that. I don't agree with you, but I understand how you got there.


    2. It terrifies me how they got there Pete, what kind of fecked up world do they live in? And I am someone, who as a child lived in Abuse Central!

      And it is not as though I have lived my adult life in a protective bubble either, I have met and I've partied with the great, the good and the rock and roll. Yet I have never encountered anything as repulsive as what is suggested by Bennett, Hall and a certain fringe of the antis.

      As a young child with a mother who told fantastical stories all the time, my dad drummed into me 'take everything with a pinch of salt', to begin with, I did actually attempt eating salt, but it, but eventually the true meaning of what he said sank in. And I didn't just apply it to my mum, I applied it to everything.

      If I were a philosopher I would come from the Empiric School, my beliefs and values are based on actual experience, I need evidence.

      I was actually fortunate to have been in that convent during my early adolescence, because I saw such extremes of (bad) human behaviour, that everything I encountered thereafter was mild.

      As a child myself, I had no understanding of what I was witnessing, hence my lifelong quest, but it left me, and indeed all my peers, with a heightened sense of awareness, especially where deviancy and brutality is concerned. So much so, that some people dare not look us in the eye. They know, we know.

      But I have wandered. I feel so strongly that so many kids are being deprived of their freedom because the powers that be, prefer us to live in fear. Child abuse does go on, but not in the ways they would have us believe.

  9. Ros I would be struggling to think of one single case where I have ever witnessed or heard of a group of people heading out for the night and leaving young children most of them under 4 on their own no matter how much they are into each other. Especially a group of aspiring middle class professional. I worked for a number of years in holiday resorts and it still amazes the care that parents on holiday gave to their children I often wondered how they they cope with the constant pressure but cope they did they were hyper vigilant always on alert for danger and in the vast majority of cases where a credit to parenthood. When the McCanns came out with the story they did, not only did it not ring true to me I thought the celeberty endorsement of "we all have done it " reported in the British press was such a disrespectful image to portray of parents here and 1 they certainly didn't deserve. When you take away the neglect of children then you are left wondering what it was that made the tapas 7 support the story that was being told. This is where people struggle and the modern day bogey man for people is CSA but for this to be true it would have to be collective abuse of children by a collection of adults. As you have already said gave me 1 example of this ever happening. So take away neglect of children, take away CSA and you are back to what John Starker says at the very beginning " some big secret". Nobody knows what it is but when the truth comes out it will all make sense

    1. A secret they all share. Who do we include in this? The T9, O'Donnell & Wilkins, Corner, friends and family, the nanny... how far does this stretch? Personally I think it if there is a big secret then they all know.

      If that's the case then IMO that rules out child death. It's too many people. Even with just the T9 it's too many.

      Also, if this is death cover up then I am admittedly incredulous at the mental fortitude of Kate and Gerry. The expert disposal, the complex plan and the intricate lies. All carried out under incredible circumstances.

      Hyatt mentions the "where were you when we cried last night" story. He identifies this as a lie. Okay, I could go along with that, but if it is a lie and she did die then, when you think about it, that is a very clever lie on their part.

      So without death what is the secret?

      Someone mentions Gerry laughing hysterically on the balcony after a few days. You watch that and it doesn't fit with losing a child. It doesn't fit with abduction, death or anything Podesta related. It's just a guy relating a funny story and laughing. Is the secret funny? Is it something we don't expect? The public are horrified by the story, but Gerry is laughing.

      The secret is obviously amusing to those in the know. Gerry smiles when asked - what do you think when people say they saw Madeleine? - that question amuses him. Why? I know everyone thinks death, but it doesn't quite fit IMO

    2. I think it depends on how you interpret what John Stalker 10:25. I interpreted what he said as 'they are not telling the truth' and THAT is the big secret, not that there is another even bigger one coming up behind it. And again, in what context did he say it? Taking those few words away from the rest of what he said, leaves them wide open to be misinterpreted.

      If the McCanns were found guilty of neglect/ child endangerment - they all would. And that would have meant the end of 6 budding medical careers. Not to mention the knock on implications to their families - their children would be classed as at risk.

      The neglect charges alone would have had life changing 10:25. They feared losing their kids and their jobs. There doesn't need to be anything above and beyond death, the facts we all know was condemnation enough.

      As for Gerry. Throughout the entire saga, he has been unable to hide just how darned pleased he is with himself. In almost every interview he lets slip the duping delight (have done a blog on this if anyone interested). Unfortunately, as micro his expressions may have been, our collective human instincts picked up on them many moons ago!

    3. QUOTE....''As for Gerry. Throughout the entire saga, he has been unable to hide just how darned pleased he is with himself. In almost every interview he lets slip the duping delight (have done a blog on this if anyone interested). Unfortunately, as micro his expressions may have been, our collective human instincts picked up on them many moons ago!....UNQUOTE
      Despite the vastly differing life experiences of individuals the human instinct is acutely aware of deception in all its forms. That includes LANGUAGE, be it verbal or body and yet you continue to deride Hyatt. Be honest with yourself Ros. Really honest. Is it Hyatt's association with COMMM that's really the problem for you?

    4. Fair enough, Peter Hyatt's opinion is as valid as anyone's, however, let the reader beware of exactly where Mr. Hyatt is coming from.

      As for his association with CMoMM being a problem for me, I wouldn't think so. Bennett, Hall and CMoMM are already so discredited, a new guru on the block is neither here nor there.

      I personally would never endorse an expert before I had checked them out.

  10. "So take away neglect of children, take away CSA and you are back to what John Stalker says at the very beginning 'some big secret'. Nobody knows what it is but when the truth comes out it will all make sense"

    That's the bottom line alright.

    1. As for the Tapas Nine, given what six of them have in common directly and three indirectly, it might have something to do with ‘reputation’.

      ‘A pact of silence’ as the ‘patient’ will remain silent anyway.


    2. Saturday May 5, 2007

      A colleague of Madeleine's mother offers a £100,000 reward for help in finding the missing girl.


    3. Whooshed:


    4. So, after barely a week, the mother couldn't ask for more following a church service - not even the safe return of her missing daughter, while the father hoped for the 'best possible outcome' for themselves - oh, and for Madeleine.


    5. As I said above 22:51, it takes us back to the matter of semantics! The way in which we interpret what we read and hear.

      For me, failure to give up the body, suggests she may have ingested drugs. And drugs have been leitmotif throughout. Why didn't Maddie cry? Why didn't the twins wake up? Maddie was very sleepy.

      It doesn't take much of a leap of imagination to think that a group of doctors might use their collective skills to have child free evenings?

      The BIG secret is not even a secret, even in the earliest interviews they became angry and hostile at the suggestion they might have sedated the children. Not so they could sneak back to the kids bedrooms and do God knows what to them, but so they could a drink and a chat with their mates without kids running round screaming and crying.

      But I sound brusque. I can see where you are coming from, read from a different perspective it can imply something more, I don't think it does.

    6. "As I said above 22:51, it takes us back to the matter of semantics! The way in which we interpret what we read and hear."

      Purely out of interest, what would be your interpretation of the following remark made by someone publicly associated with the McCann case? (I've withheld the speaker's identity so as not to introduce bias).

      It's not a trick question, nor am I trying to set you up in any way. I'm merely curious as to what you (or others) might make of it, if anything:

      "If it ever came out that either of the McCanns were involved in this, I will be absolutely shocked."

    7. Blimey, I'm guessing it could be the most used phrase in 2017, with variations on past and present tense 10:57. There is a line between thinking all things are bright and beautiful and facing up to reality. Especially for anyone claiming expertise in that particular subject.

      It is pretty tough to accept that nice, successful, middle class, church going professionals could in any way be involved in a heinous crime. They are so far removed from the stereotype and contrary to every belief we hold. It is wrong (in God's eyes) and in the eyes of those who would judge our characters, to think so badly of such a nice family. And shame on those who do. It goes against society's Christian values. Those who attend church regularly, should be above suspicion.

      Is it believable? It would take a huge stretch of the imagination. All those who unquestionably accepted the abduction will, whichever way you look at it, end up with egg on their faces. The experts especially.

    8. Thank you for that intuitive interpretation.

      If I might now ask you to don your sentence parsing hat, may I simply draw attention to the sentence structure, and what is (or is not) required to explain the speaker's possible future reaction:

      "If (it ever came out that) either of the McCanns were involved in this, I will be absolutely shocked."

      Q: What is it that would cause the speaker to be 'absolutely shocked' really - discovering that the McCanns were involved, or 'if it ever came out' that they were?

      There is a subtle, but very real distinction to be drawn between these possibilities.

    9. @14:02

      Wow! Well analysed and food for thought.

      My intuitive interpretation, ‘washing one’s hands of’, is open to modification.

      That person also said: “I’m a human being and we can err.” and “I believe in my lifetime we will find out what happened to Madeleine McCann.”


    10. Hmm, interesting 14:0, open to both interpretations and possibly a few more!

      As for 16:47, yes indeed human beings can err, but the public don't expect that kind of erring from supposed experts in law enforcement.

    11. Anonymous 16:57/Rosalinda 19:23

      There are a great many things the public have a right not to expect, but which occur nonetheless.

      FWIW it seems to me as if the speaker here is alluding to 'old knowledge' that could quite possibly 'come out', to his (and others') disadvantage.

      I could of course be wrong, but his expression of unease might be connected with those activities referred to in Rosalinda's latest piece.

  11. Seamus O Riley is a pen name of Peter Hyatt.

    On November 16th 2012 Seamus/Peter wrote about the McCann case on the Statement Analysis website.

    Hobbs (Tania Cadogan) has been very patient with me (for a long time) until I finally got around to doing detailed work on this case.
    Over the years I have been frustrated with the softball interviewing of the McCanns, it was this (Australian) interview which caught my interest.

    So all this nonsense, Hyatt knows little of the case, is utter and complete bollocks.

    Peter Hyatt, RD Hall, Hobbs and Peter Mac are liars plain and simple.

    Why is the question?

    What are they trying to divert our attention from,

    Fiona Payne and Rachel Oldfield, anybody?

    1. Is Tony Cadogan who is posting on CMOMM the same person or related to Tania Cadogan?

    2. @ JJ8 December 2016 at 10:24.

      What about Fiona Payne and Rachel Oldfield?

    3. It is indeed bizarre that Bennett, Hall and the CMoMM Inquisition haven't ever 'researched' the central characters. Whilst there is an enormous amount of evidence to rule Murat out, for example, there is very little, if any, to rule out Fiona, Rachel and the Tapas friends. They are all providing an alibi to each other.

      However, the chances of getting any sense, let alone logic from a creationist, an alien believer and a hills have eyes bible basher, is remote to zero.

      That they have wandered so far from the original story and the central characters, demonstrates how far off track they have gone. They so desperately want there to be something more, they are making it up!

    4. Rosalinda 8.12 @23:46

      "Whilst there is an enormous amount of evidence to rule Murat out, for example,"

      Would you care to provide one or two (examples)?

    5. 11:09

      1. Telephone and internet records show he was where he claimed to be, at home with his mother.
      2. The only people claiming he was outside 5A on the night were members of the tapas group.

      And, probably the most crucial point of all, if he 'just' abducted a child, wouldn't he have been otherwise occupied?

    6. Thank you.

      1. Is there a 'phone mast atop Casa Lilliana?
      What do you mean by 'Internet records'?

      2. Are those claims really 'evidence'?

      It appears you wish to rule Murat out as 'the abductor'. Fair enough. But being complicit does not necessarily mean being the bag carrier.

    7. Complicit in what 14:36? You think the McCanns and Tapas group specifically chose Warners in PDL because Robert Murat lived next door?

      Or do you think that he, err, assisted in the cover up? In which case why would RM, or indeed anyone, assist strangers in covering up the death of a child? Even hardened Mafia henchmen would flinch at that.

      There is absolutely nothing to suggest the McCanns or Tapas knew RM. And even if a third cousin twice removed once visited RM's town, it is not the basis for anything, let alone a heinous crime.

      So how do you think RM is complicit?

    8. "You think the McCanns and Tapas group specifically chose Warners in PDL because Robert Murat lived next door?"


      "Or do you think that he, err, assisted in the cover up?"


      "In which case why would RM, or indeed anyone, assist strangers in covering up the death of a child?"

      They might if instructed to do so.

      "There is absolutely nothing to suggest the McCanns or Tapas knew RM"

      Are you sure?

      Sandra Felgueiras to Gerry McCann: 'Did you know Robert Murat?'

      Gerry McCann to Sandre Felgueiras: "Er, We're not going to answer that"

      "So how do you think RM is complicit?"

      Well he's lied for starters - and more than once. Now why would he have done that unless he were part of 'the biggest fuck up on the planet', as he himself put it.

    9. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 9 December 2016 at 11:42

      “1. Telephone and internet records show he was where he claimed to be, at home with his mother.”

      Not nessesarily so.

      I am certain Dr Martin Roberts looked into it in one of his essays IIRC and on onlyinamerica blog. At the time of reading I had no objections to what was said.

      Perhaps someone here is quicker than I at providing a link. If not, I’ll do so myself if you are interested but unable to find it yourself. 'I’m tide up at he moment (not literally)' (I am paraphrasing Dr Martin Roberts from memory).

  12. havern on CMOMM talking about here:

    "I don't know if you're aware but the host of that blog has been given a Police warning for posting vile accusations about Tony on twitter.

    I do not want that blog promoted on this forum. Thank you."

    1. Jill 'don't do as I do, do as I say' Havern trying to control freedom of speech. She sounds a bit like a couple of doctors from Rothley.

    2. Yes, my blemish free record has been forever tarnished by that odious creep, it still irks, grrrr. He insulted my dead mother, I still want to knock his block off!

      Yes, my name is not allowed to be spoken over there, and if they say it 3 times, I appear like a bat out of hell sending them scurrying back into their dark little hovels. I sort of picture them as that ugly, odious little creature in the tedious Lord of the Ring, who kept saying 'my precious'.

      To be fair, I had been banished long before the twitter spat. If you can arsed watching the place for any length of time, it soon becomes apparent that anyone who shows any sign of intelligence, is swiftly banned. Happily, for me, they come here!

    3. Yes, the censorship on the cesspit alone should be a warning sign to anyone who reads there. Prohibiting alternate opinion should be the biggest sign!

      The same applies to the large facebook groups, they won't publish my blogs either. One must wonder, why do they fear alternate opinion?

  13. Official Find Madeleine Campaign (Facebook):

    Some of you may have noticed our page not being available these past few days. Due to an increase of fabricated so called "leads", I've (the Find Madeleine Campaign Webmaster) been turning the page off to keep people from posting/spreading false information. It's imperative the public keep looking for Madeleine, but we need to make sure false information is not being given over true leads. I, and this is my decision, will continue to turn the page off until this false and misleading info is not being disseminated via Facebook and Emailed to us. Thank you to those who truly want to help us find Madeleine. Children are found due to the diligence of the public and we still need your help.
    ~FM Webmaster

    With that in mind, why are they still misleading the public into searching for the individual at the top of the page at the link below when the police have long since eliminated him as a suspect?


    1. Mr Redwood said: "We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor.”

      Almost certain?

      Is that why the image of Tannerman is still on the OFM website?

    2. And for all the linguistic twisting of this blog\post, we come to a prime example of word analysis, I think you'll find the actual phrase is 'could be' but 'almost' amounts to the same. Still the debate continues about the McCann case, long forgotten as poster previously mentioned that these children, all three, homealone for four nights. Is that neglect
      I don't really think I have ever really considered abduction and\or by paedophiles, even though Mr McCann was overheard on his mobile around 11pm that night by one of the Brit\holidaymakers, who was searching heard him say Madeleine had been abducted!
      Just words, from Redwoods 'could be' Tannerman \ innocent father with child or the immediate knowledge of the McCanns that 'they have' taken her.....
      Both pieces of information available the Crimewatch Redwood Appeal, and McKenzie in the PJ investigation files. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
      No one needs to speculate, just keeping to the FACTS have kept this saga alive for nearly ten years.

    3. I agree 09:33, all the added extras invented and promoted by the rabid vigilantes are superfluous and reek more of an agenda, than a genuine quest for truth. The facts alone make this the most notorious crime of the century, they do not need to be embellished.

  14. Well Ros - it is turning into a real little "I hate the Mccanns" blog isn't it.

    Repetition of every criticism said on various forums for years is neither interesting nor clever.

    After 9 years not one single workable alternative to abduction has been posted in thousands or even hundreds of thousands of posts.

    1. After nine years not one shred of proof of abduction has been posted in thousands or even hundreds of thousands of posts.

    2. If 'I hate the McCanns' is what you are taking from this blog 21:04, then you have the wrong end of the stick entirely.

      I have always approached this case as an academic study, hate has nothing at all to do with it, because as we all know, hatred leads to bias which leads to the wrong results. I have tried, not always succeeded, to keep detached emotionally. I don't want to stop seeing them as human beings.

      I came to this case, all those years ago, with an open mind. I studied everything I could possibly find on the case, wanting desperately to rule the parents and their friends out, because I just wasn't ready to have my faith in human nature so completely obliterated. I wasn't able to.

      I don't hate Kate and Gerry, I find them endlessly fascinating, possibly among the most fascinating people of our era. What they have achieved is pretty incredible, some might say unique. I want to write Kate's book, put her side out there before she is completely monstered. She needs to tell her story, not least to her children, with honesty and sincerity, the truth will give them strength.

      I am not about law, order and punishment, it's not my bag. My interest is in understanding and learning lessons from what has happened.

      As for repeating the same old allegations, they are repeated because they have never gone away, all those questions have never been answered.

      Whilst that may just about be tolerable, it is the accusations against innocent people that makes the continuance of the abduction story wrong on every level. Continuing 'the Lie' is not without victims.

      As for 22:12, that is not strictly true is it? The McCanns have spent the past 8 years trying to prevent the most credible theory as to Maddie's disappearance from coming to the UK. The theory of Goncalo Amaral.

    3. @ Ros 23.16

      you say " The McCanns have spent the past 8 years trying to prevent the most credible theory as to Maddie's disappearance from coming to the UK. The theory of Goncalo Amaral."

      What Amaral and you have failed to answer is why, how, and where.

      1. why did they need to cover up an accidental death
      2. how did they cover up an accidental death from all traces of any evidence in the apt (note I used the word evidence i.e what can be presented in court)
      3. where did they dispose of the body that has never been found despite extensive searches by PJ and digging up areas of PDL by the Met.

      If anyone would like to discuss those issues instead of calling the Mccanns "odious" then I will be happy to listen and comment.

      Don't forget to miss out Amaral's theory that stuff had been dripping onto the pavement from a frozen body in the hire car.

    4. "Anonymous8 December 2016 at 22:12

      After nine years not one shred of proof of abduction has been posted in thousands or even hundreds of thousands of posts."

      Perhaps you would like to post a credible alternative instead of quoting something that the Mccann hating forums have repeated forever.

      Repeating something so many times does not make it true and to have discussion it is normal to put a credible opposite point of view. ("odious" and "I don't believe them" just doesn't fit the criteria.

    5. @00:36

      Can’t you read? I put a credible opposite point of view. There is not one shred of proof of abduction.

      Furthermore, I don’t do fora and I don’t hate the McCanns. I have no interest whatsoever in the McCanns.

      Something to ponder in regard to your questions:

      1. “Whatever happens, your life will never be the same again.“ (Cherie Blair to Kate on 8 May 2007);
      2. Not legally valid;
      3. Someone else disposed of the body.

    6. Goncalo Amaral 'failed' to answer those questions you pose because he was removed from the case 00:27 after complaints from the British! In September 2007, he was closing in, starting with interviewing the Smith family.

      It was also in September that the McCanns fled back to the UK, and from all appearances, stopped co-operating with the PJ. The refusal of the parents and their friends to return to PDL for a reconstruction, scuppered the investigation completely.

      So you can see the difficulties GA, the PJ and quite possibly SY (and indeed myself) have in answering those questions. Those who know the answers are keeping schtum.

    7. Anonymous 9 December 2016 at 00:27

      “What Amaral and you have failed to answer is why, how, and where.”

      How do you know that Dr Amaral has “failed to answer… why, how, and where.”? Would you accept that he might have answers which you don’t know about?

      Should you feel like answering to this post, would you please take into account that the case against Dr Amaral is still ongoing (he is unable to talk freely) and also that you are not privy to his thoughts. Or are you?


  15. Ros can you just clarify something - can you confirm that you now go with Amaral's incomplete accidental death and cover up theory and have now changed your position that Kate did something and Gerry covered up for her (which you have previously posted on this blog)

    1. I have always thought Goncalo Amaral's theory the most likely, and it was of course supported by the team and signed off by Tavares de Almeida. They were there on the ground, they have the relevant and training, and most importantly, many, many years of experience.

      But for me, nothing is set in stone 00:41, the case remains unsolved because it seems no-one can fill in the gaps. Except of the course, those directly involved, by doing a reconstruction and answering those questions.

  16. "Mark Williams-Thomas speaks out on the Maddie McCann case - Daily Star, 6 Dec 2016
    Post by Richard D. Hall Yesterday at 23:55
    I presume that Mark Williams-Thomas does not have an internet connection. Be wary of media people who win "awards". It's MI5's way of telling people who to respect."

    Bow down to his superior intellect.

    1. I don't have any time for Mark Williams Thomas or indeed Donal McIntyre. They both put forward their theories on Madeleine, and I'm not sure which one was more stupid. Not forgetting of course, the very astute Mark Williams Thomas sat and interviewed a murderer with the body of the poor child in the loft directly above him!

  17. Ros put on a Tapas and Murat blog, regarding Fiona Payne and Rachel Oldfield, on November 14th 2016.

    In certain quarters, panic set in and the next day Hall rushed off to the USA to rehash with Peter Hyatt the same interview Hyatt gave to another journalist in 2012, same questions, same answers. Peter Hyatt has been fully conversant with all aspects of the McCann case, for several years.

    This nonsense has achieved the usual effect nobody questions the actions of FP and RO.
    Within two weeks, Peter Mac weighs in with new chapters in his E-book, praising Hyatt/ Hall and spouting his usual shite.
    Its called distraction technique and it works every time.

    'There was a man outside 5a that night, he came up to me and shook me by the hand and said I am Robert Murat, I noticed he had a squint'.

    Analyise these statements, Lori Campbell's is even better. Her version of the identity of Robert Murat, completely at odds with the Leicestershire Police, and it is just brushed away.

    Why does nobody want to address the evidence but just regurgitate the same old crap.

  18. I have a very basic question: what is the proof behind statement analysis? For instance, how do we "know" doors equate to sexual abuse? How is that substantiated? Why are common descriptive words "deceptive"? I always get the impression when reading Hyatt's "expert" analysis that it's nothing more than him saying whatever he can to bolster his opinion.

    Why are all these cases where the subjects of Hyatt's analyses are not charged, nor have they been found guilty, and some are neither suspect, nor are they being investigated....WHY is his "analysis conclusion" of guilty in all these cases not questioned more by his gullible fangirls? And BTW, his fans are nearly all middle aged women with tons of Internet time.

    It doesn't look to me as if statement analysis, at least, as practiced by Hyatt, has an impressive track record. Looks to be just the opposite of that.

    1. Hyatt and Hobbs substantiate the link between doors and child sexual abuse by claiming it is common for victims to have memories of doors opening and closing.

      Memories of doors opening and closing can bring happy or sad memories, the link is tenuous, triggers for every victim will be different, it could just as easily be a familiar song, smell, taste or tone of voice. Almost anything can send a signal of deja vu.

      It is supposedly the horrible memory of an adult creeping into their bedrooms and the door closing. Whilst that could be a common theme among victims of abuse, I am not sure 'doors' are what they will take from the encounter. It sounds a bit like populist psychology for me. Far too simplified, but works for a condensed course in lie detection.

      As for the other cases, I have read, and indeed been impressed (at a time when I was impressionable) some of the work of Tania Cadogan and Peter Hyatt, but I struggle to remember it. Perhaps my head was telling me, no room for that shite, lol.

      I think everyone interested in the McCann case is fascinated by the art of deception. Students of psychology and criminology especially. I have been reading 'how to spot a liar' and variations thereof since my teens. Whilst my bookshelves groaned under the weight of self help books like Women Who Love Too Much, Men are from Mars.... etc, along with the words of feminist icons, I was still prepared to believe all the smoochy words of a sprightly young steel fixer (whatever that might be, he was always between jobs) because he looked like a dead ringer for a young Marlon Brando. Warning, if they look mean, moody and slightly unhinged, they probably are and you can't 'fix' them.

      But I digress. I am not sure any science can compare to our own natural instincts. We are naturally programmed to detect deceit, it integral to our survival as a species.

      When news of Madeleine's disappearance broke, I'm sure at least half the population thought the parents were involved, simply by watching their interviews.

      However, 'Team McCann' were quite brilliant, as they got the story out first - abduction, and their own defence, 'everyone does it' and they did nothing wrong. So successful was their message, it became treacherous to criticise Kate and Gerry, and a good way to start a fight at a party or indeed any social situation.

      Kudos to the media team for turning the negative into such a sellable positive, reputations saved, phew. This tipped the public popularity back in their favour, but the story has no end.

      Their lives must be unbearable, Scotland Yard just will not close that darn file and be done with it. That must really irk. Imagine living your life with Scotland Yard constantly breathing down your neck. Not to mention, the original detective, Goncalo Amaral who has sworn he will never give up looking for Madeleine.

      For me, I think language and the way in which it is interpreted is just too vast a subject to compress into a 6,or is it 12, week course.

  19. http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2016/12/interview-analysis-kate-mccann.html?m=1

    That is a link to Hyatt's new "analysis" of Kate McCann's statement from several
    years ago.

    Ridiculous. Speaks for itself.

    For instance, descriptive words, which verbally competent people are prone to use, are considered "reinforcement" words and are, therefore, deceptive.

    That is just one of many unsubstantiated claims for the basis of statement analysis application and validity.

    1. Thank you for pointing that out 17:51, level of education and background also comes into play as well as regional dialect. Would a scouser use the same descriptive words as a brummie? I think there are just too many variants to describe this analysis of words as reliable.

  20. @ Anonymous 0041 Everyone knows that Ros has shifted her position on what really happened to Maddie about as often as she blinks. She's never given any really definite opinion and blew her chance to do so when Sonia Poulton gave her an open goal on Icke's Lizard TV. Come to think of it, where is that Maddie doc that SP promised us several years ago??

    1. I move with the times 19:52, and I highly recommend it to others.

      Sonia's documentary is safely under guard, worry not.

  21. Regarding RM (“This is the biggest fuck up on the planet.”) might he have been unwittingly involved in a cover-up?

    Two different ‘criminal acts’ skilfully used?

  22. Ros I,m sorry I just don,t buy the neglect angle and that they all covered up the accidental death of a child and the disposing of her body for fear of the consequences of being prosecuted for it. They claim they went out to dinner at 8.30 and then it's claimed they returned to the apartment found her dead from a fall brought on by the application of setatives, found somewhere to move the body and then set up the alert for Kate to find her at 10pm, some of the witness statements suggest it was even earlier than this. We are suggesting here that whoever found her returned to the table to a mother who was happily enjoying a meal blissfully unaware that her first born had died took her away from the table explained the situation to her and she returned back to the table within minutes to take part in the fake alarm call. The " they have taken her" suggests that she already knew that the body was to be moved but was shocked when she had realised it had happened and was too traumatised to control what she done. The fact that cadaver odour takes at least 90 minutes to develop and many experts think it takes longer suggests that the child lay dead behind the sofa for at least that time. Then there is the time that it takes to calm everything down, they wouldn't have just ran in grabbed her up put her into a wardrope. There was no blood in the wardrope so she must have been cleaned. It would take some time to decided where they were going to hide her. All this would take a lot longer than the allocated 90 minutes from 8.30 - 10pm. Imo the death occurred much earlier in the evening. At that stage none of them had abandoned their children for the night, why would they if she was already dead take part in the fake dinner and leave their children alone and risk the very charges of neglect they so feared. The other nights when it was claimed they neglected their children to go to the tapas would have been hearsay and even in the panic of the moment if it were me I would have dismissed any threat from Gerry or Kate to expose my neglect with the words I think you will have enough problems getting out of this mess you created than worrying about snitching on us. The neglect could easily been explained away as there always being 1 member of the tapas crew who weren't at the table each night. If death occurred earlier in the evening which I think it did then these people increased their chances of having neglect charges being brought against them by going along with the fake dinner. I know if it was me I would rather face the prospect of defending myself against a charge of neglect that nobody really had any evidence off than charges of preverting the course of justice in the death of a child. That brings me back to they are hiding something else bigger than the fear of neglect charges which with a half decent lawyer could have been well defended

    1. You put forward a lot of interesting points there 09:32. Not least, they could have covered up the neglect by saying one member of the group stayed with the kids every evening. No doubt it was an option they considered. But if they were all sedating their kids, the risks may have been greater and the reason for the 'pact' stronger.

      As for all of them going through the motions of the fake dinner. I actually compare this to their actions in the aftermath. They were brazenly claiming Madeleine had been taken in front of TV cameras! That takes boldness off the scale. And thereafter, they gave countless TV interviews and press conferences. And as Kate said, they held it together even though their lives were being torn apart behind the scenes.

      For doctors, charges of child neglect/abandonment could seen them struck off the Medical Register. All of their careers and future plans would have been left in tatters. Whilst you or I would not care about the neglect charges, and would probably think we deserved them, for Doctors they would be life changing.

  23. The McCanns, the Ramseys, Papini, Knox, Blackburn, and so many others--all analyzed with the conclusion of "deception indicated" or "guilty", and yet, not one has been charged, with the exception of Knox, and her case was overturned. Not one has been arrested. In the case of Blackburn, police have cleared him.

    Yet, statement analysis has concluded a level of guilt for all these people based upon old statements and snippets here and there of current words.

    I certainly am not here to defend the innocence of these folks, but as of now, it seems as if Peter Hyatt's statement analysis of many, many cases is at odds with law enforcement and court findings.

    Seems as if statement abalysis is an abysmal failure.

  24. https://disqus.com/by/peterhyatt/

  25. Good lord! The guy is a nut, and people take his "analysis" seriously???? Absolutely disgusting.

    A little side note--while reading one of his pathetic blog "analysis" I noticed there have been legitimate questions or points. Guess what--the intolerant fake, Hyatt, is deleting those, but ONLY those. His two remaining lemmings are insulting to anyone who disagrees, but he has yet to delete any of their rude rantings. He just does not want to be questioned. He only wants adoration.

    Narcissistic personality.

  26. (part 1 )

    Some good points on this thread ( and of course more anger ).

    Ros is right regarding the psychology and language . We speak differently in interviews than if we have the time to prepare and write formally.I'm from a place pretty close to Kate McCanns place of birth . Saying, ''know worramean like'' isn't concealing anything secret- we really are asking if you know what we mean - the 'like' isn't necessary or grammatically correct.And in America ( and in monkey-see style, the UK too now unfortunately) there's the irritating ''i was like..and i thought omg and he was like ''(etc etc). It's new ways of kicking the English language to death slowly. Don't take it literally.

    Statement analysis has it's place, just not centre stage.It's the peas on the plate, not the meat and potatoes . Body language is the same.Without upsetting any disciples of the other money - maker 'neuro-linguistic-programming' there's a limit to it . It may be handy for projecting and directing others the way you want, but reading is another matter -especially outside of normal spontaneous social situations. How spontaneous can you be when you know the wold is hanging on your every word hoping you drop one. We all, without exception, occasionally slip up or use a wrong word and correct ourselves. Freud would probably put it down to not being able to wear our mothers knickers. In reality, we just make innocent mistakes as well as deliberate.The latter is where it gets subjective.

    I'm not sure what kind of 'formal qualification' you can get in twelve weeks in America but i could hazard a guess. But i won't . I'm not writing this to upset our cousins across the pond. Suffice to say, Hyatt's approach and method wouldn't be read past page 1 by the BPS . The ethical component alone would be enough to disqualify it. The judicial system has reasons for not accepting these kinds of analyses in a court of law. It's the stuff of new age light reading. Or, to be blunt, a nice little earner if you can reach the gullible .

    ( part 2 next)

  27. (part2)

    Other points I noticed..
    The Payne character. Was it not stated that he bathed everyone's kids alone ? Was it not him who failed to differentiate between 30 minutes and 30 seconds ? And isn't he the man identified within the Gaspar statement discussing the now obscene gesture he'd made 2 years prior ? This man who was the last known visitor to the apartment ? Is it any wonder everyone is suspicious about the pact of silence ? Why would any solicitor advise a client who is hysterical over the possible abduction of her child to clam up and say nothing because all the questions are allegedly loaded ( he wouldn't know what the questions were before they were asked ).As for the media , one of any governments best weapons ( thanks Germany ), looking back they were involved far too fast. On breakfast television Kate Garraway was told in her earpice on 4th May of 'breaking news ..serious'. This is almost always followed a plane crash, a death of someone high up or a bomb.Not this time.The national event was a Scots accent calling from Portugal about a missing girl . What ?? Yes- a missing girl. She was straight in with the 'we were checking every half hour on the children and the shutters had been broken and they'd taken Madeleine'. There it is. The official narrative probably before calls were made to family and friends in England. And as it turns out, this eye witness was lying. The shutters were not broken. You can't mistake shutters in one piece for broken in any light. Why call the BBC in England so soon anyway - what could come of that ? Portugal's TV i could halfway buy. As for Donald MacIntyre, no real credibility. The team behind his 'hard hitting- investigative adventures cherry- pick what they dare touch ( Kothi back packing slaughtrs anyone ?). He's a BBC'celeb' now. Halfwit.

    Anyway, for the growing population of Psychologists and seers, I have a Xmas present for you ( you're welcome)


  28. ( Part 2 1/2 )
    The 'neglectful' parents point is a niggle. Let's suppose Madeleine's fate was decided that night. Even a happy ending which saw her found in one piece. That would just be a huge slice of welcomed luck. But would it mean they hadn't been negelctful ? Careless ? The other scenario of finding her in a less pleasant situation . What then ? Nannies / babysitters were available and not beyond the tapaz gang's pocket.
    How much time did Madeleine actually spend with mummy and daddy on that last day ? If we buy the May 3 date ( I don't ) there was jogging going on, tennis while the children were under the care of nannies. Then I assume the grown ups didn't eat much for their dinner as they were going on the raz again later . So the kids eat, get a bath and to bed. Then the grown ups go out and do grown up stuff after all the time they'd spent being mummies and daddies all day ( siging them in and out ).
    Kate McCann has gone on record as saying she thinks the kids had been sedated. I think they were too. They'd have to be completely deaf otherwise to sleep through an abduction, breaking shutters( really ?) slamming doors, screaming, panicking parents and their friends, and a room full of police. But both of the McCanns have gone on record in interviews saying they hadn't given her any sedation. This adds to the abduction scenario. The abductors would have to administer a fast acting sedative to three small children. The hances are, if it was an abduction, it wouldn;t be administered orally as the kids would have to awaken and would all have started screaming. The same would happen if tring it intravenously. That leaves the 1970s mystery thriller scenario of the rag-over-the-mouth method ( which would also fit the Hitchcokian image of curtain whooshing from a window at night with only the lapping of the waves in the background ).The statements about the twins being asleep throughout the ordeal and following chaos is enough to alert police ( or whoever else was investigating) to it being 'odd' . Forensics could have looked for traces of something on the kids faces, jammies, or in their blood. No dogs needed for that.

  29. I keep wondering if on the night before Madeline did go missing and she really did tell her parents "why did you not come when we were crying?" what kind of parents would then leave them alone once again going out for dinner on that following night ,they would just feel too guilty. I just don't know parents like that.

  30. The latest developments in the McCann case have renewed interest in what is going on and Peter Hyatt's stuff is very interesting, plus on the Ramsey case too as they are similar. The strict application of Statement Analysis seems to be about deciding if there are indicators of deception in the statement or portion thereof analyzed. If deception is indicated then that might be reason for police to evaluate the analysis and decide to expend resources in further investigation and evidence gathering. Otherwise moving beyond the analysis is conjecture, which might be on the money or might not be.