McCanns' Embedded Confessions - Statement Analysis ( Richard D Hall release)

[Brietta]

Haven't you kind of got the message yet that I don't believe your McCann mantra propaganda, which you churn out again and again.

Cue the obvious response.

There is of course the point that the publicity, was simply a ploy, which then escalated with the cooperation of most more members of the press to call people tr##ls, who dared question the McCann's version of events.

  ...     ...  plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ... this from three years ago ...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2040.msg67980#msg67980   ... A "spanner in the works" ???

[Robittybob1]

A blog with a statement analysis by Peter Hyatt was recorded on 2012 http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/statement-analysis-mccann-interview-2011.html  It seems very much in line with what he discusses with Richard D Hall so it certainly doesn't appear to be new information.

[Robittybob1]

So knowing when Kate did her check is the important item.
I would say plenty have tried to work that out before.

Gosh what a difficult topic but one thing is for certain all the Tapas 9 say Kate's check and alarm was after 10:00 PM whereas the OC reception and other staff indicate something happening from 9:15 PM onward.  I have not yet discovered what vital fact will determine the true time.
I can see one simple solution - the two incident hypothesis. We know that at 9:15 while Gerry is talking to Jez, Jane sees a person carrying an unconscious child past the OC apartments.  Was this Madeleine or someone else, this is the real question.
Could this be the start of the girl's  father reporting a child missing, but as can be seen she wasn't missing for someone had her, and hence this person could have been located real quick and hence no need to invoke the OC missing child procedures for the first incident.  We have a sighting and reports of an incident, clearly distinct from the MM missing alert at 10:00. What more do we need?

[Robittybob1]

I always feel solving how Jane Tanner can see Jez and Gerry but they don't see Jane will give us the solution to the MM mystery.
I have seen a scientific test where a man in a gorilla suit walks through a game and no one notices it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1378228/Didnt-spot-dancing-gorilla-famous-YouTube-video.html  play the video and see if you see the gorilla?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

[stephen25000]

  ...     ...  plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ... this from three years ago ...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2040.msg67980#msg67980   ... A "spanner in the works" ???

You must be getting desperate. *&*%£

Shall I trail through your posts as well ?

[pathfinder73]

So knowing when Kate did her check is the important item.
I would say plenty have tried to work that out before.

"The last at 21:51, when Kate, Madeleine's mother goes to the apartment, before alerting to the disappearance."

Phone calls and hairs frame 4 suspects - CMTV [Correio da Manhã TV] 2 July 2014

[Mr Gray]

Hyatt is an absolute prize plonker
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence understands that statement analysis is a guide and not an exact science
Yet he is convinced of the McCanns involvement in a cover up
It seems he knows very little about statement analysis

[Alfie]

Statement analysis = junk science. 

[pathfinder73]

"In a sense, Maddie McCann is the UK's version of the Jonbenet Ramsey murder. This coming week, I am asking a team of experienced analysts to jointly work through the language seeking to uncover a single indicator: Was Madeleine McCann a possible victim of sexual abuse. This will be done live on Thursday, November 30th, over a period of 6 hours online. I hope to post the results of this analysis on Friday, December 1st, as well as put together a written report." Peter Hyatt

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/

[Alfie]

"In a sense, Maddie McCann is the UK's version of the Jonbenet Ramsey murder. This coming week, I am asking a team of experienced analysts to jointly work through the language seeking to uncover a single indicator: Was Madeleine McCann a possible victim of sexual abuse. This will be done live on Thursday, November 30th, over a period of 6 hours online. I hope to post the results of this analysis on Friday, December 1st, as well as put together a written report." Peter Hyatt

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/

Let me get this straight:  Hyatt is going to analyse the McCanns' statements to decide whether or not Madeleine was sexually abused and it's going to be done live, on the internet?   Jesus wept.

[ShiningInLuz]

Let me get this straight:  Hyatt is going to analyse the McCanns' statements to decide whether or not Madeleine was sexually abused and it's going to be done live, on the internet?   Jesus wept.

Notice the cost, Alfie.  6 hours out of one's life.

[slartibartfast]

Statement analysis = junk science.

Why?

[Alfie]

Why?

Why what?  Find me any credible scientific research done on the subject that confirms the validity of statement analysis then.  Note the word "credible".    This Hyatt claims he will be able to deduce whether or not Madeleine was sexually abused by analysing statements made by her parents.  Does that sound plausible to you?

[slartibartfast]

Why what?  Find me any credible scientific research done on the subject that confirms the validity of statement analysis then.  Note the word "credible".    This Hyatt claims he will be able to deduce whether or not Madeleine was sexually abused by analysing statements made by her parents.  Does that sound plausible to you?

You said statement analysis = junk science, which is a general comment.

[Alfie]

You said statement analysis = junk science, which is a general comment.

So?  Are general comments no longer allowed?  Do I now have to post proof of my statement?