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

[Robittybob1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke3TEBbOdFU

I watched one about body language YT and if he moved he was guilty and it was just as bad if he stayed still. 

[stephen25000]

There is a clear difference between junk science and junk practitioners of legitimate science. 

I think it is possible to tell from someone's body language whether they are telling the truth or whether they are lying.

And I think there are many people who claim the ability without the slightest foundation of knowledge or insight to back the claim.

Namely.....


If it supports the McCann's fine.

If it doesn't bad.

You need to get real ferryman, many people don't believe the McCann's story.

[Alfie]

Is 'junk science' November's buzz-word?

  Why not?  It seems appropriate.

[Alfie]

Post #154.

What has your post #154 got to do with Davel's post?

[Brietta]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke3TEBbOdFU

I remember watching that interview at the time and remarking that my sympathies were with the janitor because as the last person to see Holly and Jessica he would be an immediate suspect in whatever had happened to them and would be under close investigation until eliminated.

As it worked out it took a while to find the evidence to bring him to trial ... helped by Carr's forensic cleaning of what we now know was the crime scene.

[Alice Purjorick]

..... unless the McCanns confess.
 ..... unless someone confesses.?

.

Too narrow limits I am afraid.

Take the situation with "statement analysis"or whatever you wish to call it. Dr Leal is, according to the website I linked, currently a research fellow still researching "interviewing to detect deception". She was obviously confident enough of her research a year ago or so to appear on telly to state in her opinion Drs McCann were innocent.
Mr Hyatt it would seem, using basically similar techniques, is prepared to appear on telly stating the opposite opinion.
So from the same "dataset" we have two diametrically opposed propositions from two practitioners who are prepared to stick their heads up.
Until we are up around 91% of "experts" in agreement based on the same dataset, the beyond reasonable doubt threshold in English courts, then I would suggest what we are looking at is no better in practical terms than the investigating officers "gut feeling". I'll change my mind when we reach the 91%.

[Alice Purjorick]

you seem to be joining the ranks of the mud slingers.........you should provide a cite for belief in junk science rather than make baseless accusations against nameless posters

Would you care to show:
1 Precisely where I have slung mud.
2 I don't belive in junk science sohow can I provide a cite for my belief in it.
3. The baseless accusation I have made against a nameless poster.
Thanking you in anticipation

[Mr Gray]

Would you care to show:
1 Precisely where I have slung mud.
2 I don't belive in junk science sohow can I provide a cite for my belief in it.
3. The baseless accusation I have made against a nameless poster.
Thanking you in anticipation

You have claimed posters on here on both sides are prepared to believe in junk science when it suits them...I only see the sceptics wanting to accept junk as that is basically all they have..... could you point out where we supporters are quoting junk science to show the McCanns innocence
We don't have to

[Mr Gray]

Namely.....


If it supports the McCann's fine.

If it doesn't bad.

You need to get real ferryman, many people don't believe the McCann's story.

And some believe in alien abduction
Hall being one

[ferryman]

I remember watching that interview at the time and remarking that my sympathies were with the janitor because as the last person to see Holly and Jessica he would be an immediate suspect in whatever had happened to them and would be under close investigation until eliminated.

As it worked out it took a while to find the evidence to bring him to trial ... helped by Carr's forensic cleaning of what we now know was the crime scene.

Always and unfailingly a laudable trait to accord benefit of doubt, even if, in the long run, it turns out you are mistaken to do so.

[Alice Purjorick]

You have claimed posters on here on both sides are prepared to believe in junk science when it suits them...I only see the sceptics wanting to accept junk as that is basically all they have..... could you point out where we supporters are quoting junk science to show the McCanns innocence
We don't have to

This what I posted:
"I find it droll if not paradoxical that with something like a pseudoscience, some will swear by it while others will swear at it depending upon what suits their argument and/or prejudices* at the time".

Now let's play "spot the word poster", but before we do perhaps you will be courteous enough to address the other matters raised in my earlier post.
Thanking you again in anticipation.

[Mr Gray]

This what I posted:
"I find it droll if not paradoxical that with something like a pseudoscience, some will swear by it while others will swear at it depending upon what suits their argument and/or prejudices* at the time".

Now let's play "spot the word poster", but before we do perhaps you will be courteous enough to address the other matters raised in my earlier post.
Thanking you again in anticipation.

So who are you referring to as "some"
Are you saying your post has no relevance to posters on here

[slartibartfast]

You have claimed posters on here on both sides are prepared to believe in junk science when it suits them...I only see the sceptics wanting to accept junk as that is basically all they have..... could you point out where we supporters are quoting junk science to show the McCanns innocence
We don't have to

#154

[Robittybob1]

.

Too narrow limits I am afraid.

Take the situation with "statement analysis"or whatever you wish to call it. Dr Leal is, according to the website I linked, currently a research fellow still researching "interviewing to detect deception". She was obviously confident enough of her research a year ago or so to appear on telly to state in her opinion Drs McCann were innocent.
Mr Hyatt it would seem, using basically similar techniques, is prepared to appear on telly stating the opposite opinion.
So from the same "dataset" we have two diametrically opposed propositions from two practitioners who are prepared to stick their heads up.
Until we are up around 91% of "experts" in agreement based on the same dataset, the beyond reasonable doubt threshold in English courts, then I would suggest what we are looking at is no better in practical terms than the investigating officers "gut feeling". I'll change my mind when we reach the 91%.

They might be achieving that already if they looked at the same material.  Hyatt looked at only one interview, and applied criteria that was mostly applicable for the first week or so of the disappearance.  We aren't going to get a confession if one analyst says guilty and the other innocent are we.  I agree with you on this one.

[sadie]

I remember watching that interview at the time and remarking that my sympathies were with the janitor because as the last person to see Holly and Jessica he would be an immediate suspect in whatever had happened to them and would be under close investigation until eliminated.

As it worked out it took a while to find the evidence to bring him to trial ... helped by Carr's forensic cleaning of what we now know was the crime scene.

I felt the same as you about him, but when little Sharon Matthews went missing, I instantly knew her mum, Karen Matthews, was lying.  Dont know what it was but I suspect there was an almost imperceptible quiver at the end of her mouth that I thought that i noticed ... and maybe this was the reason?   Seemed to me as tho' she was supressing a smile that she "had got away with it".   There was something wrong there.

I wonder how it is that some can lie so ably, yet others cannot? 
-  Maybe some were brought up as liars so very practised and accomplished?
-  Maybe some are killers without remorse .  Are they called sociopaths?  They can lie because they feel no guilt?


Dunno, but I doubt the absolute veracity of so called 'scientific' tests to see if people are lying or telling the truth.