Every parent, every teacher, every police officer, solicitor, immigration officer, and Magistrate - in fact everyone - is able to identify when an untruth is being told.
Some are better at it than others.
Please Sir, it wasn’t me . . . .
Mummy, I didn’t eat the biscuits, it must have been Johnny . . .
Officer I really don’t know how that got into my suitcase - it’s been planted . . .
I have been shown a CCTV clip and I now recall that I WAS in fact there, BUT . . .
are known to all.
Statement analysts have developed this. They seek to look beyond what is so often called gut instinct or a copper’s nose, or just a hunch to find out why and how we can identify what is going on, and to formalise their findings.
Richard Hall has recently released a series of three interviews with Peter Hyatt.
Hyatt is by trade a Statement Analyst - someone who is developing the skills of looking at what people say, and importantly what they do not, and the way they say them, the vocabulary they use, and a host of other things, to form a considered and justified opinion on whether they are telling the truth.
His thesis is that denials and lies can in fact reveal an “Embedded Confession”, which is the title of the films.
I have transcribed short extracts from the films. If there are errors they are entirely mine.
I want to consider parts of what he said, and then to compare his opinion with what other researchers have discovered. There is a remarkable coincidence.
To start with Hyatt explains the importance of detecting hesitation or a disruption of the normal pattern of speech. Some people are naturally fluent, some have less articulacy. It is the disruption of the normal pattern which is important.
He goes on to explain that answering a question with another question may indicate an attempt to buy time, as will searching for a word. The inclusion of unnecessary words and phrases, and particularly of going into unnecessary detail may also assume importance.
He then looks at a full transcript of the interview by SN TV channel in Australia with Gerry and Kate McCann in 2011
PH: "Deceptive people, who have Guilty knowledge of what happened to their child don’t want to talk about it, because it causes internal stress - so they talk for a great deal of time about what happened beforehand" Film 1 21:00
He was then asked specifically if this was scientific or his opinion, and replied:
"If I say I believe someone, or I don’t believe someone - as a Statement Analyst - it is my opinion and here’s WHY I have this opinion. I’m going to explain why" 1 27:39
"When someone speaks we presuppose that everything they are telling us is the truth - unless they talk us out of it, deceiving us. What they say in detail can reveal what happened." 1 27:57
He then develops the idea of the ‘need to persuade’ and narrative building. He refers to the McCanns’ emphasising that it was a normal evening, and comments:
“Why do you have to convince me that is was a normal evening”
Statement analysis says more about what one doesn’t say.
He listens to further extracts from the interview and says: “Who are they most concerned about. Madeleine, or themselves ? They are always justifying themselves.” 1 43:20
PH: "They give a lot of detail, but not about Madeline, about themselves.
What happened is limited to a finite number of things . . . When someone tells us what didn’t happen, there can be an infinite number of things. We are on high alert for deception." 2 3:10
He then watches and listens to the ‘whooshing curtains’ story. Hyatt describes this as narrative building and having considered this whole story he says
“She’s Lying. This is deception” 2 35
In a powerful statement he says of Kate’s story about what happened when she visited the apartment - "The room just magically opened itself up and said “Look, look at the evidence . . .”
She’s lying. This tells us Madeleine was not kidnapped.” 2 41:10
A little later he is discussing Gerry’s reported reaction to Kate’s returning to the Tapas bar, which includes the phrase “She can’t be . . .” before he stops himself
Hyatt fills it in for us
“Can’t be . . . - What ? . . . Dead ?” 2 45:18
Gerry continues “And I was saying to Kate as we were both running”
PH: "He has a need to persuade that both were in earnest, both were upset, both were in emergency mode. Because they weren’t. Those who are in emergency mode don’t need to tell us they're in emergency mode, and they certainly don’t need to persuade us.
He has a need to persuade us that they were in emergency mode.
This tells us that this was not unexpected. This was not an emergency."
Richard: "He’s lying.” 2 45:40
The three films are highly recommended viewing. It is also instructive to view the original interview in full after having seen the analyst at work.
It has been established that Peter Hyatt, although he was aware of the Madeleine McCann case, had not looked at it in any depth. He was unaware of the research and analysis of the weather and wind charts for the week in question. He did not know of the details in the Tapas 7’s statements, nor of their rogatory interviews. He did not know of the lack of evidence of violent gusts of wind. He was unaware of the body of evidence that begins to suggest that whatever happened to Madeleine probably happened on the Sunday evening to Monday morning.
He was unaware of the work done around the few available photos.
He worked purely with the content of the interview. In other words -
He worked purely with what the McCanns told him during the interview
Those who have researched or followed the developments in this case will pick up immediately on Gerry’s comment in the interview where he states
“We loved to photograph her, and she loved to be photographed”.
The fact that for the entire week’s holiday only three credible photos seem to exist of Madeleine, or indeed of the twins, is something which has been commented on before. The lack of photos is itself a considerable pointer towards a deliberate decision NOT to take them.
What we are left with is a remarkable coincidence between what Hyatt found, for example on examination of the story about the slamming doors and whooshing curtains., and exactly this same conclusion reached independently. (See Chapter 12, Floppy Sunhat and Flapping Curtains, and many threads on CMoMM.)
Hyatt did not know of the work that has been done, and of the many photos of the 'McCanns' body language during their public interviews. (Appended.)
He did not know that the McCanns had changed both their first Police statements in several material particulars.
He did not know of the Rogatory interviews with the Tapas 7.
He did not know that these professional people, all University graduates, many with post graduate qualifications, some whom routinely teach and profess their own specialism, and who all may, therefore, be assumed to be reasonably at ease with the English Language, to be reasonably articulate, to use normal grammar and syntax, and who would be expected to possess a wide and deep vocabulary . . . .
were reduced to gibbering incoherence when they were faced with an English police officer, speaking English and asking a pertinent question in English.
He was working from the transcript of one short interview.
He did not know all the rest.
BUT HE WILL NOW.
McCanns’ Australia TV interview
Richard D. Hall's interview with Peter Hyatt
Film 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWWjkL-joS4&t=2428s
Tight closed and Whooshing Curtains - first mentioned three years after the original Kate and Gerry Police statement which included “wide-open curtains”