In depth documentary on Madeleine McCann by Richplanet. Must watch.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xpTsMrU-nIk


[QUOTE]The Madeleine McCann disappearance has become one of the most enduring mysteries of our time and has generated thousands of front page headlines. Despite the unprecedented coverage, few people have detailed understanding of the evidence of the case. Mainstream media has been used to create diversion and confusion over what really happened, rather than inform their readers of the facts. We present the most detailed documentary yet produced about this case. Focusing on witness statements, physical and circumstantial evidence, media articles, police photographs and more leaving the viewer with a comprehensive understanding of the facts. Once the facts are laid bare, mainstream media are shown to be nothing more than a tool of propaganda in the hands of those trying to control the public's perception of reality for a range of nefarious purposes.

This is a stunning documentary using nothing but the quotes of the McCanns themselves. It does NOT put them in a good light AT ALL.

I confess I haven't accessed the provided video but I just feel the Madeleine McCann case is just one of countless repeats of the Jon Benet Ramsey case in Colorado; the parents know more than they've stated; ever seen photos of the McCann parents?- do they look "nice"?- no-

so why was this couple granted an audience with the POPE in the Vatican (knowing how shady the Vatican may be)?-

I can only hope this darling-looking little girl (with the very unusual physical tear-drop from her right iris according to photos) is still alive although I highly doubt it- evil-doers tend to eradicate 'darlings' first after they've initially abused them-

At the least, Madeleine's parents should have been charged with negligence. Who leaves their small children alone to go out to eat? Not like they couldn't afford a baby sitter!

Naturally, nothing to be said for certain. Though I do feel that occasionally select parents are approached to sell their children into bondage by the worshipers of death and deviance that control this planet. I definitely remember feeling that is what happened in the Bennet Ramsey case. These stories that make press are the ones that do not happen 'cleanly' likely just to stir up some media scare fodder.

The sit atop a system dependent upon 'collecting' and using our emotions against us.

McCann's Embedded Confessions

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=slziMpXYjJo

Published on Nov 25, 2016
In November 2016 I travelled to the United States to meet and interview Peter Hyatt. Peter is a highly respected expert in statement analysis and in his work he teaches other professionals and assists law enforcement on criminal cases. When we speak, the process of constructing sentences in our mind involves deciding which tense to use, which words to select from our vocabulary and what order to put them in. This mental process all happens in a fraction of a second. If somebody is constructing sentences from their experiential memory, ie, recalling something real that actually happened to them, the process of word selection follows particular patterns and characteristics, which can be easily identified by a trained statement analyst. If however a person is fabricating and being untruthful when they speak, the natural cognitive process of choosing and ordering words is interrupted, because the mind must censor and insert artificial information in a very short time period. This means the language of somebody who is fabricating is characteristically different and can be picked up by a trained analyst like Peter Hyatt. He has analysed in depth an interview that Kate and Gerry McCann gave in 2011 and throughout the entire interview both Kate and Gerry it appears show signs of deception. Not only that, Peter determines from their language what he believes to be what it is they are concealing. The conclusions are shocking.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qyB29g6nbDo

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VWWjkL-joS4

Thanks Norman, I have not watched them yet (currently downloading) but am thanking you now in case I lose where I got them from. :)

I've looked at this case over the years and there is a LOT of very suspicious and dubious behaviours in many aspects, not least the big (political) guns that were brought in to assist in investigations.

Quote:

---

Posted by Cardillac

I confess I haven't accessed the provided video but I just feel the Madeleine McCann case is just one of countless repeats of the Jon Benet Ramsey case in Colorado; the parents know more than they've stated; ever seen photos of the McCann parents?- do they look "nice"?- no-

---

I remember her parents were very beautiful, but with a very guilty look about them. I used to think it was because they had been stupid enough to leave her alone. They seemed very remorseful.

Quote:

---

Posted by norman

McCann's Embedded Confessions

---

Thank you norman for this video of the excellent Richard Hall interviewing Peter Hyatt. This is a hugely important contribution to a hugely important subject that extends way beyond the individual fate of poor little Madeleine McCann. I want to concur with and qualify (expand upon) Hyatt’s final remark to the effect that statement analysis requires serious training and is not to be diluted by incompetent efforts.

The above is of course true: statement analysis is a powerful tool in criminal investigation with, he says, a success rate of close on 100%. As he also says, amateur criminal investigators with a success rate even of 70% are doing an overall disservice by muddying the waters. What they can and should be doing is language analysis of a different kind. Language analysis is something we all do all the time as a crucial component of language communication, namely understanding what anyone is trying to say. Many people didn’t need Hyatt to have a gut feeling that the McCanns were not telling the whole truth, but only someone with his qualifications is in a position to tell them exactly why or ever get the McCanns sent to jail. The quality of our justice system depends on the high quality of its expert witnesses. However, most people most of the time know their place in society is not prosecution; they are simply seeking greater understanding of their everyday situations and to share that understanding; tolerance and restraint are required because mistakes will happen, and they must not be too costly.

I see it like a fractional distillation process. A refinery will distill at various different boiling points a range of products, all of which have their separate uses. Only very rarely can two serve the same purpose. For example, you can run a car on oil from a fish and chip shop, but I you wouldn’t dream of doing the opposite. The overall position is that we all need to be moving towards greater refinement in order to operate increasingly sophisticated machinery. I personally am highly trained in textual analysis, i.e. formal training extended by years of self-training through personal research. Textual analysis is an older technique similar to statement analysis, applied chiefly to literary texts, but on this forum I have been applying it to other material as well in the interest of furthering our understanding within the limits of my toolbox. When you study a character in a novel, you analyze his words and actions to work out who he is, which the character himself may not fully understand or wish to reveal, and which the author himself may not fully understand or wish to reveal. Since no one understands everything, there are grey areas everywhere, not necessarily guilty secrets, but guilt is one of the things that cloak themselves in secrecy. Others are misplaced guilty feelings, and entirely innocent feelings such as intimacy between a couple.

Take Proust’s novel In Search of Lost Time. The first time the character Swann makes love to Odette de Crécy, he makes advances by rearranging the cattleyas (flowers) on her corsage. He repeats this foreplay on several subsequent occasions, and eventually arranging the cattleyas becomes synonymous for them with lovemaking even when the practice itself is discontinued. This is a kind of euphemism of the sort we use in a range of situations to hide our embarrassment, prudery, the understatement of intimacy, or alternatively the shame of guilt. It is also a kind of idiolect, the term used by linguists to describe an individual’s idiosyncratic use of a language. This is not the stuff of novels only. Back in my student days, my girlfriend and I spent a weekend before some exams with another couple, who one afternoon went upstairs to their room, purportedly to revise De Saussure’s General Linguistics. When the bed began creaking, the name Saussure took on a whole new secret meaning for the two of us downstairs :)

Here is a real-life situation where it would be highly important to understand when people are using language in this way. Suppose a man regularly tells his wife he is popping out to the library. She may or may not notice the smell of alcohol on his breath when he gets back (from the pub next door to the library). Over time, she may or may not learn to distinguish between the fake husband fond of books and the real husband fond of booze. Or he could be coming home maybe smelling of perfume after spending time with another woman. The point is that ‘the library’ takes on a meaning totally different from the dictionary definition. The wife may or may not connive, or more or less consciously connive, in that lie; she may even make a joke of it. I remember, my mum always used to make the Sunday lunch for 1.30, telling my dad to be sure to be back by then. They both knew he would never be home before 1.45 and the lunch was never overcooked. They both worked to the unexpressed deadline, and my mum would have fun pretending to scold my dad and my dad would pretend to feel guilty. It was just their little game, but an outsider might have taken it at face value.

Peter Hyatt describes how such personal or intimate secrecy can spread to a larger number of individuals. When he explains the mention of the bathroom (toilet, cleaning teeth) as a veiled reference to sexual abuse (as the only place of brief respite), he is describing a case where this idiosyncratic use of language is shared, unknown to each other, by many people in the same situation. There is no need to postulate a conspiracy when victims are alluding to the same stressful circumstances appearing in different contexts. A conspiracy involves perpetrators using the same veiled references to similar abusive circumstances in different contexts: it is in fact a well-known feature of language we call slang or argot. In most cases, there is a very playful element to this colourful sublanguage, which is why it enters the language perfectly innocently; but that was originally mere cloaking for undercover references, say to diamonds (for a robbery) as ice, or words like snow or coke used to allude to illegal drugs in conversations that might be overheard by unwelcome eavesdroppers. This vocabulary actually enters the language as and when it is overheard and understood, which is why slang is so alive, always inventing new fun words or new meanings for existing words to replace slang that is no longer secret code. The point is that language generally also works in this manner: buzzwords and other neologisms no doubt have a particular origin soon forgotten as they rapidly circulate by word of mouth with no conspiracy involved – with the overall result that not everything that appears conspiratorial actually will be. The criminals will be simply mixing in the crowd and one step ahead of trouble.

The above can be applied to the point raised by TODD & NORA with reference to the use of the word ‘pizza’ (I note in passing that they too concur with Hyatt’s request for less amateur dabbling). Yes, most references to pizza will be innocent mentions of having a bite to eat; but, talking theoretically here, if the terminology exists, the likely origin of this choice of phrase will be a reference to one particular pizza restaurant; another protection of this code then being the existence of thousands of other pizza restaurants that have nothing to do with the issue. Hence there are two possible answers to TODD & NORA’s claim: the presumption of innocence may be due to a case of mistaken identity (the wrong restaurant), or it may be a case of the everyday naive reading of a criminal use of language to create endless alibis (going to a restaurant instead of to a brothel, when they are either, or both, depending on the user). This is turn may be totally innocent (as one would naturally expect from a forum member), or it may be setting up the next stage in the neologism race. If people are beginning to cotton on to ‘ice’ on the lips of diamond robbers, another synonym will be found and they may start talking about the polar icecaps to bring the word back into normal usage. Like fugitives making ever briefer stays in a succession of safe houses, a word like ‘pizza’ may by now have a very short shelf life from first being introduced to being withdrawn. Nonetheless, the previous safe house has been raided and evidence found. You still have the clue that people who were, if only for a time, extremely partial to one kind of fast food over all the others are ringing an alarm bell that needs further investigation. The problem with TODD & NORA’s claim then becomes the possible absence of further investigation by the competent authority – there is no such further investigation of the Clinton emails: some of them may indeed be Russian forgeries, but absent such serious investigation, it becomes a hollow election argument merely to state so while providing not a shred of evidence and preventing the FBI from verifying the claim.

Peter Hyatt’s evidence on the McCanns illustrates the dilemma here; he is certain of several things, but with reference to possible sexual abuse, he simply calls for further investigation, because, although clear in its existence, the evidence is ambiguous in its application. It is not clear whether Mrs McCann’s mention of toilet and teeth indicates abuse of her as a child, or abuse of her as an adult, or abuse of Madeleine, in the latter two cases presumably by Mr McCann. And regarding Madeleine’s disappearance, the evidence is also ambiguous from having multiple possible motives: the parents already have several reasons for hiding her accidental death: loss of their twins into care, loss of their reputations through negligence, loss of their livelihoods in medicine for possibly drugging Madeleine with medication, loss of their freedom in the case of a custodial sentence. Any one of these reasons would be sufficient to explain their deduced actions, and so the need to detect sexual abuse somehow fades into the background as being unnecessary and/or far-fetched.

Ambiguity is only one logical feature perceptible in the McCann story without formal training in statement analysis; others being tautology and contradiction. It goes without saying – hence it is tautology for the McCanns to say so – that an abduction requires a lapse of parental attendance. There is a contradiction in admitting to one kind of inadequate parental supervision (absence for dinner) to explain away another (an accident). And the ambiguity lies in the reversibility of the dinner story: it may after all be true, but unfortunately it is fully compatible with the construction of an alibi: they needed to have been absent in order to make an abduction even theoretically possible. As Hyatt points out, to sustain a lie, you need to introduce and divert attention to additional extraneous material. Abductions do happen from time to time, very unfortunately from a law-abiding standpoint, but it can be fortunate for someone looking for some kind of scapegoat. This is how lies and evil breed: the nastiness only gets worse. In this case no abductor has been found (further casting doubt on his existence), but one seems to have been invented, and often enough a culprit will be found who is maybe not innocent overall but totally innocent of that crime or non-crime. So a lesser offence of not preventing accidental death has escalated into another case of paedophilic abduction and likely unlawful killing which may well be a total fiction. In other words – and without prejudging this particular case – the existence of criminality ‘out there’, real or imagined, helps to get people off the hook. Meanwhile, on the level of investigation, which operates in reverse, working back from a crime scene to what happened to produce it, investigating the lesser offence might indeed escalate into a full-blown case of paedophilia much closer to home.

Without prejudging this particular case means: maybe not the McCanns, but very possibly Hillary Clinton (again: further investigation needed). For this is a situation that encapsulates what we are seeing with the Clintons on an altogether larger scale: if a politician has so much dirt coming out, the tendency is simply to vote her out of office and be done with it, because crime is exonerated by more crime; and more fake (non-existent) crime is piled up on real crime. Hence you get a gangster like Al Capone going to jail for tax fraud, and everything else he did never established before a court of law becomes the stuff of legend, in the growing limbo that we call ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and ends in a state of lawlessness whereby proof of guilt never happens and the world is run by fake innocents who also likely connive when falsely accused because it enhances their reputation.

Which brings me back to where I started. Hyatt is right to point out the pitfalls to seeking to raise the quality of our judicial system. It is there to coax people into taking responsibility for their actions at the earliest stage possible because the lies only multiply, crimes become more serious and criminality spreads from the hardcore criminals to society at large. The problems are systemic and we all need to do more to create an atmosphere of truthfulness (honesty) in which the lies cannot prosper.

There's a new thread just started for this latest statement analysis video in the Madeleine McCann saga, here:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1116573