Madeleine McCann - Page 2 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Madeleine McCann


Recommended Posts

This is long and a bit slow to start with and I am not endorsing the interviewer but IMHO I think the guy he is talking to gets it right as much as is possible. There are a couple of bits of lesser known information in it as well that will make you think but I'll let you decide what they are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thplinth said:

This is long and a bit slow to start with and I am not endorsing the interviewer but IMHO I think the guy he is talking to gets it right as much as is possible. There are a couple of bits of lesser known information in it as well that will make you think but I'll let you decide what they are.

 

Watched that a few years back, thought the guy and his conclusions seemed pretty credible but then I’ve always thought the parents knew more than they were letting on. 
Don’t know if it was this video or another one but apparently they had access to a government PR film to handle their media commitments and another couple who used to go on holiday with the McCann’s shared some fairly horrible sexualised comments made by the dad and another friend during a previous holiday about one of the kids. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the video a few years back as well. Clarence Mitchell is the guy you're thinkng of he was a Tony Blair Spin Doctor who quit his job to become the McCanns spin doctor. He also worked for Clement freud who invited the McCanns for dinner

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/how-clement-freud-invited-kate-and-gerry-mccann-for-lunch-after/

Craig Murray on Freud https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/clement-freud-part-downfall/

Tonnes of stuff about the case don't add up and this Peter Hyatt seems credible to me, it's crazy how much information you can glean in different facets of information theory, there's a fiction book called Cryptonomicon which is based around this sort of stuff and till i read it i had no idea of the efficacy of it.

 

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, phart said:

I saw the video a few years back as well. Clarence Mitchell is the guy you're thinkng of he was a Tony Blair Spin Doctor who quit his job to become the McCanns spin doctor. He also worked for Clement freud who invited the McCanns for dinner

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/14/how-clement-freud-invited-kate-and-gerry-mccann-for-lunch-after/

Craig Murray on Freud https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/06/clement-freud-part-downfall/

Tonnes of stuff about the case don't add up and this Peter Hyatt seems credible to me, it's crazy how much information you can glean in different facets of information theory, there's a fiction book called Cryptonomicon which is based around this sort of stuff and till i read it i had no idea of the efficacy of it.

 

I've looked at Hyatt's work for a while now, mainly because my wife became interested in statement analysis as a tool for the work she was doing at the time. It's a fascinating area of work. Also of interest, & following a similar concept, is Blink by Malcolm Gladwell...he talks about "thick-slicing" (the way most people tend to make judgements based on spending time with them) versus "thin-slicing" (in effect, intuitive thinking). I think that in time, criminal interviews will start to put some emphasis on non-verbal responses in the first second of answering rather than the subsequent verbal responses. Of course, Hyatt is trying to make a name for himself here so there is a danger he is focussing on finding what he wants to find, but nontheless, I agree that he's very credible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Huddersfield said:

I've looked at Hyatt's work for a while now, mainly because my wife became interested in statement analysis as a tool for the work she was doing at the time. It's a fascinating area of work. Also of interest, & following a similar concept, is Blink by Malcolm Gladwell...he talks about "thick-slicing" (the way most people tend to make judgements based on spending time with them) versus "thin-slicing" (in effect, intuitive thinking). I think that in time, criminal interviews will start to put some emphasis on non-verbal responses in the first second of answering rather than the subsequent verbal responses. Of course, Hyatt is trying to make a name for himself here so there is a danger he is focussing on finding what he wants to find, but nontheless, I agree that he's very credible.

I'm not a fan of Gladwell the books i've read of his have shown a very shallow understanding of the subject he was trying to talk about specifically the 10,000 hour rule, a truly terrible interpetation of one really bad experiment about muscians with a tiny sample size and a huge variation of results grafted onto elite sport. that was then used to justify his theory. No idea about Blink as never read it, but outliers is a horrendous piece of pop-science.

Edited by phart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thplinth said:

Oops sorry, no disrespect intended. Should have read the preceding posts.

Haha, honest, no worries!

I think it is a decent contribution to be honest & I enjoyed reading it...I've worked with some heavy duty people in my time & I'm fascinated by them & how you can judge them when making critical decisions. A lot of this stuff wasn't anywhere near the mainstream when I was dealing with it, but looking back, a lot of what both Gladwell & Hyatt are saying fits with how a lot of people that were involved in making assessments on dangerous people actually behaved. I was always taught, & went on to teach many people dealing with complex individuals to "trust your instincts". I often used to wonder how I'd articulate that, & in some cases many (often people who had limited practice experience) would dismiss at as judgementalism; something you had to overcome. Being honest some people's instincts were dominated by fear (essentially they were in the wrong job) but I like the way theory is increasingly starting to catch up with real world behaviours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Huddersfield said:

Haha, honest, no worries!

I think it is a decent contribution to be honest & I enjoyed reading it...I've worked with some heavy duty people in my time & I'm fascinated by them & how you can judge them when making critical decisions. A lot of this stuff wasn't anywhere near the mainstream when I was dealing with it, but looking back, a lot of what both Gladwell & Hyatt are saying fits with how a lot of people that were involved in making assessments on dangerous people actually behaved. I was always taught, & went on to teach many people dealing with complex individuals to "trust your instincts". I often used to wonder how I'd articulate that, & in some cases many (often people who had limited practice experience) would dismiss at as judgementalism; something you had to overcome. Being honest some people's instincts were dominated by fear (essentially they were in the wrong job) but I like the way theory is increasingly starting to catch up with real world behaviours.

It is interesting. There really is so much more information in what we say and how we say it than the simple meaning of the words we choose. And then what we don't say.... And when you are lying or concealing something you are going to make little mistakes which folk like this will be all over.  I think it certainly has a lot of worth in an investigation if the practitioner is skilled and highly experienced like the Hyatt guys seems to come across as but I would be uncomfortable with it being used in court etc. It is still pseudo scientific in that I suspect it is still as much of an art as a science and with the wrong person doing it could be dangerous. That said I found myself increasing convinced (about his conclusions in this case) as I watched it. It is a strange case all right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2020 at 8:54 AM, phart said:

I'm not a fan of Gladwell the books i've read of his have shown a very shallow understanding of the subject he was trying to talk about specifically the 10,000 hour rule, a truly terrible interpetation of one really bad experiment about muscians with a tiny sample size and a huge variation of results grafted onto elite sport. that was then used to justify his theory. No idea about Blink as never read it, but outliers is a horrendous piece of pop-science.

I agree with this.  Although reading Outliers did then lead to me reading The Sports Gene by David (not Jeffrey) Epstein, which is an excellent book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Denny’s Yard said:

I agree with this.  Although reading Outliers did then lead to me reading The Sports Gene by David (not Jeffrey) Epstein, which is an excellent book.

Range is also a god book by Epstein.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...