TJMK's Crime "Expert" Peter Hyatt--Guitar Teacher

TJMK's Crime "Expert" Peter Hyatt--Guitar Teacher

Postby Sean2010 » Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:00 am

Peter Hyatt is a guy who TJMK holds out as some sort of "expert" in analyzing the statements of criminals and suspects. He is described in various places on the Internet in terms such as "an investigator for the State of Maine, Laboratory for Statement Analysis for Scientific Interrogations" who works along with police departments in criminal investigations.

Actually, his degree is in Bible Studies. He teaches guitar to children ages 5-12 in the afternoons. His day job is in checking out complaints about mistreatment of disabled people. There is no such place in the state government of Maine as a "Laboratory for Statement Analysis for Scientific Interrogations."

Hyatt is not an expert. He is not in law enforcement. He is a guitar teacher who should study his Bible a bit better before he goes around attacking the reputations of innocent people while holding himself out as an "expert."
User avatar
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:05 pm

Re: TJMK's Crime "Expert" Peter Hyatt--Guitar Teacher

Postby Sean2010 » Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:20 am

Check out this website for more info on the questionable technique of "statement analysis."
User avatar
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:05 pm

Re: TJMK's Crime "Expert" Peter Hyatt--Guitar Teacher

Postby CaptainObvious » Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:00 am

Maybe this is like that color analysis of Amanda's drawing.
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:53 pm

Re: TJMK's Crime "Expert" Peter Hyatt--Guitar Teacher

Postby McJustice » Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:40 am

Too many people want magic to be real.... but in this day and age most people will tell you that they do not literally want to believe in magic BUT they may often suffer from magical thinking or will accept magic if it is dressed up in a scientific-sounding disguise... WHY? Children rely on Daddy or Mommy to fix the things that seem impossible and baffling to a child... As time goes on people gain awareness of how a lot of things work in the world and understand limits and trade-offs and reasonable compromises to get to a particular goal. And finding the fastest and or most effective solution to a problem is usually what people hope to achieve. But life is harder and more complicated and a powerful parent with all the answers is not longer available in the same way but too many still long for someone with all the answers. And that earnest wish for what amount to miracles plus the knowledge gaps (and often logic deficiencies) that virtually all people have in some area just means they are vulnerable to allowing magical thinking and hucksters to take advantage of them.

Having special knowledge that gives a person an advantage in doing their job or understanding reality is desirable and valuable in society... Powers of understanding and expertise that seems almost like magic to the average person. But the benefits are only real if the claimed ability is reality based. But that can be less important in the short term than a person believing that they do have a special insight or knowledge or ability and that they have the ability to convince others that they do. Magic only works if there are enough people who believe it without any real evidence to back it up. What seems to be evidence for something working may have more to do with advertising than science. Fast, near-miraculous results, appearing to give people or yourself what they most earnestly desire is almost too easy.

But quicker may not be better. But all too often people will trade accuracy and a more verifiable result for a cheaper, faster, less bothersome means to an end. It is a practical approach but taking a shortcut off the reliable path may result in muddy feet or complications... But once a short cut is taken, the investment in defending it and its results may become more important than if it led to the right objective.

So you have Giobbi who is sold on BAI (Reid Technique - Behavioral Analysis Interview) and Mignini with similar magic interview beliefs getting the quick result that they and the public want. Win-Win for everyone, pity about the innocent people locked up as a result. But that system while a lot faster than boring old forensics and time-consuming regular police work still can take a lot of time to observe the suspects in lengthy interviews... The old Fashioned style interrogation that Mignini favors... does not have the nice pseudo-science veneer on it that Giobbi's Ouija board readings have but they will get a result quickly from almost anyone... if they are sleep deprived, scared, and generally abused... But both methods can still be just too tiring and time-consuming for a busy or lazy prosecutor and his minions...

Maybe they would eventually want to hop on the "Statement Analysis" bandwagon to get even cheaper and faster results. The tea leaf reading it amounts to takes little training and gets fast results... Assembly line justice. Skim suspect's statements for all the mumbo jumbo minutia specified, assign guilt or innocence in a matter of minutes and save the cost of a full investigation and trial... miraculous...

How about Italy outsources all of the messy business of criminal justice to Statement Analysis "experts"?
It would have the "magical" results that at least some of them seem to want.
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 8:08 am

Re: TJMK's Crime "Expert" Peter Hyatt--Guitar Teacher

Postby PaulTC » Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:05 am

Great work Sean. That link on LSI SCAN is priceless.

I am afraid Peter Hyatt is the price we pay for democracy. I don't know what can be done about him though it seems he is dangerously close to committing fraud. APS investigators are not law enforcement or even close. Hyatt and his wife Heather are both APS investigators. They live near Bangor but their work takes them up to the new Brunswick border. They are, in short, loons running around in the Northwoods. Obviously Peter has way too much time on his hands as he has been active on the internet "analyzing" various criminal cases from afar. Now we find that his degree is in Bible studies and he teaches guitar. I guess when guitar students are hard to come by he supplements his state salary with a little statement analysis and hammed up flim flammery. I love it. This guy is the great guilter savior. How ridiculous.

I should go back and read the 2009 National Academy of Sciences critique of various forensic disciplines to see if it says anything about about statement analysis. As someone with a Ph.D. in English Lit, I do believe that a close reading of texts reveals something. The problems are two-fold: 1) there is nothing the least bit scientific about it--at best it is a way of generating hypotheses and hunches and 2) it is a skill most any intelligent ,literate person has--they just don't make a pompous big deal about it.
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:03 am

Re: TJMK's Crime "Expert" Peter Hyatt--Guitar Teacher

Postby McJustice » Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:14 am

I suppose for Hyatt... people all are like clones of dictionaries.... regardless of where they grew up, and the people that shaped their writing and speaking they all use words in the same way and always mean the same thing throughout their lives... For repeatable scientific results that is what it would take: we are all AI clones with the same programming... and there are no regional dialects and local variations in language and that words are static and do not acquire new shades of meaning and constantly evolve... so the man lives in a cardboard cut-out version of reality where there is a finite amount of revealed truth that just takes a few rules and memorizing to master in order to make total sense of everything and get people to maybe pay you for your wisdom.

Hyatt's "degree" in memorizing and agreeing with what his local bible school says what verses mean (and I'd be surprised if it went much beyond that into any real critical thinking in a theological sense or otherwise) only underlines his ignorance... while there is a lot of convergence in some denominations on the approved meaning of biblical texts and how to go about understanding it in approved ways... in reality of course there is a staggering variety of interpretations, translations, rewording, meditating and extraction of hidden meanings going on everywhere now, in the past and indefinitely into the future... That might be a tip off to the average person that if things are so fractured and complex in just understanding a very well known holy book, then the totality of everyday writing and speech is even more varied and nuanced by several orders of magnitude. So you have to wonder if Hyatt noticed this complexity in language and understanding of it. How many alternate readings and analysis he has ever done of what other bible colleges elsewhere have to say? But of course... his Bible College and his readings are the right ones... That kind of self referential correctness helps his "work" in LSI SCAN tremendously. It would seem there is only one paint by numbers truth that he is specially blessed to divine from whatever he looks at. No need for intersecting complementary sources of evidence: all the different types of forensics, psychology, profiling, exhaustive interviews and legwork etc... No, a secret decoder ring is all that is needed... this is cult-like magical thinking.
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 8:08 am

Re: TJMK's Crime "Expert" Peter Hyatt--Guitar Teacher

Postby Sean2010 » Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:20 pm

This faker Peter Hyatt posts a blog under the name Seamus O'Riley, in which he purports to be able to determine guilt or deception by reading the statements of others. He claims that he can determine that Amanda did in fact participate in the murder, just by reading her written statements. He also claims that he can determine that Steve Moore is deceptive in his support for Amanda's innocence. ... lysis.html ... ke_12.html ... ntary.html

Here faker Peter Hyatt accuses Veteran FBI Agent Steve Moore of deception: ... nders.html

The guilters-haters really are desperate in their reliance on snake oil salesmen like Peter Hyatt, and on the psychologist who claimed to be able to psychoanalyze Amanda based on her use of colored pencils, and their own comical attempts to analyze Amanda's handwriting. They can't even see how pathetic they are as they grasp at straws to validate their own hate.
User avatar
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:05 pm

Re: TJMK's Crime "Expert" Peter Hyatt--Guitar Teacher

Postby Sean2010 » Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:28 pm

This is the text of faker Peter Hyatt's analysis of one of Steve Moore's articles here on the IIP website. Hyatt's statements are in bold print, while Steve Moore's words are in regular print:

Former FBI investigator Steve Moore has made numerous appearances on the major networks on the Amanda Knox case, claiming that he once he thought her guilty, but now believes that she is innocent, and is actively engaged in seeking to help Knox.

After doing analysis of her interview, I was asked to read Mr. Moore's public article that claimed Knox was wrongfully convicted.

Knox' statement analyzed by me is here: ... ement.html

Note that Amanda Knox also interviewed for a magazine and sent an email about her case. Both are analyzed as well. ... lysis.html

In the analysis, Statement Analysis principles are applied in the same manner as in all other cases.

My conclusion based upon the the analysis of Amanda Knox' words is that Amanda Knox was deceptive, engaged in a sexual homicide, but may not have inflicted the final cut that ended the victim's life. It was after these postings that I was asked to read Mr. Moore's defense of Knox.

Steve Moore has an impressive resume with vast experience, and wrote an impassioned article to argue for her. The article is in plain text, with analysis in bold type. Any word within his article that is in bold type is emphasis added by me for the point of analysis. With Amanda Knox' case once again making headlines, we can now take a look through the lense of analysis of his defense of Knox.

Investigation of Violent Crimes is My Life; Not a Hobby

by, Steve Moore

My name is Steve Moore; I retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2008 after 25 years as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent. My entire investigative experience was in the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism. In my last such assignment, I was the Supervisor of the Al Qaeda Investigations squad, following which I ran the FBI’s Los Angeles-based “Extra-Territorial Squad”, which was tasked with responding to any acts of terrorism against the United States in Asia and Pakistan. I have investigated murders throughout the United States and the world.

His first 10 lines are used to introduce himself, by his first and last name, with repeated mention of the FBI, indicating that this is a sensitive topic for him. He also introduces "supervisor" in this introduction. In Statement Analysis, we look at the amount of words (or lines) assigned to various topics which can help us determine not only deception (see article on "Form") but for priority.

I do not know Amanda Knox. I have never met or spoken with anybody in the Knox or Mellas families. In my 25 years in the FBI, I had come to believe that if you were arrested, you were probably guilty. I never had a person I took to trial who wasn’t convicted. I was especially tired of guilty persons claiming their innocence.

"I do not know Amanda Knox" is a strong statement. Our measurement for reliability and commitment is First Person singular, past tense and we note not only any deviation from this formula of commitment, but we note any additions. Here, by itself, it is strong. But then he adds to it: "I have never met or (sic) spoke with anybody in the Knox or Mellas families". We would then ask, "have you emailed them? Have you had contact with them through another party?" since we note that he felt the need to add distance to the statement. This is the first mention of Amanda Know. In analysis, it is important to note all names mentioned, and in the order they are mentioned, and how they are addressed.

Also note that he mentions "FBI" again, which repetition shows sensitivity.

He then states that after 25 years experience, he holds to a prejudice that if someone is arrested, he is guilty.

This presupposed guilt is noted, as he reveals how his own mind worked, even after 25 years experience and should be noted.

I had heard snippets about the Knox case from the news, and believed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were certainly guilty.

Note the confirmation of his closed mindedness in the word "certainly". He concluded this because they had been arrested and it was a "certainty" for him. This leads to the question on how 25 years experience failed to make him open minded. We note this along with the repetition of experience as sensitive to the subject. Note that, within the prejudiced mind of guilt he heard "snippets" about the Knox case from the news. This would not be a study of a case file; but reduces the information he listened to to "snippets".

But then I began to hear statements from the press that contradicted known facts.

Note that when someone "began" something, they should conclude it and may indicate a withholding of information; otherwise what was began was not completed and continues.

Note also that he began to "hear statements" that came from the press that "contradicted known facts".

We note the change in language, from "snippets" from the "news" to
"statements" from the "press".

When a change of language appears, it represents a change in reality.

"I pulled out my gun, and fired my weapon, and then re holstered my gun." Here, the gun became a "weapon" when fired; but returned to being a "gun" when holstered. A change in language represents a change in reality.

"My car started to sputter so I pulled over. I left the vehcile on the side of the road and walked."

Insurance investigators are often well trained (and in some regions, more highly paid than law enforcement) and recognize that the car was a "car" while being driven, but became a "vehicle" when it would no longer go. Therefore, the change of language is justified by the change in reality.

Statement Analysis principle: When there is a change in language, but not apparent change in reality, we may be looking at deception.

Note also that the "statements" from the "press" are no longer "snippets" from the "news" and, he reports, are contradicting "known facts".

We have another change in language. This leads us to conclude:

either there is a new source of information justifying the change of language, or there is possible deception here, and the information is coming from the same source; media.
In an interview, we would want to ask about "snippets", "news", "statements" and we would want to ask what "known" facts, are, versus, "unknown" facts. We would also need to know the source of the "known" facts.

Without justification in reality, it is flagged for deception.

Is the information coming from media outlets, which indicates deception, or does the subject have access to the case files in Italy, of which he can then compare the "known facts" to "statements and snippets" that came from media. Where did the "known facts" come from? Were they from the press? Note that he does not disclose where the "known" facts came from and he now causes us to ask about the difference between "facts" and "known facts"; ie, what this means to the subject himself.

Wanting to resolve the conflicts, I looked into the case out of curiosity.

Note the inclusion of the word "conflicts". Are these the "statements" from the press that "contradicted" the "known facts"? Note also that none are identified here.

The more I looked, the more I was troubled by what I found. So I looked deeper, and I ended up examining every bit of information I could find (and there’s a lot of it).

Note that he "looked" and was "troubled" by what he found. He does not say where he "found" these things that troubled him.

Note now we have new language introduced:

He does not tell us where he looked (news, press) but he was able to examine "every bit of information" he was able to find.

An exaggeration is not necessarily deceptive within itself, as it is used to make a point. If we have, however, repeated (sensitive) exaggeration, we will then wish to revisit it for deception.

The subject does not tell us where he found "every bit" of information, leading us to more questions.

He is raising more questions than giving answers. This is why Statement Analysis is helpful in getting beyond attempts to persuade, and to seek truth. It is difficult for anyone to say that they examined "every" bit of information and not be questioned as to where it came from, but in this case, the files reside in another country, and not in the United States. Perhaps he had access to the case file if shared through his federal agency, but he does not say so.

The more I investigated, the more I realized that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito could not have had anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. Moreover, one reason that they were falsely convicted was that every rule of good investigation was violated.

We have a change in language, from "looked" and "examined" to "investigated". We have a change in language and it must be justified by a change in reality. What has changed that he has gone from "looking" even deeper, to "examine" and now to "investigate"?

He does not identify the source of information that he now investigated, but tells us that this investigation of unknown information caused him to "realize" that the two accused had "nothing to do" with it.

In order for this not to be viewed as deceptive, the information that he went from looking at, then to examining, and on to investigating would have to be made known. If it is from the press, is it "snippets" or "statements" or information that "every bit" he could locate contradicted "known" facts; leading us to ask:

"known" by whom?

If the subject is unable to identify what it is that the source of information that he called "known facts" we are likely looking at deception: only that he read the news and changed his mind; not that he was privy to case files in Italy.

In Statement analysis, repetition indicates sensitivity. One repeated theme has been "FBI" in this statement. Another is the word "every", which is all inclusive. Each time "every" is used, it should be noted.

The word "every" is repeated, indicating sensitivity. Since "every" excludes none, it is something that may only rarely be used in association with an investigation, since "everything" cannot ever be known. Note here that "every rule of good investigation" is mentioned. What are these rules? Was "every" rule violated? This is the language of persuasion, not of report.

Note also the additional word "good". This means that to the subject, there are investigations and "good" investigations, within his personal internal dictionary. What rules are referenced?

This sensitivity again suggests deception via exaggeration.

I spent years of my life working on cases in the federal courts, from simple murder to mass shootings to weapons of mass destruction.

Note the repetition of his life experience again. Note also "federal" is repeated. The amount of repetition associated here with his work is highly sensitive to the subject.

His work record, therefore, would likely need examination.

He stated that he worked on cases, but did not say if he did so successfully. Since the subject has not said so, neither can we. We can say that his work is a highly sensitive topic to him, and that he has not overcome presuppositional judgementalism even though he worked at it for 25 years. Thus, he is failing to build the reader's confidence but is weakening it.

His view point of his work and career and that of his superiors is a highly sensitive and personal issue for him and should be examined.

In the U.S., the totality of the evidence and the hunches of the investigators in this matter would not have been sufficient to get a search warrant, much less take somebody to trial. The case is completely flawed in every way.

In Statement Analysis, the shortest sentence is best. Every additional word which can be removed from the sentence is called an "unnecessary" word, making it, in Analysis, doubly important as it shows sensitivity.

For example, if I said, "I am happily married" it would be a straight forward statement. If I said I was "very happily" married the additional word "very" would indicate sensitivity. We do not know what causes the sensitivity; perhaps the subject didn't expect to be happy, or was previously unhappy. But if the subject said, "I am very, very happily married" and even on to "I am very, very very happily married" we might, along with Shakespeare, ask, "who are you trying to convince; you or me?" as the sensitivity is magnified by repetition.

Here, the subject uses additional words which cause us to flag the sensitivity:

1. The "totality" can only be known if the subject has access to all the case file information.
2. "hunches" of the investigators is to know what is in their minds; meaning he is either deceptive, or has interviewed every Italian investigator and has known their thoughts or "hunches", which is unlikely.

The case is not only flawed but with the sensitive addition of "in every way" and in its entirety. The repeated exaggeration is used to persuade; not report, and indicates deception. He cannot conclude that it is in "totality" anything, flawed or otherwise.

Note that this is the language commonly found in deceptive statements. "Every" rule has been broken, and the case is flawed in "every" way. He also claims access to the "totality" of the evidence; something which causes the reader to question the truthfulness of such a bold claim.

The argument he presents needs exaggeration and deception to be made.

Note that the deception that is judged by common sense (not having access to "every" thing about the case, is evidenced by the high level of sensitivity in the language).

The physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is wrong,

Note that evidence is neither wrong nor right; it is what it is and is neutral. What one concludes from evidence may be wrong or right, but in Statement analysis we do not interpret his meaning for us; rather we look at the words he uses.

This type of exaggerated and fabricated arguments may be why his career is something of high sensitivity; along with being unable to overcome presuppositional thinking that all arrested are guilty. It does not show an open-mindedness.

This is something that may have become problematic within his career.

contrived, misinterpreted, and (to put it kindly) misstated. The other “evidence” is made up of (embarrassingly naïve) hunches and bias. The “DNA” evidence is particularly inaccurate. The alleged motive and modus operandi of Knox/Sollecito is so tortured (and constantly-changing) that it defies belief.

Thus far, Mr. Moore has used a great deal of his statement about his background and his work, and then upon debasing the evidence, but has not informed us what evidence he refers to, nor how he was able to obtain the evidence, nor what manner of examination he employed. Note that in order to draw such opinions, he would have had access to all the above, including DNA evidence. He states to have studied the information, but does not identify the information investigated.

Note also the use of exaggerated language is used consistently throughout his statement, including coming to a contrary opinion "defying belief" which may also be related to the sensitivity in his career. If this is his method of presenting an argument, it is likely that co workers may have held a very different opinion of the subject than he appears to in this article.

“FACTS DETERMINE CONCLUSIONS”—The universal truism of investigation. The instant that one’s conclusions determine or change the facts, you have corrupted the judicial system.

I have been a young investigator, and I have supervised eager but inexperienced young investigators.

Note that he was a "young investigator" but that he has supervised "eager but inexperienced young investigators", excluding himself from being "eager" and "inexperienced" when he was young. Note also the repetition sensitivity attached to "supervisor".

Young or inexperienced investigators have a tendency to believe their own hunches. This is dangerous, because uneducated hunches are usually wrong. Hunches are not bad, they just need to be allowed to die a natural death when evidence proves them wrong.

Note that the subject had 25 years experience but did not overcome presuppositional prejudice. This appears to be a statement of his own projection. How he thinks, he projects upon Italian investigators.
Our words reveal us; they reveal our personalities and what we think of ourselves and others.

The sign of an investigation run amok is when an initial hunch is nurtured and kept on life support long after evidence should have killed it.

Likely the belief that any arrested person is guilty should have died during his rookie year in law enforcement, as most mature away from such concrete thinking and move on to a mature abstract thinking. This likely reveals how he conducted his own investigations.

This case is just such a situation. In the Knox case, the investigator openly states:

“We knew she was guilty of murder without physical evidence.” -- Edgardo Giobbi, Investigator.

We do not know the full text of the statement, but it appears to match his own belief about those arrested being guilty. Perhaps it is that the investigators, before test results came in, concluded that they had the killers based upon their own words.
At some point, the subject was either trained or offered training in Statement Analysis, meaning that he would have an understanding of the words chosen by Amanda Knox in her original interview, or even in her subsequent media interviews. He would also know that a prisoner who gives a false confession due to coercion will test out "deceptive" because their statement of confession is, de facto, deceptive, as it was false and it was coerced by the interrogators.

Then, when physical evidence came in that did not support their story, they simply changed their story. And their suspects. And their murder weapons. And the motives. (If there was ever a ‘smoking gun’ in this case; that statement was it.)

The subject tells us that the physical evidence "came in" but does not tell us where it came into, nor how he was able to obtain it. If he did not obtain the evidence as he attempts to persuade above, he is being deceptive to his readers, thus the need for hyperbole and exaggeration.

I will only say of the interrogation,

Note: future tense verb
note also "only" meaning exclusion of other things to say. Future tense violates the principle of First Person Singular Past Tense as establishing commitment. He does not establish commitment so neither can we.

that if any FBI Agents I supervised had conducted that interrogation in the U.S., I would have had them indicted.

Note again the repetition of "FBI" and "supervision" (supervise)as the sensitivity continues. This calls attention back to his work record and would cause us to want to interview those he supervised.

I am not surprised that Amanda made incriminating and conflicting statements in such a horrible situation. I am more surprised that under that duress, she didn’t make more incriminating (but ultimately false) statements.

Note that he is not surprised that she incriminated herself, but he is surprised that she did not do so moreso. Note that Statement Analysis done of false confessions shows deception.

Note that he acknowledges that she made incriminating statements; would her statements, which showed deception, be considered unreliable when they were made to a journalist last summer? Those statements also incriminated her and showed guilt (see analysis)

Hypothetically, any trained investigator operating for many hours without rules, in a foreign language, slapping and threatening a naïve, frightened girl just out of her teens and in a foreign country, (denying her food, sleep and the right to an attorney and Consular advice) can get her to say just about anything. If this was the medical profession, one might deem such activities “intentional malpractice”.

Note that this is reduced to "hypothetically" and it is not something he asserts with commitment.

The lack of commitment shows attempt at persuasion, rather than report. Report is the honest recall of past tense facts, such as gaining all the evidence and case files from Italy, reading it, examing it, and reporting back upon it. This type of work does not need persuasion nor exaggeration. It would not show such high and repeated sensitivity.

Note that the subject does not tell us that he obtained evidence. Note that the subject does not tell us that he obtained the case files.
Note that the subject does not tell us that he spoke to the investigators and uncovered all their hunches (every one of them).

His statement is reported as if he did, but since he does not tell us he did, we cannot say that he did.

This is where the sensitivity of deception comes in:

allowing his readers to believe that he obtained every bit of evidence from the case, including interviews, files, DNA, physical evidence, etc, as well as being able to interview and access the thoughts and hunches of all the investigators involved, and now is able to accurately report these things to his readers.

The language employed shows deception, but the possibility of the subject having obtained all of this information regarding the case itself suggests deception.

It is deceptively written.

The investigators in this matter appeared to have decided upon a conclusion, and repeatedly changed their story so that the evidence would suit their conclusions.

Note the inclusion of the word "appeared", which makes this statement honest. He claims that it "appears" to be a certain way to him, which is different than claiming to have examined all the evidence and to have known all the thoughts of those involved.

After the evidence came back that Rudy Guede sexually assaulted Meredith, did it not occur to the investigators that they had a simple rape/murder? The simplest answer is usually the correct answer. Crimes are only this complicated in James Bond movies.

The complexity of crimes is why hard work, education, and lots of training is needed. Note the reduction and minimization of hard work and training found within his theory.

Note "the evidence" came back, but he does not identify where it came back from, nor if he examined the evidence.

Amanda would not even have been a suspect in any US investigation.

Note again the use of exaggeration with "any" US investigation; a point that can not be proven nor disproven. When a subject needs to rely upon exaggeration, it is the subject that is causing the reader to question veractity.

also note: the use of the name, Amanda. Recall the sensitivity in the opening part of his statement that was noted. Since he "never" met anyone in the family, it is unusual for him to simply use her first name. I would question the family to learn if anyone has communicated with him via letters or exchanged emails but in person.

A sex murder occurs and your prime suspect is the female roommate?

He poses this as a question. Note "your" is 2nd person, distancing language.

Experienced, or simply competent investigators would have known that statistically, 90% of murders are committed by men.

Note that he classifies investigators as "experienced" or "simply competent". We have another word that has repeated sensitivity:


When women commit murder, only 16% use a knife, and close examination might show that the vast majority of those are gang-related. Any conclusion that involves a woman stabbing another woman is statistically so rare, that it should be looked at with great suspicion.

Note that in his statistics "only" 16% use a knife. This indicates that 84% use something else

There is also a thing called “leakage”. Leakage is the tendency of homicidal or mentally ill people to ‘leak’ behavior that would indicate their true nature. If one is to believe that Amanda Knox was the drug-crazed, homicidal Svengali that she was made out to be, there is absolutely NO way that such sociopathic behavior would not be leaked in some significant way prior to this crime.

In her interview analyzed, note what is leaked out by Amanda Knox. The association of her wording is found with sexual activity; generally sexual crime (LSI). Note that not only does she reference water but note how often it is repeated. Even if she is only 16% likely according to Mr. Moore's statistic, it is not proof of innocence.

No, instead we see a girl on the Dean’s list working several jobs to attend a university program in Italy. A girl who had not even had a scrape with law enforcement.

Note that Amanda Knox is described as a "girl" and not a "woman".

A good auto mechanic who lacks scruples, can take a car out of a junk yard, bolt on a couple of new fenders, drop in new carpets and slap on tires and a $100 coat of paint. Once he cleans up the interior and rolls back the odometer, he could sell it as a near new car to 99% of the population. It appears new, the mileage says it’s new, and only a trained mechanic would know the difference.

He dedicates 6 lines to auto mechanics. Note the inclusion of "99% of the population". This leaves only 1 % population remaining to know better. This, coupled with the high level of sensitivity about his background and experience may show leakage of his thought process here.

But bring in a trained mechanic, and he might notice that the brake pedal, for instance, is worn almost to the metal. That’s a sure sign of 100,000 miles of use or more. The hint of blue smoke out of the exhaust would be a dead give-away of a worn-out motor. He would warn you that all is not as pretty and new as it seems.

Another 5 lines dedicated to auto and not to specific evidence. He has not presented:
evidence, nor where he obtained the evidence, nor how he spoke to the investigators, but claims to know their thoughts; hunches. We have the repeated employment of exaggerations, meaning that repeated exaggerations themselves indicate sensitivity. The sensitivity suggests that the subject is deceptively representing himself as an investigator who accessed the evidence, the files, and the thoughts of the investigators, and was able to get information outside of media, because he found media to be contradictory to "known" facts.

The sensitivity of his statement, however, is mostly associted with his career and work. This indicates that not only has he likely had some level of contact with the family of the accused, and not only is he being deceptive about his relationship with the case files and investigators in Italy, but that his reason for declaring Amanda Knox as innocent is associated with his work and career performance, which would need careful examination including interviews with his superiors and the people he claimed to have supervised. Note his thinking:

he is 25 years FBI; therefore, Amanda Knox is wrongfully convicted, he is 25 years FBI.

For an article about Amanda Knox, he dedicates an inordiante about of time to his career, repeating that he was FBI, supervisor, and that he, himself, is the basis for his audience to believe his claim about Amanda Knox.


Note carefully his own words:

Take my word for this.

This is something that was likely problematic.

When someone tells others to take their word for something, in particular, if the subject is in a position of authority, it would likely be problematic in career and personal life, leaking an insecurity shown in a desire to control what others think.

It is likely difficult to be supervised by someone that holds to this mentality, and the subtle ridicule is something more used in bullying rather than the factual presentation of ideas or the free exchange in debate. Rather than being able to think for oneself, the "take my word for it" mentality can cause interpersonal problems in marriage, work place, friendships, and in business.

In investigations, complexity demands an input of conflicting ideas.

Investigation of violent crimes is my life; not a hobby.

He refers back to himself again. Note that "hobby" may be seen as an insult to those who do not make "violent crimes" their "life" or profession. This type of subtle insult is found throughout, including at Italian investigators:

The case the Italian prosecutors are trying to sell you is not the beautiful thing it appears to some to be. It’s a junker all cleaned-up and waiting to be purchased by naïve people. And the jury in Perugia bought it.

Note the unusual word "beautiful" in describing the case presented by Italian prosecutors. This would prompt more questioning of how he views the case, and why "beauty" is attached to a murder investigation. He then insults them by calling their work "junk" and insults the public (hobbyists?) as "naive".

Well thought out arguments do not need deception, exaggeration, nor insult and ridicule.

Posted by Seamus O Riley at 5:30 PM
User avatar
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:05 pm

Re: TJMK's Crime "Expert" Peter Hyatt--Guitar Teacher

Postby Sean2010 » Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:42 pm

It is rather ironic that this Peter Hyatt goes around claiming that he can detect deception in the statements of others, while misleadingly holding himself out as an investigator and expert in statement analysis for the State of Maine.

In his guitar lesson advertisement, he says he is a "Licensed Social Worker." While he may investigate complaints of neglect of disabled or elderly people, that is a far cry from being a criminal investigator. He tries to create the impression that he is a criminal investigator and does statement analysis for a living. It is just so bizarre that there are indeed deceptions going on, and those deceptions are by him.

I'll take the word of a 25 year FBI Agent over a guy who only imagines that he is a criminal investigator any day!
User avatar
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 4:05 pm

Re: TJMK's Crime "Expert" Peter Hyatt--Guitar Teacher

Postby mariquita » Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:29 pm

Ow. This guy makes my brain hurt.
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 8:08 pm

Re: TJMK's Crime "Expert" Peter Hyatt--Guitar Teacher

Postby thinker53 » Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:21 pm

Credential inflation is so prevalent these days. It actually ties in to what McJustice says about cult-like reasoning. If you look into the 'degrees' and 'credentials' of most new age media gurus (i.e. James Arthur --Sweatlodge Deaths-- Ray) or cult leaders (L.Ron Hubbard) they routinely inflated their resumes and offered up bogus job titles and non-existent expertise.

I wonder if what Hyatt is saying about his professional status reaches the threshold of fraud? If I were this guy, I'd be afraid of going after someone like Moore. Could it be libelous? (hope, hope)
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:11 pm

Re: TJMK's Crime "Expert" Peter Hyatt--Guitar Teacher

Postby Jason25 » Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:08 pm

This Peter Hyatt definitely needs to stay in his particular field of work, teach his guitar lessons, and stop trying to take on the pseudo role of a criminal investigator. Its always interesting to hear of people claiming they are an expert just because "they think they are", but then they have no valid credentials to show for it. Great post Sean!

Last bumped by Sean2010 on Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:08 pm.
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:13 pm

Return to Injustice in Perugia Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests