Statement Analysis of someone else’s Statement Analysis of my Statement Analysis of Meabh Quoirin’s First Public Statement on August 10th

Original statement:

morning, everyone. Um…
We want to say thank you to each and everyone of you.
We knew you are searching night and day for Nora.
We see you working so hard and and also praying with us, being with us.
We know you have given up your time, especially on a special festival time, uh,
to be with us here. It means the world to us and we are so grateful for everything that you are doing for us. Everyone here and everyone who is helping who is not here, we are, um, extremely impressed with uh the effort, your expertise, your dedication and we we we hope you find Nora and thank you so much, terimah kasi.

My analyses: Short version and long detailed version.

One of the problems with media outlets and crime based magazines is that there is a strong desire to get quick headlines without any substance. Apparently, part of my analysis was pasted in the comment section of a major Irish newspaper and while referenced, the lazy writer of the crime magazine didn’t bother looking at the entire analysis.

He did however point something out to me that I have missed:
Indeed, Meabh Quoirin doesn’t say “good morning”, but morning.
The writer then states:

This is an early indication of fairly substantial cognitive bias from the writer. Because Meabh doesn’t say “Good morning.” She starts off with “Morning.” Those around her answer, “Good morning”.

a) There is no bias. This was a mistake on my part. I assumed it was good morning. It wasn’t and yes, there is a huge difference.
b) He starts the second sentence with “Because”. This is to be flagged as it indicates missing material. A clarification of some sort. Fairly substantial cognitive bias is not proven “because Meabh doesn’t say good morning”. It is a hit-and-run of sorts with a nasty accusation he cannot defend. Again: I have no idea who really posted my analysis, but I stand by mine and cannot control how others interpret it. So, it might be that this writer has anger issues towards the person posting part of my analysis and in his non-professional and non-analysis-driven manner, he lashes out to correct what doesn’t need to be and makes false accusations.

He then moves here:

We knew you are searching night and day for Nora.

His reply:

Meabh is Irish, so her pronunciation is different. I don’t hear “knew”, I hear “know”, although the locution is somewhat pinched and high-pitched. While mismatches in tense are a typical feature of deception, that’s not the case here.

She says “knew”. I have confirmed it with several people from Ireland who told me there is no doubt she was using past tense here.
Nice try, though. Reminds me of when Ali G. claimed National Basketball Society vs. National Basketball Association was an English/American thing.

My advice to Crime Rocket: Get an actual statement analyst to quickly go over a post one of your writers makes about statement analysis.

Nick van der Leek continues:

We see you working so hard and and also praying with us, being with us.

Broken down it’s reduced to:

We see you praying with us.

In statement analysis, if the subject doesn’t say it, you do not say it for him or her. You don’t “break things down” either as every word counts.

Who hires those people? Crime Rocket?

In the video her mother says “we hope you find Nora”…Why not, we hope we find her?

is from a tweet of his.

At this point and time, I will excuse myself. I suggest none of you rely on anything but the science of statement analysis. Opinions don’t matter.

In addition: Anybody who shortens a statement or alters it in any form and/or alleges phonetic differences which do not apply, is not to be trusted.