Police and Psychics [Archive] - Page 3

SteveGrenard

7th July 2003, 04:42 PM

FJ: Agreed. Probable cause is a less stringent standard than admissable evidence, and I have no reason to suggest that a psychic informant might not in some cases be considered probable cause.

Reply: Yes, there is no case law to suggest otherwise.

FJ: (Emphasis mine) If they hold up in court, that means that they have been challenged and upheld. I'm not arguing either way for whether or not such a warrant would be valid. I'm only saying that at least some must have been challenged in court by defense counsel.

Reply: I should have been clearer and said informant: known, anonymous, paid, unpaid and protected hold up in court. and
have been held up by the Supremes. As above, there is no
case law dealing with psychic informants I know of, and if they were categorized as any other type of informant which includes anonymous, the probable cause for the warrant is upheld.
In the case we are talking about above (Poole Murder) the information supplied by the psychic was ignored and DNA evidence found on properly acquired articles of clothing, etc including the victim's body served to convict.

FJ: Yep. But is it not true that, if incriminating evidence was turned up by a warrant, defense counsel should question the probable cause for that warrant and should be told that it was an anonymous tipster, a protected informant, a psychic, or whatever?

Reply: If one were the police one could easily apply for protected and confidential status for an informant if she or he were not anonymous to begin with and if upheld, and this is upheld all the time, the defense counsel would have to move on. In your list you include "psychic." I do not know that such a category even exists in this inventory of types of informants.

FJ: And this is why warrants are challenged in court.

Reply: Hypothetically let's say a psychic points at a particular suspect and the police investigate that subject and find other causes for a warrant. You do not need a warrant to investigate a subject of interest. I think we have been hearing John Ashcroft say this enough times already to know this to be true.

FJ: True, but not very relevant for us unless all psychic help in criminal cases is through anonymous tips. And in any case, it's not about whether or not a 'fruit of the poison tree' issue exists; it's about the fact that transcripts should show the process of arguing about it. If there are, indeed, a number of criminal cases where a warrant was issued based on psychic evidence, and these warrants have never been challenged in court, then I'm extraordinarily surprised. Far more mundane issues regarding valid warrants are brought up all the time.

Reply: I know of no transcripts where warrants were obtained based on psychic testimony (there is no psychic evidence so this is an incorrect assumption --- only psychic information. Information is not necessarily evidence.) We do know of cases where police have investigated based on psychic information, which perhaps lead to probable cause for warrants. It depends on how far the fruit of the poisonous tree is allowed to land from the tree and this is often within the discretion of the ruling judge.

CFLarsen

8th July 2003, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Asked and answered. One who fits the description of Pokie Ruark and who drives his car and was an acquaintance of the deceased. ANd one whose DNA was subsequently found on the victim. And one who is and now who was a low level thief. ONE. Just one.

You didn't give an answer. I don't think you know.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Your interpretations are truly bizaare and belie your own penchant for fantasizing. I never said anything about fantasizing. She was raped, robbed and murdered. I do not know in which order. Keep blabbing and you will reveal yourself.

I just would like to hear why it was prudent for you to insert that comment about "not necessarily in that order".

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Show me where I said that? I said neighbors and locals, e.g. shoppkeepers should've seen Pokie Ruark coming and going from Jacqui's flat or talking together in the area. This would indicate a relationship between Ruark and the deceased. The crime took place behind the closed doors of her flat and I did not say any of these people are witnesses. You are truly dense sometimes. I can hardly believe you leap to such conclusions based on the statements of others. It also may prove you have not bothered to study the case before engaging in discussion about it but this is standard procedure for you anyway.

Steve, whenever I ask you for clarification on your muddled answers (if you give one, which is far from always), you have a habit of turning it into a personal attack.

Your argument is - again - based on what you would have liked for people to have done. You have employed this tactic many times, but you still haven't gotten through your skull that you don't rule the universe.

Just because people don't do what you want them to, doesn't mean they are wrong.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: More miscomprehension. Follow the time lines. 15 years after 1983 was 1998. DNA was available in 1998 and beyond. It took several years to reopen the case, test the DNA evidence the cops didnt know they had and then match it up with Pokie who was sitting in the pokie already.

Please provide evidence that the policed used DNA testing in 1998.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: See answer above. Yes, it took 2-years to get all this material tested, matched and to have Pokie charged and convicted with Poole's murder. You think everything happens in a week, a microcosm? You are truly being pedantic and stupid. It took 2 years. You have not read the case and dont know the timelines. Its also irrelevant, pedantic misdirection on your part. Just about everyoine save your fans can see through these charades you play.

Please provide evidence that the DNA testing was started in 1998.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Where did I say anything about psychics? This is another example of miscomprfehension and misattribution due to excessive brain density. Stumpy and the BBC say Pokie Ruark and Poole were lovers. It took them 15 years to establish that. This is unreasonable and illogical. They know, and Stumpy knows what they should have done back in 1983 to establish this if it were true. I am STILL waiting for Stumpy's reponse on this.

Are you nuts, Steve? This whole thread is about psychics.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: If thats true so does anyone calling in an anonymous ill founded tip to Crimestoppers or AMW. There are some police officers who admit the value of psychic evidence. You know who they are since they have been discussed before and then slandered and libeled by closed minded cynics such as yourself. I have to remain open minded about these possibilities.

You are free to contact these people and let them know where to find me, so they can sue me for slander and libel. Go ahead.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: It would be if it were not for the fact that Ruark was in jail for a crime comitted while he was free after being given a walk by Lundy back in 1983. His criminal record is, well, a matter of record.

It's still post-hoc reasoning.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: We have preliminary access through Det. Batter's report in the Police Federation Journal. Have you read it? We will all have additional confirmation on further publication. You don't need anything froim me. I can read, can you?

Yep. Where is the evidence, then?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Only because now that this has "come out" people like Stumpy are covering their asses and the cover-up is often worse than the original lapse in procedure. The cover-up in this case is the pap handed to the BBC by police that Pokie and Poole were lovers. A sudden revelation after nearly 2 decades. Indeed. What a bunch of crap. If they couldn't figure it out then, it makes no sense how they could figure it out now. DNA in semen does not tell them how it got where it was or if it was the result of a consensual act or rape. The victim was found dead.....I am afraid any reasonable person has to fault their ikll founded logic on this.
I am surprised Mark Tidwell who is now doing forensic DNA work doesn't weigh in on this. Mark? Can DNA tell the police if it was due to rape or consensual sex?

Thanks for talking around the subject, as well as laying the blame on everybody else.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: How is this relevant? Are you writing a book or something? I don't work with Keen but he is very courteous and answers all polite requests for information. He is visiting the NYC next week and I hope to find time so we can meet briefly.

It is highly relevant, Steve, since you very often refer to people in the field.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I will not discuss the balance of your inane remarks on the Smart case because as I have said all the data is not in yet. Whatever I gave I got from news reports of her discovery and information supplied by psi-tech regarding geography to search. The rest of your remarks were answered in the original statements and do not merit any further responses. Some don't make any sense. I said I was waiting for Stumpy to report on the national UK guidelines. What was your brillant response to that? Doesn't deserve any more effort so go on and keep talking to yourself.

Your evasion is noted.

juninho

8th July 2003, 08:21 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Hi, officer Stumpy.

Do you know 'Hannibal'? He was another claimed 'police officer' who appealed to his own authority and who disappeared when he was shown to be misleading people on this forum.

Sorry, didn't really want to comment on this thread but it is quite clear to any rational person that both Hannibal and Stumpy(especially) know exactly what they are talking about. Having followed the thread all the way through I am flaggergasted as to how you can claim that Hannibal was in some way proved wrong. he did, in fact, ask you some pertinent questions which you refused to address. He therefore decided that it was futile continuing on with a discussion that was going nowhere fast.

On a related point please indicate in what capacity you worked in the home office especially as I was an employee myself - and I can prove it (unfortunately). What building did you work in?

Stumpy

8th July 2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Stumpy:

Further to your concern for Holohan's well being as a registered police informant, I think you should know that the Poole murder was the only murder case she ever gave information on. You should know that at the time she was not a medium in a professional sense and just claimed to have had Poole's spirit come and talk to her about it. She gave her information to the police, 120 individual pieces of information, which were all ignored at the time but which later analysis demonstrated were all true.

She does not work on murders or any violent or felonious crimes . The above was the first and last murder she gave information on. She relocated back to Eire where she became a medium who is consulted in finding missing objects. I understand she has a good track record at this. I am amused by the fact that you asked about her abilities after the Ruark case and got an answer which you now want stricken from the record here. Do I smell a Larcenism here?

The only possible threat to her would be Pokie Ruark who is in gaol for life in England. He was a low-life and presumably had few or any friends. They would have no reason to seek revenge on her since her testimony did not put Pokie in the pokey. Nor did any testimony or investigation by the police contribute to his conviction for this murder. Only Watson and Crick and all the DNA and PCR researchers who came after them can be blamed by Pokie for his undoing.

If Holohan does not work on Murder or violent crime cases and the Poole murder was the only murder crime she has ever given information on, how do you explain the following comment from M.Keen in one of your earlier posts.Batters himself has confirmed to us that Holohan "has since given the police very pertinent information regarding location of murder victim's body, verified when found in Hampshire Sept. 2001

Make your mind up, has she or hasn't she given reliable information in other cases? Please try and be consistent. If she has given info re a Hampshire case please give details so that I can validate it with officers there. If she hasn't why do you allege that she has?

When i asked about Holohans involvement with criminal cases in Ireland M.Keen replied The Garda protect their informants and would not wish to discuss this sensitive source of information,

Ever heard of Chinese whispers? Do you think that people in Ireland are going to examine this thread to establish the facts if the rumlour factory starts up? NO! The above comment will be distilled into "Mrs Holohan is an informant of the Garda"
If you have any decency you will get the comment pulled!

If the Garda are (rightly) protective of their sources, how have you obtained this information? May I take an educated guess that the source of the info is none other that Miss Holohan herself? Gosh, it must be true then if she says so.

I note your repeated crticism of Det Supt Lundy for his handling of the case. A pity you or your correspondent did not have the common decency to get his version of events before public crucifying him.

regards

Stumpy

Lucianarchy

8th July 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by juninho
[QUOTE]

Sorry, didn't really want to comment on this thread but it is quite clear to any rational person that both Hannibal and Stumpy(especially) know exactly what they are talking about. Having followed the thread all the way through I am flaggergasted as to how you can claim that Hannibal was in some way proved wrong. he did, in fact, ask you some pertinent questions which you refused to address. He therefore decided that it was futile continuing on with a discussion that was going nowhere fast.

On a related point please indicate in what capacity you worked in the home office especially as I was an employee myself - and I can prove it (unfortunately). What building did you work in?

Hannibal and Stumpy were both misleading and both had to be corrected. Hannibal, for misleading people as to how the police treat psychics, and Stumpy, for misleading people about anonymity. That sort of misinformation could censor members of the public who are psychic from going to the police in the first place. Given the level of accuracy of some psychics as presented by The Police Federation, such censorship would be far, far worse than any psychic charalatan. BTW, Stumpy even claims he was unable to connect to the 'net during the weekend, but was logged on and reading this very thread on Saturday! :rolleyes:

In respect of the appeal to authority issue, both Hannibal and Stumpy appealed to their own authority. Sorry, but this is a skeptic forum and such appeal is rejected, and in terms of analytical discussion on existing evidence, quite irrelevant, which is what you would have understood if you had actually read what I wrote about regarding my time with the HO. I am a skeptic. I am presenting the evidence which already exists. These are not my claims.

BTW, asking 'which building of the HO?', is like asking 'which building of the MOD? :rolleyes:

Jeff Corey

8th July 2003, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Given the level of accuracy of some psychics as presented by The Police Federation, such censorship would be far, far worse than any psychic charalatan.
Given that that level of accuracy has not been proven to be significantly higher than chance, your statement stikes me as extremely silly.

SteveGrenard

8th July 2003, 01:15 PM

Stumpy: I note your repeated criticism of Det Supt Lundy for his handling of the case. A pity you or your correspondent did not have the common decency to get his version of events before public crucifying him.

Reply: I am not crucifying him. You seem to be well versed in the case so I am asking you the question regarding the sudden decision, 15 years after the fact, that Ruark was Poole's lover.
How come Lundy et al did not establish this in 1983 and decided only after the case was reopened that this was the case? What would you have done when faced with a murder of this type?
Probably consider the mitigating factors against it: Poole had a lover, someone else who was well alibied. Poole was robbed and she was raped or non-consensually assaulted.

I am sorry but I have no details regarding the Hampshire case at this time but she did not work on it and did not describe or name the killers. There is a claim provided information on the accurate location of remains.

In response to the remarks that the police (Garda) in Ireland protrect their informants, that is true. On a case by case basis
if she or anyone else has given them information this is treated as a protected source. Nobody has given any details of any cases worked on by this person and there are no doubt a plethora to choose from on a daily basis. It will have to remain as such.

You yourself asked for details of such cases which you did not receive from me and will not receive from me. I don't even know who you are. You use the name Stumpy. For all anyone knows you could be a perp and not a cop. I endeavored to give you general information and not specifics and you will have to be content with that. If she has worked on any cases which may've placed her in some sort of jeopardy they will not be publicly detailed. Period. It is impossible to make her cease to exist (I can easily do that myself by deleting my posts) and I am sure you will achieve your aims in that respect but I will not do so. The person in question is already well publicized by others and not by me. On the other hand I have worked with psychics and the authorities in the U.S. and would never divulge the details of stheir cases or who was involved unless, yes, they decided to go public. I am not even sure that Det Batters in publishing the Police Federation article had her permission to do so but presumably he did.

Publicly all Holohan claims to do is find lost, missing and no doubt, stolen objects. So do insurance investigators.

SteveGrenard

8th July 2003, 01:30 PM

Prof Corey: Given that that level of accuracy has not been proven to be significantly higher than chance, your statement stikes me as extremely silly.

The medium in the Poole murder case gave police 120 pieces of information, all of which were found to be correct afterwards.
Is this chance or below chance? or?

Jeff Corey

8th July 2003, 01:39 PM

Steve,
Note the use of the word, "proven".

SteveGrenard

8th July 2003, 01:46 PM

The 120 pieces of information were taken down by 2 police investagtors in 1983, Det Batters and Smith. They were carefully recorded in their notebooks and then preserved.

The article by Batters in the Police Federation magazine attests to this. The subsequent investigation, within the past two or three years by Keen and Playfair confirm this.

The 120 pieces of information included the killer's name, a description of the killer and his car and numerous other items which are tabulated in the study article under peer review at this time. When DNA evidence was used to convict the killer in 2001 after the case was reopened 15 years later (in 1998), all of the information given by the psychic was confirmed.

The above constitutes "proven."

Lucianarchy

8th July 2003, 02:01 PM

Beyond all reasonable doubt.

juninho

9th July 2003, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

am a skeptic. I am presenting the evidence which already exists. These are not my claims.

BTW, asking 'which building of the HO?', is like asking 'which building of the MOD? :rolleyes:

Why are you unable or willing to answer the most basic of questions? You question the authority(sic) of other people's viewpoints (and I quote "Do you know 'Hannibal'? He was another claimed 'police officer' who appealed to his own authority") yet fail to provide us with even the smallest piece of information that might lead someone to believe you know what you are talking about.

To make it easy for you again:

1) In what capacity did you work for the Home Office and;

2) Which building did you work in.

Neither of these questions could harldy be construed as confidential but I know I wont get an answer to them.

Lucianarchy

9th July 2003, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by juninho

Why are you unable or willing to answer the most basic of questions? You question the authority(sic) of other people's viewpoints (and I quote "Do you know 'Hannibal'? He was another claimed 'police officer' who appealed to his own authority") yet fail to provide us with even the smallest piece of information that might lead someone to believe you know what you are talking about.

To make it easy for you again:

1) In what capacity did you work for the Home Office and;

2) Which building did you work in.

Neither of these questions could harldy be construed as confidential but I know I wont get an answer to them.

Which part of 'appeal to authority is irrelevant and rejected in skepticism', do you not understand? :rolleyes:

Try and stick to the actual evidence. I am not making a claim about my HO years, I don't need to, the data speaks for itself.

RonSceptic

9th July 2003, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Which part of 'appeal to authority is irrelevant and rejected in skepticim', do you not understand? :rolleyes:

Try and stick to the actual evidence. I am not making a claim about my HO years, I don't need to, the data speaks for itself.

Luci,

Are you sayinmg that it is unreasonable for a serving police officer to talk about ploice procedure?

The appeal to authority fallacy does not apply to experts commenting directly on their own area of expertise does it?

Lucianarchy

9th July 2003, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Given that that level of accuracy has not been proven to be significantly higher than chance, your statement stikes me as extremely silly.

"Pokie"

juninho

9th July 2003, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Which part of 'appeal to authority is irrelevant and rejected in skepticism', do you not understand? :rolleyes:

Try and stick to the actual evidence. I am not making a claim about my HO years, I don't need to, the data speaks for itself.

I understand the ethos behind the statement (even though its complete mumbo-jumbo). What I can't quite get to grips with is the fact that you of all people are quoting it.

BTW data may indeed speak for itself its just that I haven't seen any forthcoming, kindly direct me to where I may peruse said data.

I'll try again:

1) In what capacity did you work in the Home Office and

2) In what building did you work in.

There, that's nice and easy, isn't it?

Lucianarchy

9th July 2003, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Luci,

Are you sayinmg that it is unreasonable for a serving police officer to talk about ploice procedure?

The appeal to authority fallacy does not apply to experts commenting directly on their own area of expertise does it?

What rank, specialism, name and number have you verified as being correct in 'Stumpy's' appeal to his own anonymous authority?

Do you take anonymous claims from 'UFO back engineers' who work at 'area 51' who post to internet forums as well?

Do you realise that Stumpy has mislead people here in his claim about anonymity? What sort of value do you give someone who claims to be a police officer who makes misleading claims?

Lucianarchy

9th July 2003, 03:59 AM

"Last week I spoke with Christine Holohan who dispelled many of my preconceptions. Christine, who lives in [removed] and operates in [removed] convinced me, the eternal sceptic, that she does possess a calling, a meaningful and considerable vocation. How do you explain a woman who tells you things about your family, your past and future which she could not have known about. I was definitely converted."
http://archives.tcm.ie/laoisnationalist/1999/10/02/story4229.asp

Lucianarchy

9th July 2003, 04:03 AM

"What followed for Christina was the most horrific journey she had ever taken. Jacquie showed me “her last moments on earth, every detail was shown as if in freeze frame shots, like watching a film, nothing was left to the imagination. Jacquie pleaded with me to bring her murderer to justice”.

As a result of this sharing with Jacquie, Christina was aware of the culprit’s name, approximate age, hair colour, the fact that he had a tattoo, his occupation as a mechanic and also the fact that he had stolen a considerable amount of jewellery, all but two rings which he could not prise off Jacquie’s fingers.

Christina was “ terrified and very upset and decided to visit a retired policeman and his wife who were friends of mine. He advised me to bring my information to the police, as it was so detailed.

“I spoke to two officers one of whom, Detective Tony Batters, the first policeman to arrive at the scene of the crime, who was amazed at the details I gave him, details that only the police could be aware of.

“I also was able to write the culprit’s nickname “Pokie”, while in a trance-like state and in contact with Jacquie.”

Ruark was already a suspect and this had finally convinced Detective Tony Batters of the authenticity of Christina’s story.

At the time there was insufficient evidence to convict Anthony Ruark but Detective Batters never gave up hope that some day justice would be served. Batters kept all his manuscripts that contained Christina’s evidence and even though he retired he kept a watching brief.

Time passed and recently using the most up to date technology samples taken from the accused were reanalysed and finally on Friday August 24 2001, in The Old Bailey, London, Ruark was sentenced to 25 years and brought to justice. "
http://archives.tcm.ie/carlownationalist/2001/09/17/story109.asp

juninho

9th July 2003, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
"Last week I spoke with Christine Holohan who dispelled many of my preconceptions. Christine, who lives in [removed] and operates in [removed] convinced me, the eternal sceptic, that she does possess a calling, a meaningful and considerable vocation. How do you explain a woman who tells you things about your family, your past and future which she could not have known about. I was definitely converted."
http://archives.tcm.ie/laoisnationalist/1999/10/02/story4229.asp

Well I don't know about others on this forum but that's me definitely converted then. Couldn't possibly have a more convincing case put forward;)

Lucianarchy

9th July 2003, 04:05 AM

"'I thought she was reading my mind because she described the scene exactly as I'd found it. She gave a completed reconstruction of how the victim was lying, what she was wearing and what her injuries were.

She gave us information about jewellery that was stolen and unusual things such as the victim wearing two of a number of rings. There was an extraordinary amount of detail. She was adamant she was only receiving information from the victim."

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/lifestyle/newage/features/murder.html

juninho

9th July 2003, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

How many "Pokies" are there in the area then?

Well, I've been to Ruislip - don't know about Pokies but its teaming with Pikeys and I suppose the area could be described as Pokey and that's being charitable.

Therefore, I think we can probably deduce that Holohan was misheard and actually said that the killer would be from somewhere pokey like Ruislip. Well its a more realistic explanation;)

Lucianarchy

9th July 2003, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by juninho

Therefore, I think we can probably deduce that Holohan was misheard and actually said that the killer would be from somewhere pokey like Ruislip.

The name was written. :rolleyes:

thaiboxerken

9th July 2003, 04:31 AM

Tall tales are not evidence of people with superpowers, Luci.

You think you have superpowers, Luci, now go to the JREF and claim your million dollars then. Oh wait, you are too afraid that they'll show you that you really are just human after all.

You only make lame excuses for not taking the JREF challenge.

:D

RonSceptic

9th July 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

What rank, specialism, name and number have you verified as being correct in 'Stumpy's' appeal to his own anonymous authority?

None. But my judgemnet call is that he is genuine. I was also willing to believe Hannibal who offered to furnish various ID credentials to verify his status.

I do not beleive everyone though. For example I am rather less convinced of your supposed HO credentials and a little suspicious of why you will not answer juninho's questions on the subject. It was a direct claim by you on this very thread so according to your new 'rules' you should be doing your best to answer it.

Do you take anonymous claims from 'UFO back engineers' who work at 'area 51' who post to internet forums as well?

While we are talking logical fallacy, this is a bit of a strawman isn't it?

Do you realise that Stumpy has mislead people here in his claim about anonymity? What sort of value do you give someone who claims to be a police officer who makes misleading claims?

We will have to disagree on this final point. In my view he explained his position very clearly.

Finally, any chance you will answer my question regarding what you beleive in? Do I have to follow you from thread to thread until I get an answer?

Here it is one more time......

For the record do you really believe..

Winning lottery numbers can be predicted by psychic means
That mediums can talk to the dead
That spoons can be bent by parnormal means
That Natalia can read through a blindfold by pychic means
That ESP is a real phenomenon
That Uri Geller has super powers

Answer these questions and then we can leave it to other posters to decide whether you are best described as a sceptic or as a woo woo.

And how about.....

Dowsing works if you want it to?

You did say that didn't you?

SteveGrenard

9th July 2003, 06:50 AM

Ron Sc:

For the record do you really believe..

Winning lottery numbers can be predicted by psychic means
That mediums can talk to the dead
That spoons can be bent by parnormal means
That Natalia can read through a blindfold by pychic means
That ESP is a real phenomenon
That Uri Geller has super powers

Comment:

This is where the skeptics start going nutso and try to change the subject bringing up all sorts of other claims in order to divert
attention from the subject matter/topic at hand which may be getting too comfortably close to reality that it cannot be rebutted.

This is a tried but unsucessfully tested tactic. Please stay on topic instead of opening up 4 or 5 new ones in the same thread.

The issue is not whether mediums can talk to the dead but whether the dead talk to them. Get that straight as well. Ayone
can talk to the dead and frequently do. Every Christian who has
ever prayed to any saint is an example of this. The question there is whether they are talking to themselves or not.

Spoon bending, reading blindfolded and winning lotto numbers are not related to this.

Jeff Corey

9th July 2003, 06:55 AM

Yes they are. So are fairies in the garden, pink unicorns in the car park and Gary Schwartz.

9th July 2003, 06:58 AM

Steve

You are quite correct but ... Luci is a creduloid that makes outlandish claims and then, troll-like, slips away. I think that it is fair that some of the most silly comments follow it around in the hope, forlorn as it might be, that some answer might be forthcoming.

RonSceptic

9th July 2003, 07:10 AM

Steve,

Yes, you are correct about staying on topic. It's just that since Luci reported me to the mods for using the term 'woo woo' in this thread she has steadfastly refused to answers my questions. So when she finally responded to a post of mine at long last I took the opportunity of reminding her of the question. That's all. No hidden agenda.

The reason I trot out this list is that, as far as I know, she believes in all of those things. I have pointed out to her that I find her description of herself as a 'sceptic' to be deliberately provoactive given her views. She has in fact continued to use this label for herself on this thread.

So let me ask you this. Would you say that someone who beleives in all of the things I listed can sensibly be called a sceptic?

BTW Point taken about mediums talking to the dead! Dead right, as it were.:D

Lucianarchy

9th July 2003, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

But my judgemnet call is that he is genuine.

What do you base that judgement on? Are you sure you are not 'pre-judging' here?

I do not beleive everyone though. For example I am rather less convinced of your supposed HO credentials and a little suspicious of why you will not answer juninho's questions on the subject. It was a direct claim by you on this very thread so according to your new 'rules' you should be doing your best to answer it.

If you would have read the example of why I brought it up, you would see that the issue of authority is irrelevant in a skeptical debate, particularly from forum board posters. It is the evidence which is in question here, not the authority of the one providing it. The evidence can be checked, as it was and we found out that the police do not treat psychics in the disrespectful way that Hannibal would have lead you to believe. It was checked with Stumpy as well, and we discovered that he was misleading about anonymity. The police can and do act on anymous information.

Finally, any chance you will answer my question regarding what you beleive in? Do I have to follow you from thread to thread until I get an answer?

Here it is one more time......

For the record do you really believe..

Winning lottery numbers can be predicted by psychic means
That mediums can talk to the dead
That spoons can be bent by parnormal means
That Natalia can read through a blindfold by pychic means
That ESP is a real phenomenon
That Uri Geller has super powers

Answer these questions and then we can leave it to other posters to decide whether you are best described as a sceptic or as a woo woo.

And how about.....

Dowsing works if you want it to?

You did say that didn't you? [/B]

See my sig.

SteveGrenard

9th July 2003, 07:46 AM

RS: So let me ask you this. Would you say that someone who beleives in all of the things I listed can sensibly be called a sceptic?

There are at least two topic threads that deal with this subject here and this question would be more properly asked on these.

One of these include the definition of a sceptic (Latin origin) or skeptic (Greek origin) which I posted. None of these definitions includes an inventory of personal beliefs but define the term in ways more befitting the term. In short, it is irrelevant to list
specific items and tie them to the definition of a scerptic or skeptic.
You might as well add belief in unleaded petrol or oleomargarine over butter.

I am not trying to be evasive. Just state that the question is not properly framed.

The following is part of a post I made x-posted from the thread What is a Skeptic:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/skepanci.htm

"Although all skeptics in some way cast doubt on our ability to gain knowledge of the world, the term 'skeptic' actually covers a wide range of attitudes and positions. There are skeptical elements in the views of many Greek philosophers, but the term 'ancient skeptic' is generally applied either to a member of Plato's Academy during its skeptical period (c. 273 B.C.E to 1st century B.C.E.) or to a follower of Pyrrho (c. 365 to 270 B.C.E.). Pyrrhonian skepticism flourished from Aenesidemus' revival (1st century B.C.E.) to Sextus Empiricus, who lived sometime in the 2nd or 3rd centuries C.E. Thus the two main varieties of ancient skepticism: Academic and Pyrrhonian.

"The term 'skeptic' derives from a Greek noun, skepsis, which means examination, inquiry, consideration. What leads most skeptics to begin to examine and then eventually to be at a loss as to what one should believe, if anything, is the fact of widespread and seemingly endless disagreement regarding issues of fundamental importance. Many of the arguments of the ancient skeptics were developed in response to the positive views of their contemporaries, especially the Stoics and Epicureans, but these arguments have been highly influential for subsequent philosophers and will continue to be of great interest as long as there is widespread disagreement regarding important philosophical issues. "

RonSceptic

9th July 2003, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
See my sig. [/B]

I have done. And so has TLN who asked the dowsing question on the thread in which you made that claim. So why not answer it there?

Also the claim which you made regarding your 12 years at the Home Office was infact made on this thread. So I don't see why you refuse to answer juninho question?

Lucianarchy

9th July 2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

I have done. And so has TLN who asked the dowsing question on the thread in which you made that claim. So why not answer it there?

TLN was the one responsible for reposting forged quotes which were meant to be mine, found elswhere on the 'net, which Liarson supported using false claims for their authenticity, which was eventual proved to be bogus by an independant skeptic. Needless to say, both those idiotic liars haven't got the honour to apologise now they've been proven wrong.

If you've got a question, see my sig. But your earlier name-calling certainly hasn't put you on my priority list.

Also the claim which you made regarding your 12 years at the Home Office was infact made on this thread. So I don't see why you refuse to answer juninho question?

No, I can see that. Never the less, I have answered his question, it may not be what he wants to read, and given his inability to understand the fallacy of appeal to authority and its irrelevance in a debate on the presentation of evidence, I am not going to answer it again. You, OTOH, will, evidently, as in the faith you have bestowed in officer Stumpy, truely believe what you want.

RonSceptic

9th July 2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

TLN was the one responsible for reposting forged quotes which were meant to be mine, found elswhere on the 'net, which Liarson supported using false claims for their authenticity, which was eventual proved to be bogus by an independant skeptic. Needless to say, both those idiotic liars haven't got the honour to apologise now they've been proven wrong.[/B]

But TLN is simply asking you to back up a claim which you made, in the place that you made it.

Do you therfore make claims, but then refuse to back them up if you have some sort of grudge against the poster asking the question? If someone other than TLN asks, would consider answering them?

RonSceptic

9th July 2003, 08:36 AM

juninho

9th July 2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

I have done. And so has TLN who asked the dowsing question on the thread in which you made that claim. So why not answer it there?

Also the claim which you made regarding your 12 years at the Home Office was infact made on this thread. So I don't see why you refuse to answer juninho question?

Why, for that is the nature of the beast. No wonder Hannibal couldn't be bothered to continue his discourse with the woman. You would think that it is straightforward enough to answer some simple questions. Unfortunately, however, it appears that when somebody just has enough of trying to enlisit some answers from her she claims victory. Sad is not a strong enough word.

For a laugh I'll re-itirate my (basic) questions:

Luci

1) In what capacity did you work for the Home Office

2) In what building did you work.

I await with bated breath for your (non)response.

juninho

9th July 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

No, I can see that. Never the less, I have answered his question, it may not be what he wants to read, and given his inability to understand the fallacy of appeal to authority and its irrelevance in a debate on the presentation of evidence, I am not going to answer it again. You, OTOH, will, evidently, as in the faith you have bestowed in officer Stumpy, truely believe what you want. [/B]

Apologies for this but I didn't see your response until I sent my last e-mail. However, in what way can you possibly claim to have answered my question. I'll quote from your earlier posting regarding working at the Home Office "the data speaks for itself" - My response - I haven't yet had a reply from you to describe the nature of this "data" or where I can see it. Please explain, therefore, in what way you have given me an answer to my questions?

How on earth did you manage to come to the conclusion that I am unable to understand the fallacy of appeal to authority. I believe that I stated that I understood the whole ethos behind it but INTIMATED that I think the phrase is "mumbo-jumbo". Bum, I must be all thick and Pokie (Oops must have been a typo I meant Pikey).

BTW I'd love to read any answer, please just supply one.

RonSceptic

9th July 2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by juninho

Apologies for this but I didn't see your response until I sent my last e-mail. However, in what way can you possibly claim to have answered my question. I'll quote from your earlier posting regarding working at the Home Office "the data speaks for itself" - My response - I haven't yet had a reply from you to describe the nature of this "data" or where I can see it. Please explain, therefore, in what way you have given me an answer to my questions?

How on earth did you manage to come to the conclusion that I am unable to understand the fallacy of appeal to authority. I believe that I stated that I understood the whole ethos behind it but INTIMATED that I think the phrase is "mumbo-jumbo". Bum, I must be all thick and Pokie (Oops must have been a typo I meant Pikey).

BTW I'd love to read any answer, please just supply one.

Would it be off topic to suggest that we are flogging a dead horse here?

I think I'll give up posting my questions at this point. Don't want to damage the brick wall any further. I'll let Luci's evasive response speak for itself.

juninho

9th July 2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Would it be off topic to suggest that we are flogging a dead horse here?

I think I'll give up posting my questions at this point. Don't want to damage the brick wall any further. I'll let Luci's evasive response speak for itself.

No, thinking the same thing myself. However, don't want to give her the pleasure of claiming victory some 200 posts down the line. I'll tell you what I'll just sneakily ask the questions again;

Luci,

1) Please tell me in what capacity you worked for the Home Office and;

2) In what building did you work.

Nothing if not persistent.

TLN

9th July 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
TLN was the one responsible for reposting forged quotes which were meant to be mine, found elswhere on the 'net, which Liarson supported using false claims for their authenticity, which was eventual proved to be bogus by an independant skeptic. Needless to say, both those idiotic liars haven't got the honour to apologise now they've been proven wrong.

I haven’t been proved wrong so I have nothing to apologize for.

You, however, have demonstrated that your new signature is a complete lie.

Lucianarchy

9th July 2003, 11:50 AM

"District Attorney Brad Foulk filed court papers Friday trying to keep defendant James Fleming's lawyer, Tim Lucas, from questioning Erie County President Judge William R. Cunningham about his decision to consult a psychic while he investigated the case as district attorney in the 1990s."
http://www.truthinjustice.org/eerie.htm

Lucianarchy

9th July 2003, 12:00 PM

"Police departments all over the world have been actively using psychics for over 300 years to help solve cases. They often choose to consult with psychics after they have exhausted all of the conventional policing techniques and have hit a dead end in an investigation. For many, using a psychic gives them a fresh perspective on the case when what they were doing before was not conclusive in solving the case."
http://courttv-web1.courttv.com/press/psychic.html

Lucianarchy

9th July 2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Would it be off topic to suggest that we are flogging a dead horse here?

"After we had been with Christine for about an hour and a half, we were trying to get her to admit being given some of the information by the victim’s family or even a member of the Murder Team. But she was insistent that her only source was the voice in her head. As a final gesture, she offered to give information about one of us. Andy volunteered. He was asked to hand over something of his own. I think he gave her his car keys. Christine then described three different aspects of his personal life, none of which I had known about. We had not worked together before.

The first was extremely personal indeed and quite detailed. He confirmed those details to me after we had left. She also stated that he had received a letter concerning ‘essential electrical work’. He told me that he had received a mortgage offer from a Building Society the previous day, with the condition that the house he wanted to buy was rewired. Andy was quite dismissive about the third, which predicted his imminent transfer to another police area. Unexpected by him, maybe, but an order transferring him to another Division came within a few days. He was quite shaken by the whole experience. The Squad included more than twenty detectives, and we ourselves had picked up the assignment only that morning, and by chance. "

Extract from Police Federation Magazine. http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2..._2001_ghost.htm
:h1:

Lucianarchy

9th July 2003, 02:16 PM

JREF moderator 'Ed' checked verified that the police did in fact get help from Noreen Renier:

"I spoke to Sgt. Hewitt a few minutes ago. To lhis credit, he believes that this chick helped." - JREF Moderator 'Ed'.:h2:

thaiboxerken

10th July 2003, 03:50 AM

Psychic ability is not established scientific fact. Luci, prove that people have superpowers. Police testimonies are just as unreliable as any other person. Take the JREF million and I'll believe that people have superpowers.

Pyrrho

11th July 2003, 06:10 PM

Never mind the JREF Challenge -- let's see a psychic find this missing girl:

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2327541/detail.html

No retro-fitting of "visions" to details after the person is found, please.

Jeff Corey

11th July 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
JREF moderator 'Ed' checked verified that the police did in fact get help from Noreen Renier:

"I spoke to Sgt. Hewitt a few minutes ago. To lhis credit, he believes that this chick helped." - JREF Moderator 'Ed'.:h2:
I think you failed to discern the difference between "He believes that this chick helped" and your inductive leap to "Ed verified that the police did in fact get help."
In the Redundancy Dept of Redundancy, we often iterate things like, "Does not follow" quite a bit, a lot and frequently.

Lucianarchy

18th July 2003, 04:48 PM

Stumpy.

Any news?

SteveGrenard

18th July 2003, 05:13 PM

In response to Stump'y's question as to whether Keen and Playfair had interviewed SIO Lundy, Keen reports to me that
they did not. Lundy is retired and living out of the country. He was and is inaccessible to them. Batters and Smith, however,
were extensively interviewed and their original notes examined
including the issue of the sweater.

Keen, who is visiting NYC right now (and I will meet with him tomorrow) has provided me with the following follow-up comments. If anyone has any further pertinent questions re this matter please let me know here or by PEM tonight before midnight EST and I will bring them up to Keen. Don't ask him when
the investigation will be published in the JSPR, he doesn't know and nobody ever knows this -- except perhaps a psychic.

==============================================

Your detective ( Stumpy) correspondent firmly asserted, doubtless on the basis of what he knew about the trial, that the pullover belonging to Ruark had nothing to do with the fact that a conviction was obtained, and was not in any way material
to the DNA evidence. There were a good many things which may not, or could not, have come out in court, but the fact is that, without the help of the medium's statements, the police would not have retrieved the pullover or interviewed and taken statements from everyone with whom Ruark came into contact with that evening. Nor, according to Tony Batters, would they have checked and verified all Ruark's movements during
previous fortnight.

Those 3 elements were vital to combat potential (and actual) defences, which may well have raised sufficient doubt as to lead to a Not Guilty verdict.

a) The pullover became vital as it was his only garment retained for forensics, and it showed numerous exchanges of blood and saliva from Jacqui Poole to him. This proved an act of violence, as opposed to the intimacy which he claimed in his defence at Court.

b) only 2 of 14 gave Ruark an alibi. 12 did not. Though the 2 were prepared to cover up for their friend at the time (they claimed he was still playing cards with them), they would not and did not do so at Court.

c) Ruark was proved a liar re his claim to a sexual relationship with JP. He had said that he had met her on Saturday afternoon 2 weeks previously, but the police were able to show he was at a football match.

Remember, there were over 24 equally likely suspects.

Batters adds: "If Ruark's DNA had been identified 18 years later, he would have only been re-interviewed. Prosecution would have ensued if he admitted guilt or (if) other fresh and conclusive evidence arose. But the evidence was already there to
proceed, thanks to the timely info from Christine and the prompt reactions of police in pursuing it."

I hope this will satisfy any reasonably objective person, coming as it does from the horse's mouth.

thaiboxerken

18th July 2003, 06:04 PM

I hope this will satisfy any reasonably objective person, coming as it does from the horse's mouth.

Such a person will not be satisfied with anectodal accounts such as this. Stories like this still don't lead me to believe that people can have superpowers.

:D

Jeff Corey

18th July 2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
."

I hope this will satisfy any reasonably objective person, coming as it does from the horse's mouth.

I don't care which end of the horse's alimentary canal it comes from. It all smells the same to me.

Ceinwyn

18th July 2003, 11:13 PM

Lucianarchy,

I'm curious as to why you haven't answered these simple questions asked by others:

1) Please tell me in what capacity you worked for the Home Office and;

2) In what building did you work.

If you don't want to answer publicly (although you don't seem mind mentioning the basic facts in question on the forum), I'm sure a PM would suffice to anyone who has posed the questions.

Lucianarchy

23rd July 2003, 12:20 PM

Stumpy, what about the guidelines on working with psychics you were going to get? Any news yet?

CFLarsen

23rd July 2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Stumpy, what about the guidelines on working with psychics you were going to get? Any news yet?

Any news on these?

1) Please tell us in what capacity you worked for the Home Office and;

2) In what building did you work.

TLN

23rd July 2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by buki
I'm curious as to why you haven't answered these simple questions asked by others:

Because his signature is a lie designed to infuriate others. He has no intention of ever answering any direct questions.

23rd July 2003, 06:51 PM

Claus, the questions, please.

Also, luci, how do you calculate probabilities again?

Lucianarchy

26th July 2003, 10:59 AM

Officer Hannibal?

Officer Stumpy?

What happened? Were you really policemen at all? Or were you impersonating a police officer and providing misleading information which could prevent people from going to the police with information which could help solve crimes?

Let's hope that no one has been prevented from contacting the police through your misinformation, and let's hope that there has no been further crimes committed as a result of that prevention of information.

CFLarsen

26th July 2003, 11:07 AM

Lucianarchy,

It's a post like yours that makes me do this:

Please answer the questions in the thread "Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

Lucianarchy

26th July 2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lucianarchy,

It's a post like yours that makes me do this:

"make you"? That is an alarming confession there, young man.

Ceinwyn

26th July 2003, 11:18 PM

Gosh, that reminds me...

1) Please tell us in what capacity you worked for the Home Office and;

2) In what building did you work.

Stumpy

27th July 2003, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Officer Stumpy?

What happened? Were you really policemen at all? Or were you impersonating a police officer and providing misleading information which could prevent people from going to the police with information which could help solve crimes?

Gosh Luci, have your psychic abilities deserted you?! Surely you can remote view into my office in order to answer your own question?

What happened was that I was working in Germany then back in UK on a major enquiry. I am back at work for two days, then off on vacation for 3 weeks. Then return to work and follow up on my promise to obtain the ACPO guidelines on the use of psychics.

Not quite clear on your position. Do you maintain that UK Police actively seek psychics to assist with cases or that they just respond to unsolicited information from them in a way different to anyone else claiming to have information about a crime.

Stumpy

Lucianarchy

23rd August 2003, 07:57 AM

Just stating the fact that the police do not reject information from psychics, as claimed by another person who claimed to be a police officer, who mislead people here.

I make that fourish weeks since your last post. Any news of the guidelines yet, Stumps?

thaiboxerken

23rd August 2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Just stating the fact that the police do not reject information from psychics, as claimed by another person who claimed to be a police officer, who mislead people here.

I make that fourish weeks since your last post. Any news of the guidelines yet, Stumps?

I'm 100% certain that police will reject information from psychics at least some of the time. Some police feel obligated to follow any leads, even those from the wacko psychics. Usually, the psychics end up wasting more valuable police time than anything.

Clancie

23rd August 2003, 09:21 AM

Posted by thaiboxerken

Usually, the psychics end up wasting more valuable police time than anything.
Hmmm....a claim.

Got a source and study to support this assertion, TBK?

And your other one is just funny...

I'm 100% certain that police will reject information from psychics at least some of the time
Could read....

"I'm 100% certain that police will reject information from psychics 10% of the time"....or.....

"I'm 100% certain that police will reject informaiton from psychics .003% of the time." or......

Well...you get the idea. :p. A silly statement, TBK, "I'm 100% certain...." that.... that....well, who knows what you're 100% certain of from that quote, ken? That some police sometimes don't use info from psychics? A big revelation indeed! :eek:

CFLarsen

23rd August 2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Hmmm....a claim.

Yes. A claim.

Originally posted by Clancie
Got a source and study to support this assertion, TBK?

I do:

The Danish police are usually approached by psychics in murder cases. In the recent case of Mia Teglgaard Sprotte, more than 75 psychics told the police that they had information. None of them could even agree about what happened.

No Danish police precinct has ever experienced that any psychic could help with anything.

The Belgian police also has their problems:
"But each time a child was found, it was obvious that the information coming from psychics was completely worthless. The mother of Julie Lejeune confessed she consulted psychics, fortunetellers, and dowsers by her own initiative. Not one of them came close to identifying the place where Julie was incarcerated for months and where she was buried after she died of starvation. The father of An Marchal, another girl who was kidnapped and assassinated together with friend Eefje, said he was visited by at least eighty psychics. "They saw An and Eefje everywhere in the world, but never in the place where they were finally found.""
http://www.csicop.org/sb/9703/belgium.html

And this one:

Psychic detectives do not posses supernatural insight, they do not converse with the missing or the dead, they never bring children home. However, their rambling predictions may have filled in enough gaps to pad their resumes and claim the reward.

A few months after Polly was recovered a psychic claimed that she solved Polly’s case on the television program Hard Copy. Not only was she using my daughter’s death to promote herself, but she also dismissed all of the wonderful people: police, media, and volunteers who worked so hard and tirelessly to locate my child.

In truth, that psychic detectives contribution to the case was counter productive. As always seems to be the case with psychic predictions, her interference created distraction. Law enforcement resources are diverted toward useless endeavors as phantom leads disappear into thin air. One cold and dark November evening many of us were lurking around somebody’s property because the psychic said that it held the key to my daughter’s disappearance. With the heightened sense of paranoia that already existed in the community that property owner would have been well within his rights to blow us away on the spot for trespassing. We were very fortunate that night, because although he did angrily confront us, he had absolutely nothing to do with the crime we were investigating.

In the end, and despite their protests, there is not even one case of a psychic truly assisting or solving a missing child case. It’s just smoke and mirrors. Their references do not support their claims and law enforcement cannot acknowledge their existence. Instead, their wishful thinking collides with your desperate hope and leaves you diminished.
KlaasKidsFoundation (http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-mc-hazards.htm)

Now, that was a claim that have been backed up with evidence. I really believe that you - the next time you make a claim - better scramble to get some evidence.

Originally posted by Clancie
And your other one is just funny...

Could read....

Yes. However, given your record of being...not very precise..., I think you should stop complaining if others are. This quite frankly smacks of a personal vendetta against TBK. You should stop it, immediately.

Clancie

23rd August 2003, 10:23 AM

Posted by CFLarsen

This quite frankly smacks of a personal vendetta against TBK. .
Because I made two specific criticisms of his post, its suddenly a "personal vendetta"? (And weren't you completely mute when TBK said he likes bashing believers "just for fun"? :rolleyes: )
Posted by CFLarsen

You should stop it, immediately
:dl:

CFLarsen

23rd August 2003, 10:31 AM

Clancie,

TBK's opinion is his own. You may be neofight's clone, but that doesn't mean I am his.

Why is your jumping in here any different than me jumping in and questioning your rumors about Arnold Schwarzenegger?

I note that you have nothing to say about TBK's claim. Do you admit that psychics waste the time of the police?

In fact, can you find just one case that has been solved by a psychic? With proper references, of course, not just hearsay or the word of the psychics themselves.

Cleopatra

23rd August 2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

The Danish police are usually approached by psychics in murder cases. In the recent case of Mia Teglgaard Sprotte, more than 75 psychics told the police that they had information. None of them could even agree about what happened.

This is where my vendetta with the psychics starts Clauss...

Needless to say that at least in Greece psychics waste Police's valuable time, they destroy the trust between the family of the victim, the police officers and their lawyer and they cause a lot of harm.

In Greece, Claus, our association has started suing them for giving false informations in murder cases.

Maybe you should start thinking about it in Denmark too.

Clancie

Don't you think that psychics that provide false information in murder cases should be prosecuted?

edited to correct Claus' name

Clancie

23rd August 2003, 11:01 AM

Cleopatra,

I'm not sure people who are self deluded should be prosecuted for trying to "help". And I think the police should have a protocol for screening advice they get.

But if someone knowingly wastes time with false leads (for example, as a publicity stunt, which seemed the case with some psychics in the Chandra Levy case), then yes, I don't see why there shouldn't be a legal consequence of some sort for them...depending on the specifics of it.

And if you can honestly show "fraud" against psychics you find working in Greece (specific fraud, not just that "all of them are fraudulent"...imo, go for it! :)

Lucianarchy

23rd August 2003, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

In fact, can you find just one case that has been solved by a psychic? With proper references, of course, not just hearsay or the word of the psychics themselves.

(a) Your 'evidence' was just some opinion from biased sources, you'd reject them if they came from 'believers'. It certainly, not in any shape or form, meet Ken's '100%' claim.

(b) Your recent demand is a straw one. No one is claiming solving anything. But there is extremely good, credible evidence that some psychics provide the police with positive information. The case from the Police Federation is a particularly strong one. Even one of the mods here contacted the officer involved in the Williston case regarding Ms Renier and reported back that confirmation that she indeed did help the police, which is far stronger than Posner's attempt to debunk the case. Police are good at detecting fraud and deception, indeed it is their profession and their credibility stands head and sholulders over Posner's mere opinion and speculation.

Cleopatra

23rd August 2003, 11:03 AM

Also, needless to say that the Police doesn't want psychics' help but the pressure that the psychics exercise through the relatives of the victim is immense that the Police cannot ignore them.

So, according to my experience, when the Police accepts psychics' help is because they cannot deny it,

BIG difference.

Cleopatra

23rd August 2003, 11:11 AM

Ha! Clancie this is the funny part.

When we sue them they claim that they thought that they could help, they didn't mislead the police on purpose...

In that case, when they admit that they weren't positive that they could help although they have assured the family on the contrary, we encourage the family to sue them for fraud and demand their money back. So far we have put out of business 6 of them, not enough but I am young and patient.

We never charge for cases against psychics :)

thaiboxerken

23rd August 2003, 11:19 AM

Got a source and study to support this assertion, TBK?

Well, CFL got my back on that one. But, I personally train martial arts with many cops that assure me that psychic's help is usually treated as garbage.

And your other one is just funny...
Could read....

"I'm 100% certain that police will reject information from psychics 10% of the time"....or.....

This only shows how stupid you are. Luci made the claim that police do not refuse help from psychics (implying police in general), I'm merely stating that I am absolutely certain that Luci is wrong.

Now go and make a quilt or something useful.

CFLarsen

23rd August 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
This is where my vendetta with the psychics starts Clauss...

(It's Claus....unless you have a lissssssp, or are really a sssssssssnake...;))

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Maybe you should start thinking about it in Denmark too.

We don't file lawsuits the way they do it in the US: As often as they breathe. However, it is something we are aware of in Skeptica, the Danish skeptics.

Clancie,

Your reply has nothing to do with what Cleopatra asked. It doesn't matter if people are self-deluded. If it did, you could not prosecute people who killed a child while being under the impression that they were God.

What matters is that no psychic has ever solved a case. Not one. You have been asked to provide evidence hereof, but you have ignored it.

Now, please answer:

Why is your jumping in here any different than me jumping in and questioning your rumors about Arnold Schwarzenegger?
Do you admit that psychics waste the time of the police?
Can you find just one case that has been solved by a psychic? With proper references, of course, not just hearsay or the word of the psychics themselves.
How do you prove that people are self-deluded?

Please either:

address the questions, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claim, or
state that you refuse to answer.

This is the second time in less than one hour I have to ask you this. Do you really think nobody notices how you avoid these very tough questions?

thaiboxerken

23rd August 2003, 11:23 AM

Cleopatra,

I'm not sure people who are self deluded should be prosecuted for trying to "help". And I think the police should have a protocol for screening advice they get.

Yea, the screening should be as follows.

Psychic: Hi, I have some important information involving the murder of a child.

Cop: Ok, and your source is?

Psychic: The spirits of the other side.

The Cop :roll: and hangs up.

And if the psychic calls again, throw them in jail

SteveGrenard

23rd August 2003, 11:25 AM

cleo wrote:....we encourage the family to sue them for fraud and demand their money back.

Did I catch this right? Are you saying all these oracles in Greece charge the families large enough sums of money as to end up worth being sued in court cases to recover such sums? If so, I agree. They should be prosecuted and sued civilally Also, did I hear you also imply that the fee charging psychics also solicit families of victims for money to provide information? If so, I also agree they should be prosecuted. No psychic should make a business out of this. If they get information by whatever means they claim it should be freely and confidentially made available to the police, not the families. There should be laws against what you say goes on in Greece. In the U.S. there may be posted rewards for information leading to recoveries and arrests/convictions. A psychic, like anyone else, can provide information and try for this but not be paid up front for information which turns out to be worthless. But if there is no reward, they should provide what they know without thought of monetary gain.

Cleopatra

23rd August 2003, 11:39 AM

Oh Greeks love to sue each other not like in USA but they keep us busy.

A murder case or the case of disappearence of a child are cases that cause a great deal of emotions.

As you understand none can take the risk to deny the help of somebody that offers it. Psychics, know that and of course they take advantage of it. When we remind to our clients that never a psychic has provided a solid evidence that lead the police to solve a murder case, they still want to give it a try.

I do not blame them but those who try to deceive them. As I have posted before, a mother in pain who wants to find the murderer of her child has the right to be deceived, I do not expect her to make reasonable decisions but I am persuaded that the rest of us that are involved with Justice have the obligation to protect those people.

In Greece we have professional mediums that ask for a lot of money to give their advice... same story since antiquity down here...

Claus, I am sorry for misspelling your name.

Cleopatra

23rd August 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Did I catch this right? Are you saying all these oracles in Greece charge the families large enough sums of money as to end up worth being sued in court cases to recover such sums?

Well here in order that the state collects taxes it gives to psychics and astrologers licences to exercise their...profession.

Clancie

23rd August 2003, 12:55 PM

Posted by CFLarsen

This is the second time in less than one hour I have to ask you this.
Lol. Gee, Claus, I'm sorry you've had to wait over an hour for an answer from me. :rolleyes:

Are these "tough questions"?

1. CFL: Why is your jumping in here any different than me jumping in and questioning your rumors about Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Or attacking me after I gave advice to Ghenghis Pwn in his thread about learning Chinese?

Well, my OPINION is that...I've shown a long-time interest in the subject of psychics. Your interest in the Schwartzenegger and Chinese threads just seemed...about me--specifically, to jump in and try to make me look bad, whatever you could think of saying.

2. CFL: Do you admit that psychics waste the time of the police?

"Admit?" I'm not in a position to admit it or not. That's up to the police to set policy and decide accordingly. If a particular police department feels it's helpful...who am I to say otherwise? If another has a policy against using psychics...that's their call to make as well.

3. CFL: Can you find just one case that has been solved by a psychic?

I've never claimed I was an expert on "cases solved by psychics". I've only claimed that some police departments and detectives are on record as saying they've found psychics were helpful to them.

I've given examples before (you've asked this over and over, Claus... :hit: ). Here's another example....

The "Ultimate Psychic Challenge" filmed an interview with yet another police department who stated that psychics were helpful to them. And that's all I've ever claimed, Claus--that some police do think its helpfu to theml--and I really don't think this perception is in dispute.

4. CFL: How do you prove that people are self-deluded?

I don't.

Please either:

address the questions, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claim, or

state that you refuse to answer.

Questions addressed. (And...new tactic, Claus? )

Lucianarchy

23rd August 2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

The "Ultimate Psychic Challenge" filmed an interview with yet another police department who stated that psychics were helpful to them.

Philidelphia police dept. Chief Insp Jack Maxwell. He has worked with medium Keith Charles and would work with him in the future "on any case" Keith wanted to "24/7".

thaiboxerken

23rd August 2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Philidelphia police dept. Chief Insp Jack Maxwell. He has worked with medium Keith Charles and would work with him in the future "on any case" Keith wanted to "24/7".

That's so very sad that Jack Maxwell has fallen for the BS.

Cleopatra

23rd August 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Philidelphia police dept. Chief Insp Jack Maxwell. He has worked with medium Keith Charles and would work with him in the future "on any case" Keith wanted to "24/7".

Is there something to read about that in the Net? I am interested in the kind of help the medium provided to the Police.

Thanks

Lucianarchy

23rd August 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I am interested in the kind of help the medium provided to the Police.

Thanks

Good enough for the medium to give them a (until then completely unheard or connected) nickname of "Sleepy". Some time later, when the Phil PD's detected and identified their prime suspect, his nickname is verified as "Sleepy". They are currently looking for him.

davidhorman

23rd August 2003, 03:10 PM

Now, I only just saw this on TV, so I don't know how good the info was, but the impression I got was that KC gave the name Sleepy to an officer who hadn't heard of it before - we don't know for certain that the name was never connected or heard of in relation to the case before. Then at some point KC tells the officer(s) he's travelling with to stop the car, he goes up to two guys on the street and asks them where Sleepy is. They tell him Sleepy used to live in the area, but has moved away.

Sleepy has apparently become the prime suspect in the case, but we weren't told exactly why. Sleepy is currently missing, presumed dead.

David

Stumpy

24th August 2003, 04:15 AM

Hi Lucian

An update! I have been out of the country for three weeks, however I have made some progress. I thought it would be better to deal with the specifics first then move to the general.
To that end I got in touch with Tony Youens who has looked into the article published in the Police Federation magazine, and whom it was erroneously alleged that I had plagiarised in my previous replies here. Mr Youens kindly provided me with a copy of his article. I have spoken directly to DCI McKinlay who conducted the re-opened investigation into the Jaquie Poole murder. Tony Youens has spoken to Constable Batters and Det Supt Lundy who conducted the original enquiry. The results of these enquiries will be published in the next edition of "The Skeptic" magazine. Incidentally, in respect of the doubts raised about my authenticity as a Police Officer, I have agreed for my identity to be disclosed in that publication should the editors wish to publish it (I'm sure they will).

I must state that both Tony and I were extremely reluctant to get too involved in this case out of respect for the family of Jaqui Poole. I sincerly hope that the article in the Skeptic magazine will put an end to the speculation about this case and save the family any further anguish.

In respect of the ACPO guidelines, I have had it confirmed that they do exist however I am stuggling to find anyone who has a copy of them (an indication of how seldom they are needed I suppose!). I will keep trying to get a copy, as you know ACPO guidelines are published via the Home Office, any chance of you using your contacts from your time there to get a copy?

best wishes

Stumpy

Lucianarchy

24th August 2003, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by Stumpy
Hi Lucian

An update! I have been out of the country for three weeks, however I have made some progress. I thought it would be better to deal with the specifics first then move to the general.
To that end I got in touch with Tony Youens who has looked into the article published in the Police Federation magazine, and whom it was erroneously alleged that I had plagiarised in my previous replies here. Mr Youens kindly provided me with a copy of his article. I have spoken directly to DCI McKinlay who conducted the re-opened investigation into the Jaquie Poole murder. Tony Youens has spoken to Constable Batters and Det Supt Lundy who conducted the original enquiry. The results of these enquiries will be published in the next edition of "The Skeptic" magazine. Incidentally, in respect of the doubts raised about my authenticity as a Police Officer, I have agreed for my identity to be disclosed in that publication should the editors wish to publish it (I'm sure they will).

I must state that both Tony and I were extremely reluctant to get too involved in this case out of respect for the family of Jaqui Poole. I sincerly hope that the article in the Skeptic magazine will put an end to the speculation about this case and save the family any further anguish.

In respect of the ACPO guidelines, I have had it confirmed that they do exist however I am stuggling to find anyone who has a copy of them (an indication of how seldom they are needed I suppose!). I will keep trying to get a copy, as you know ACPO guidelines are published via the Home Office, any chance of you using your contacts from your time there to get a copy?

best wishes

Stumpy

Best wishes to you too, Stumps.

Shame about the guidelines. I don't work for the HO any more so don't have the sort of access you do. There must be a central DB where you can get police publications on-line these days? Am I wrong?

WRT the case in question, is there any reason why this can't be peer reviewed now? Fellow skeptics have been chiding me recently for not providing a Koestler paper due for publication later this year. They make a (perhaps fair) point that peer review should be open to all skeptics. In this case, given that it's going to be published in SM anyway, perhaps you'd be good enough to ask Tony to have it peer reviewed by the JREF skeptics first. How about it?

In the meantime, I hope you get a chance to get a bit of a break after your travelling schedules and at least get a chance to relax in the glorious English weather we are getting here this summer.

Stumpy

24th August 2003, 05:48 AM

Hi Lucian

I, like you, assumed that there must be a central database for ACPO guidelines. Unfortunatley this appears not to be the case. Each force area has it's own Network, they are not as yet interconnected, apart from the PNC which only stores info relating to convicted criminals and vehicle owners. Someone, somewhere must have these guidelines, I will try the Home Office this week.

You make a valid argument regarding peer review. However in the interests of fairness I don't think it appropriate to publish the Tony Youens article here without also having available here the original article which it seeks to rebut i.e the Montague Keen written report which is based, I suppose, on the Police fereration article by Tony Batters. I think the two articles must be taken together as a whole. Neverthe less I will speak to Tony when he returns from his holiday next week in relation to this.

regards

Stumpy

SteveGrenard

24th August 2003, 06:40 AM

Keen and myself have been following this exchange with interest, needless to say and we both have a few questions.

Luci -- what exactly is a Koestler "paper" -- know that the Chair at Edingburgh in this field was endowed by Arthur Koestler but don't recall if a paper was involved. We also noted that you now refer to your cohorts as "fellow skeptics" -- can you tell us who they are, even in general terms? Where would this Koestler paper be published? Who is writing it? Can we assume it will also deal with the Poole case?

The reply by Stumpy that previewing/peer reviewing Youen's paper in response to Keen's without having Keen's is unfair to Keen and interesting for other reasons. How exactly did Youens obtain Keen's paper to respond to when it hasn't been published yet and is still being peer reviewed? Presumably if he was given an advance copy to rebut, it would be from an SPR source so why isn't his counterpoint going into that journal instead of The Skeptic(UK-CSICOP)? Is there some arrangement Stumpy which has not been disclosed?

edited to correct: I am advised by Keen that peer review of the paper on the Poole case by Playfair and himself has been completed; publication date remains unknown at this point.

Lucianarchy

24th August 2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Keen and myself have been following this exchange with interest, needless to say and we both have a few questions.

Luci -- what exactly is a Koestler "paper" -- know that the Chair at Edingburgh in this field was endowed by Arthur Koestler but don't recall if a paper was involved. We also noted that you now refer to your cohorts as "fellow skeptics" -- can you tell us who they are, even in general terms? Where would this Koestler paper be published? Who is writing it? Can we assume it will also deal with the Poole case?

No. Sorry for the confusion, Steve. It relates to some experiments I was involved with with Dr Fiona Steinkemp regarding Remote Perception. I allude to it only in respect of the 'peer review' issue.
See this thread: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=23702

In respect of fellow skeptics, I refer to the few, small minority of skeptics here, not the pseudo-skeptics. Please don't think that someone who has the ability for remote perception cannot also be a skeptic. Indeed, skeptic does not mean deny, it means to question. I do not fully understand the mechanism of the effect, but as the effect clearly exists I remain skeptical of the mundane explanations provided by many other skeptics.

thaiboxerken

24th August 2003, 08:48 AM

In respect of fellow skeptics, I refer to the few, small minority of skeptics here, not the pseudo-skeptics. Please don't think that someone who has the ability for remote perception cannot also be a skeptic. Indeed, skeptic does not mean deny, it means to question. I do not fully understand the mechanism of the effect, but as the effect clearly exists I remain skeptical of the mundane explanations provided by many other skeptics.

LOL. The phenomena does not exist, if you wish to really pursue the truth, the JREF is always willing to test new subjects. You're not a skeptic, you believe you have superpowers despite reality.

Stumpy

24th August 2003, 08:53 AM

Hi Steve

Bad choice of words on my part. Sorry! The report that I refer to I now see relates to the letter by Keen published in The Skeptic 16.1. Not previously having subscribed to the publication I haven't read the letter. Tony Youens started his investigation into the case after the publication of that letter. I only became aware of the original Police Federation article when Lucianarchy kindly posted the link here. As Tony Youens was mentioned by yourself as being interested the case I got in touch with him to discuss it. Tony Youens has done the vast majority of the research concerning this case, I have helped out due to my Police connections. Neither I, nor TY (as far as I know) have seen the formal report by M.KEEN intended for publication in the JSPR. Hope this clears up any confusion!

Stumpy

Lucianarchy

24th August 2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Stumpy

In respect of the ACPO guidelines, I have had it confirmed that they do exist however I am stuggling to find anyone who has a copy of them (an indication of how seldom they are needed I suppose!).

Stumpy

Indeed, so there can't be that many psychics 'wasting police time' as some people claim. I am surprised you can't find ACPO guidelines in the police force even if you search for them though. :confused:

SteveGrenard

24th August 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Stumpy
Hi Steve

Bad choice of words on my part. Sorry! The report that I refer to I now see relates to the letter by Keen published in The Skeptic 16.1. Not previously having subscribed to the publication I haven't read the letter. Tony Youens started his investigation into the case after the publication of that letter. I only became aware of the original Police Federation article when Lucianarchy kindly posted the link here. As Tony Youens was mentioned by yourself as being interested the case I got in touch with him to discuss it. Tony Youens has done the vast majority of the research concerning this case, I have helped out due to my Police connections. Neither I, nor TY (as far as I know) have seen the formal report by M.KEEN intended for publication in the JSPR. Hope this clears up any confusion!

Stumpy

Well in that case, I supose Montague Keen could be encouraged to give permission to reprint that letter here if Youens agrees to submit his rejoinder or report here for
a public skeptical peer review. It would be a first. But then again if these are both a letter writing duel, peer review would hardly be considered necessary or required.

Irrespective of letters and critiques of letters, it woud be better to wait for the full report to be published in the JSPR. As indicated above, Keen says the peer review process is complete and it now is awaiting scheduling for publication.

SteveGrenard

25th August 2003, 02:35 PM

M.Keen writes in an e-mail message: Youens' reply was printed in the last (Summer) issue of The Skeptic, without the comments that I expected to append it - French
having promised me the last word. I have therefore been awaiting the Autumn issue with interest to see what more Youens would, could or would be allowed, to say. One correction I subsequently made to my resonse: I made it clear that the
pullover was rescued by the police, not by Tony Batters himself - not that this would affect the paranormality issue, of course.

So now I am a bit more perplexed than before regarding what Youens is writing anew in this matter as it seems he already wrote and published a rejoinder to Playfair's and Keen's account of the role of a psychic in the Poole murder case. From the above Keen is waiting for his response to Youen's previous remarks to be published. Youen's is apparently adding an appendix to these as well. Keen told me he will try and scan and send me his remarks and Youen's responses so they can be posted. Perhaps if Keen is unable to do so Youen's might be able to???? But it is hardly a matter for peer review and what is done is done.

Stumpy

7th September 2003, 05:58 AM

Judging by the PM's I've recieved and the number of times this thread has been viewed this case is attracting a lot of interest. Steve Grenard's comments regarding a possible wider airing of the results of an investigation that Tony Youens has undertaken with my assistance have been well taken. To that end, pending confirmation of a couple of minor aspects of the case it is Tony Youens intention to publish his finding in full on the internet in the very near future. The link will be posted here for ANYONE who wishes to read the report. Obviously we are hopeful that this gesture will be recipricated by Playfair & Keen and that they will also publish their investigation in a similar fashion on the internet in the near future.

Stumpy

Lucianarchy

7th September 2003, 06:01 AM

Have you managed to detect where the APO guidelines on psychics are yet, Stumps?

7th September 2003, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

(It's Claus....unless you have a lissssssp, or are really a sssssssssnake...;))

Or are Gollum.

CFLarsen

7th September 2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Have you managed to detect where the APO guidelines on psychics are yet, Stumps?

Have you managed to answer questions yet, Luci?

"Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

SteveGrenard

7th September 2003, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Stumpy
Judging by the PM's I've recieved and the number of times this thread has been viewed this case is attracting a lot of interest. Steve Grenard's comments regarding a possible wider airing of the results of an investigation that Tony Youens has undertaken with my assistance have been well taken. To that end, pending confirmation of a couple of minor aspects of the case it is Tony Youens intention to publish his finding in full on the internet in the very near future. The link will be posted here for ANYONE who wishes to read the report. Obviously we are hopeful that this gesture will be recipricated by Playfair & Keen and that they will also publish their investigation in a similar fashion on the internet in the near future.

Stumpy

Since everyone loves a good mystery case, even one that has been solved, I suggest that this is the reason for the widespread interest in this case plus the fact that it was investigated by Playfair and Keen, has completed peer review and is awaiting journal publication. I have been in contact with Tony Youens as well as having had ongoing contact with Montague Keen and both agree that they will allow their earlier correspondence to be reprinted at JREF in order to widen the debate. To that end, Stumpy, I am starting a new thread under the thread Jacqui Poole Murder Case and starting it off with the original remarks by Keen in The Skeptic (UK), Youen's response to the challenge posed by Keen and a "final word" (not) rejoinder by Keen. According to Youens there will be more coming but alas we must wait for that. Youen's intends to answer Keen's final word and no doubt Keen will want to answer Youen's response as well. sg

Lucianarchy

26th September 2003, 07:59 AM

Posted here from the JP murder thread as this relates to and supports the opening subject.:

Poster: Steve Grenard:

Keen Responds
First, some general thoughts about sceptical criticisms of the supposed paranormal: it is prudent and rational to look for normal explanations, and both fair and desirable to follow the general precept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of proof. And there can be no disputing that the Jacqui Poole case is extraordinary, although not for the reasons most sceptics would accept. It is extraordinary in the abundance and impressiveness of the evidence of paranormality, and the poverty of alternative explanations. It is not extraordinary as apparent evidence of discarnate communication, since the literature supporting this is vast, and widely ignored or neglected.

Secondly, the methods used by determined sceptics to criticise such cases have been recognised and exposed for 120 years: they are to ignore the best and concentrate on the least impressive pieces of evidence; to disparage the competence or sometimes question the sanity of the investigators; to misrepresent or distort what they cannot accept or account for, and to divert the issue into one of their own choosing, which is what has happened in this case, as I will show.

What makes their task so difficult to square with the norms of rational debate and scientific objectivity, to say nothing of plain honesty and integrity, was apparent a century ago when the deceased George Pellew, communicating through Mrs Piper, recognised and gave intimate details about a very large number of his earthly friends and relatives: here the critics were forced to dismiss as mere telepathy what appeared to be evidence of survival.

No such option is allowed to the determined sceptic. If it were, we could have a civilized debate evaluating the competing merits of the two hypotheses: communication from the dead or telepathy from the living. But since this admission is not allowed it follows that the critic must account for all the information transmitted by a medium as based on prior knowledge or cold reading, or both. A study of the evidence in this case exposes the absurdity of any such claim. Hence the critics' subtle twist of the plot, so that the debate turns on the extent to which, if at all, the retrieval of the murderer's pullover was or was not a factor which influenced or even determined the successful prosecution of Ruark. This is clearly of great interest, but the outcome in no way affects the principal issue: did Holohan give genuine and meaningful evidence about the circumstances of the murder which she could not have acquired normally.

Now let me come to specifics:

Tony Batters was a detective for many years both before and after the Poole case. and is currently a civilian detective employed by the police. There was a brief period when, for administrative reasons, he was in uniform while attached to a CID murder squad, but this makes not the slightest difference to the role he played during the investigation.

Batters was principal in the sense that he was the officer deputed to investigate when the victim's non-response to calls was first reported to the police; it was he who broke into the apartment and spent five hours making notes; it was he, accompanied by Detective Andy Smith, who responded to Holohan's offer to provide information and kept notes of the interview. It was never suggested that he was actually in charge of the murder squad, but he worked closely with Lundy, the officer in charge who (contrary to the firm belief of "Stumpy", aka Detective Adrian Shaw, of whom Tony Batters and his colleagues have never heard, and who had nothing to do with the murder squad involved in the case), interviewed many of the suspects himself.

Furthermore, it was Batters who kept his fingers on the huge volume of papers which accumulated, and it was he who was in the witness box at the eventual trial for two days. He was the only police officer to be in attendance throughout the trial. DCI McKinlay, who, of course, had nothing to do with the original inquiry in 1983, and could not have been expected to know anything about Holohan's evidence (which is what our Report is about), was not regularly at the trial, and had no need to be.

My statement that Batters recovered the pullover was a minor error which I immediately corrected, as Professor French will confirm. It is difficult to believe that Youens was unaware of this — not that it matters one whit who collected the pullover.

I never asserted that Batters' notes were part of the evidence at the trial. On the contrary, it is obvious that, since a deceased entity cannot give evidence, statements made by a medium would be regarded as inadmissible. It is therefore astonishing that Youens should have asked why the evidence obtained from Holohan was not discussed in the court proceedings. I was not aware that the notes from the Holohan interview were typed up and "submitted to the enquiry" but perhaps this was just routine. Whether "enquiry" refers to police records or to the court proceedings 18 years later is not clear, and doesn't really matter.

Nor is it clear what is meant by "Officer X" having denied any knowledge of the notes scribbled by Holohan. Officer X is presumably Detective Sergeant Andy Smith who accompanied Batters and who has signed a statement confirming the accuracy of our account. That account refers to and reproduces the single page on which the medium wrote when in semi-trance. There were no "notes" made by her. This was the page containing, among other matters, the name "Pokie" which Smith, with local knowledge, recognised as the nickname of Ruark.

The issue of the pullover is another red herring. Despite Detective Superintendent Lundy's recollection of what took place twenty years earlier, the facts are that Ruark, one of a large number of suspects who were male and likely to be known to the victim (since there was no sign of forced entry), had provided the police only days before the Holohan interview with a persuasive alibi, when the crucial matter of times was backed by a couple of his drinking partners. Although well known as a thief, Ruark had no record of violence.

Despite any current, and understandable, claimsby police to have been completely self-sufficient in the decision to focus on Ruark, it was at least partly in consequence of the profound affect the Holohan interview had on the two police officers that Lundy, who was otherwise satisfied with Ruark's alibi, ordered a search to be made of Ruark's apartment, where the discarded pullover was removed. Had he not acted promptly the pullover may well have been lost to the rubbish tip. As for the relevance of the pullover in securing a conviction, see below.

Further evidence that this was the order of events is seen from Lundy's order for gardens to be dug up, presumably in the hope of retrieving the missing jewellery. This arose entirely from the scribbled message written in semi-trance by Holohan in response to further questions by the police officers. As will be seen from the facsimile we shall be reproducing in our report, in addition to the word "Pokie", the medium had written "garden" , as well as a number and a name which, at the time, meant nothing to the detectives. Only eighteen years later, when puzzling over his retrieved notebook and the mysterious message, did Batters conclude that this might well have been the medium's attempt to identify the place where the jewellery was temporarily hidden (there were good reasons why Ruark would not have wished to take it home, or to hand it to his usual fence). What transpired was a brilliant piece of detective work which confounds those who argue that Holohan's message was valueless. But you will have to await details in our paper.

It is said that Lundy has refuted the statement that Pokie was not at the time of the Holohan interview a prime suspect. He has done nothing of the sort. Refutation is disproof. He has relied upon a less than perfect memory to deny the statement. For someone whose proud claim it was never to have failed to solve a murder, it is perfectly understandable that recollection of these events should have been slightly remoulded. There is still a strong dislike of acknowledging that mediums could ever play any role in a police investigation. The report that DCI McKinlay also refutes this is even more misleading: the fact is that he was not involved in the case in 1983 and would be most unlikely to have any knowledge of the details of interrogations of scores of people as part of the murder squad's duties.

As for the value of the evidence from the pullover, it is in no way material to the question of the accuracy of statements made about the murder by the medium. However, contrary to the suggestion put about that either there was no pullover or that, if it existed, it played no part in the evidence, forensic witness Nick Boyall, who at the time of the pullover-retrieval was Jim Fraser's assistant, gave evidence relating to the pullover, and Jim Fraser confirmed it.

Now for Batters' notes. They were made during the interview, as Holohan was speaking (It is barely conceivable that they would have been put together in any other way). They were in his writing, using abbreviations as normal when shorthand is not used, and have been inspected by Guy Playfair, my wife and myself. They played no part in the trial.

I have made no reference to what appears in the public files and court records. We have not reviewed any such records. They seem to me to be of little if any relevance to the issue under discussion: did Holohan convey accurate evidence to the police which she could not have known by any normal means

There is clearly some dispute about Ruark's status as a prime suspect before the Holohan interview. While I prefer to rely upon the evidence of the man most intimately involved - and for a lengthy period - in the minutiae of this case, I must emphasise that it really has no bearing on the case, even if it suggested that the CID publicly voiced their suspicions within days of the murder, so that they came to Holohan's ears and thereby enabled her to discover, e.g. that he had a tattoo on his body, or that he had been recently engaged in an insurance swindle — a fact which remained unknown to the police until long after the event; or that the dead woman had visited her boyfriend in "bird" a fortnight previously, the boy friend also being a friend of Pokie .... - or indeed scores of previously unknown details which sceptics have been unable to explain.

Detective Shaw, your insatiable correspondent, appears to assume that "everyone is now in agreement that the information provided by Holohan in no way contributed to the conviction of Ruark." I have previously explained, and must firmly reiterate, that there are good reasons why it may well have done. Without it, there would have been no reason to retrieve the pullover. Remember that Ruark, unlike the other twenty four or so suspects, had not only gone voluntarily to the police but had an alibi supported by two witnesses, and no record of violence. The pullover was a garment retained for forensics, and it showed exchanges of blood and saliva from her to him. This was strongly suggestive of an act of violence, as opposed to the consensual intimacy, which was Ruark's defence claim at the Old Bailey trial. This evidence was aided both by the failure of the two original alibi supporters to give evidence in Ruark's favour, and by his claim to have had an earlier sexual relationship with Poole at a date when the police were able to show that he was at a football match.

In sum, the detailed information given by the medium, some of it unknown to the police at the time, and some of it not confirmed until 18 years later, is impossible to write off as cold or hot reading; and it is an affront to common sense to go on pursuing that vain argument or seeking to divert interested readers away from the essential issue of paranormality.

Lucianarchy

30th November 2003, 03:24 AM

And here the case rests.

No one has been able to provide a rational eaxplanation which is backed up by evidence. Lots of assumptions, no substance. Lots of wishful thinking, no critical thinking. Ergo; the case remains undebunked short of personal opinion and unsubstantiated supposition.

CFLarsen

30th November 2003, 04:10 AM

You're a loonie.

SteveGrenard

30th November 2003, 07:44 AM

Where these matters stand right now is that we are awaiting Keen's publication of the Pool Case in the January, 2004 issue of the JSPR. I usually get my copy two to three months late in the U.S. so I am going to ask someone to send me a photocoppy by airmail as soon as they have it in the UK. In addition it may be useful to point out to skeptics interested in the subject of this thread that the late and highly respected Marcello Truzzi, a co-founder of CSICOP, and a well known, honest skeptic investigator published TWO books on this subject, both of which are available inexpensively (used from $1.45 to $5.00) online from sources like amazon.com or b&n. I attached
reviews to both entries. fyi:

The Blue Sense: Psychic Detectives and Crime

by Arthur Lyons, Marcello Truzzi

From Publishers Weekly:

The "blue sense" is a heightened sort of intuition capable ofinsights far beyond what a police officer can ordinarily see, hear orsmell. Here Truzzi, professor of sociology and director of the Centerfor Scientic Anomalies Research at Eastern Michigan University, andLyons ( Other People's Money ) combine their talents in a fair-minded assessment of what parapsychology can bring to law enforcement, arguing that cops have something to learn from psychics. Only about 10% of police forces in the U.S. admit to using practitioners of telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psychokinesis, claim theauthors, but many more may do so sub rosa, fearing accusations ofprofessional tomfoolery. Devastating in their exposure of charlatanismin the field, Truzzi and Lyons nevertheless also cite important contributions made by psychics to criminal investigations. And, they cogently caution readers, simply because many benefits of theparanormal are unproved does not mean they have been disproved.

Ingram

An examination of the increasing use of psychics by police departments for the investigation of crimes discusses cases solved with the help of psychics and more. Reprint. K. PW.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Psychics: The Investigators and Spies who use Paranormal Powers

By Sarah Moran and Marcello Truzzi

Reviewer: A reader from California
This book is the most interesting book on psychics I have enjoyed reading. It has given me so many facts about how the working world view and uses psychics, like your local police department and the F.B.I.. They sweep them under the carpet, rarely giving them the credit because it doesn't hold up in a court of law. This needs to be changed, the evidence to a murder of a child or loved one "found" and led to the killer!. Chapter one The sixth sense Investigators; psychic detection through history "the woman, the witch, the medicine man". How religions run our society, for the most part, get there way, in pretending psychics aren't responsible for the intuitive works they have done, even though many don't get paid for there efforts, like on page 52 Greta Alexander. quote from book "Police do not openly praise the usefulness of a psychic on an investigation not lest because of the existing preconception that second sight is somehow akin to witchcraft". ? She was accused of being occult. Yet her work was extraordinary. "A retired captain of the homicide division of Washington, D.C. told the Winnipeg Sun that Gretta Alexander has got extraordinary psychic powers-and that is a fact." Even Debbie Reynolds believed in Gretta's psychic sight. Then there was Vanga Dimitrova the blind prophetess in Bulgaria. She was investigated by numerous scientists, and every time she survived their scrutiny, leaving her examiners unable to explain her extraordinary powers of intuition. She was even tested by Dr. Georgi Lozannov, at Sofia Inst. of Parapsychology in Petrich who concluded that Dimitrova's powers were real, not faked.

There are endless stories to read in this book and I loved them all. I was happy that it took me a while to get through it!
Renee

SteveGrenard

30th November 2003, 07:48 AM

Bob Carroll's skeptic's dictionary puts a slightly different spin on the term "blue sense" by the way and it is also worth considering that "argument" which they ascribe to, I guess, warm reading or the ability to read people's body language, appearance, vocal intonation, etc etc. I am certain this is true as well but it is not the entire thesis offered by Lyons and Truzzi in their monograph on this subject.

entry from skepdic.com:

"The "blue sense" is a cop's intuition about impending danger, about whether a suspect is guilty, about whether someone's lying, about hunches regarding cases or people. The term is used by Lyons and Truzzi to refer to something akin to psychic power possessed by good cops. "It is that unknown quantity in the policeman's decision-making process that goes beyond what he can see and hear and smell." (Lyons and Truzzi, p. 11)

Studies have not validated the "blue sense," but there is good evidence that some people, including some cops, reliably infer others' emotions, intentions, and thoughts by their demeanor and facial expressions
(Eckman and Friesen1975; Eckman and Rosenberg 1979)."

30th November 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
And here the case rests.

No one has been able to provide a rational eaxplanation which is backed up by evidence. Lots of assumptions, no substance. Lots of wishful thinking, no critical thinking. Ergo; the case remains undebunked short of personal opinion and unsubstantiated supposition.

I can not believe that you really, honest to god, believe what you are writing. It is not possible that a person capable of using a computor could have such altered mental processes.

Stumpy

30th November 2003, 08:28 AM

Hi Steve

Studies have not validated the "blue sense," but there is good evidence that some people, including some cops, reliably infer others' emotions, intentions, and thoughts by their demeanor and facial expressions

Studies since then have found that Police score no better than chance in guessing whether someone is lying or not (Ekman and O’Sullivan, 1991). We certainly had a period of studying the body-language of suspects included in out interview training in the early to mid 1990's. This was later withdrawn when studies concluded that such techniques were wholly unreliable.

In relation to "blue intuition" I can recall a few events where I have experienced that feeling of impending danger prior to an incident. However the times where I have had the feeling and nothing happened far out-weigh the times when something did.
There may well be a rational explanation for that feeling of impending danger. For years UK Law Enforcement have been doing crime pattern analysis whereby crime "hot-spots" are identified. I would imagine that when entering one of these "hot-spots" your expectation of something happening is going to be raised. Indeed if the crime pattern analysis is correct I would suppose that statistically there is a much higher chance of something occurring in that area, so it should be no great surprise that you feel something will happen and then it does. Also, tension indicators are collated that try and predict where and when events involving civil disorder will occur. Obviously recources are directed into the predicted area of disorder at the correct time. It is almost inevitable that any officer deployed in that way will have an increased sense of tension, leading her/him to feel that something might happen, again, there is a statistically higher chance that those fears will be realised if the tension indicators have been collated properly. Even prior to the formal analysis of such indicators, any cop worth his salt was aware which pubs were liable to be the venue for fights, or which areas were favourite for burglars or car-thieves. Again, this knowledge is likely to increase the officer's awareness and make it more likely that something will actually happen.

regards

Stumpy

SteveGrenard

30th November 2003, 08:46 AM

Of course some, but not all, people get antsy, nervous, and upset when they are being questionned by the police, even for minor things like traffic stops let alone major cases. And of course, on the opposite side of the coin, you could be talking to a guilty party who is calm, cool, collected and a pathological and very convincing liar. Thus I can see where you say this is not a 100% reliable or valid means of drawing any conclusions but it is not meant to.

If a suspect is being questionned,
especially interrogated or grilled intensively, there comes a point when the investigator has to decide they are still in the pool or they are innocent regardless of their behavior, body language or vocal intonation. There was and still is a lot of controversy in the U.S. over such methods which, in a celebrated case, caused a teen to confess to a murder he did not commit but the interrogators were so skilled and so relentless they ended up making the kid believe he did the deed.
So even a confession may not always take the place of physical evidence (DNA, fingerprints, powder residue,
fibers, etc).

Adrian -- while we are on this subject and I have your attention, I would be interested in your thoughts as a professional police investigator on the following method which can be found at:

www.brainwavescience.com

CFLarsen

30th November 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Ed
I can not believe that you really, honest to god, believe what you are writing. It is not possible that a person capable of using a computor could have such altered mental processes.

Yes, it is. Sadly.

Cleopatra

30th November 2003, 11:59 AM

Stumpy you seem to have a total grasp of the subject.The more I read your posts the more I get impressed. It's not that you have the knowledge but you also have the ability to express yourself clearly. I know that your work is tiring and time consuming , I also know from my experience that police officers, even the most educated ones are very modest and they avoid to show off but have you ever thought to compose an article or a series of articles on this subject ?

We know for sure somebody who is dying to have an article from you ;)

thaiboxerken

30th November 2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
And here the case rests.

No one has been able to provide a rational eaxplanation which is backed up by evidence. Lots of assumptions, no substance. Lots of wishful thinking, no critical thinking. Ergo; the case remains undebunked short of personal opinion and unsubstantiated supposition.

There have been lots of rational explanations with plenty of substance.

You are appealing to ignorance by trying to shift the burden of evidence. Try backing up your claims with evidence.

CFLarsen

30th November 2003, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
We know for sure somebody who is dying to have an article from you ;)

That "somebody" would be me.

webmaster@skepticreport.com ;)

Lucianarchy

6th December 2003, 02:58 AM

Yet no one can actualy provide any evidence to support the various suppositions proposed.

You see why we call this 'wishful thinking'.

Ms H, I believe, now has a career in politics and a background of integrity , honesty and public duty/spirit. The suggestions that she may have been involved in deception here is without any evidence what-so-ever. It is quite stupid and cheap to suggest it as a rational explanation in this case.

There is no evidence to support the supposition of deception.

The case of the Police Fed article remains undebunked.

Stumpy

6th December 2003, 05:02 AM

Lucianarchy wrote

Yet no one can actualy provide any evidence to support the various suppositions proposed.

Are you are including the suppositions made by the supporters of the claim in this statement?

The concept of accepting any claim as truth until disproven hardly needs the reductio ad absurdum pointing out. If I claim that there are column of ants on pluto wearing football boots and manufactuing Mars bars for domestic consumption, this is de facto the truth until someone can conclusively prove otherwise by your reasoning.

Put simply there are a number of possibilities of how Holohan obtained the information that she supplied to the PC Batters. The reader is invited to decide which, if any, of the claims have any validity. Whatever you decide the process is entirely subjective and therefore cannot be relied upon for establishing what actually happened 2 decades ago. We do know from an interview that Holohan, post trial, claimed to have provided detailed information about the murder two decades that simply isn't true.

In case you missed it, she claimed in this article: http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/pghost27.htm that she saw his hands go round her throat and pull the cord tight. Yet she failed to mention this to Batters during the original interview. There is no mention in Batters notes and Batters has no recollection of Holohan ever mentioning this. The first time Holohan ever mentioned strangulation with a cord is post-trial wherein this fact was publicly disclosed.

BTW, I couldn't help but smile when you linked the qualities of honesty and integrity with politics.

regards

Stumpy

Jeff Corey

6th December 2003, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Ms H, I believe, now has a career in politics and a background of integrity , honesty and public duty/spirit.
Stumpy,
I also found that to be an oxymoronic statement.
It seems things are alike on both sides of the pond.

tonyyouens

7th December 2003, 01:48 PM

Ms H, I believe, now has a career in politics and a background of integrity , honesty and public duty/spirit. The suggestions that she may have been involved in deception here is without any evidence what-so-ever. It is quite stupid and cheap to suggest it as a rational explanation in this case.

Hello again,

I have been sent a copy of a reading given by Christine Holohan. To say the least it is one of the most appalling readings I've ever heard - and I've heard a few. Such is the interest she has for her client she yawns virtually all the way through. She bombed on everything.

As for her "career in politics", the person who sent me the reading said the charge was 40 euros. She had 7 names on her list for that afternoon alone and they conservatively estimated that if this was a typical day she should be making around 64,000 Euros a year. Not bad really considering how her powers seem to have waned.

Cheers to all,

Tony Youens
www.tonyyouens.com (http://www.tonyyouens.com)

Vitnir

8th December 2003, 08:33 AM

I have to admit that I didn't read the 16! pages all that thorougly but I want to address the original post.

I don't really see the big point in denying that policemen think psychics are helpful in a case now and then. After all why would policemen all be immune to human defects as after-the-fact wishful thinking?

When it comes to psychics detectives in general the problem is that no cases are documented in a way that would persuade a hardline sceptic like myself and most other sceptics here. Media is way to unreliable to be the base of any conclusion pro or con which goes for any topic from politics, economy and whether that guy from Big Brother really is that stupid as he looks.

And whatif police agencies have written policys on how to deal with information from psychics? They have to relate somehow to the reality that a lot of alleged psychics come to help in cases. The presence of a policy doesn't make the claims true.

Lucianarchy

8th December 2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by tonyyouens

Hello again,

I have been sent a copy of a reading given by Christine Holohan. To say the least it is one of the most appalling readings I've ever heard - and I've heard a few. Such is the interest she has for her client she yawns virtually all the way through. She bombed on everything.

As for her "career in politics", the person who sent me the reading said the charge was 40 euros. She had 7 names on her list for that afternoon alone and they conservatively estimated that if this was a typical day she should be making around 64,000 Euros a year. Not bad really considering how her powers seem to have waned.

First of all, Tony, we are skeptics here and you need to provide evidence for your above claim. In fact, whilst you're at it, perhaps you could provide some rational evidence which could possibly support your supposition that Ms H used decpetion. I'm only asking, becuase, to date, neither yourself nor Stumps have provided anyhting, short of your opinion, and you will remember, we are skeptics here and don't rely on opinion and supposition.
You know, hand waving and impugning that someone is a fraud is really stupid without any evidence what so ever.

Cheers.

Lucianarchy

8th December 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Vitnir

And whatif police agencies have written policys on how to deal with information from psychics? They have to relate somehow to the reality that a lot of alleged psychics come to help in cases. The presence of a policy doesn't make the claims true.

Nor do they make them false. In fact, Officer Stumpy offered to get a copy of the CPO guidlelines for working with psychics. But to date, he has been unable to detect where they are.

CFLarsen

8th December 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
First of all, Tony, we are skeptics here and you need to provide evidence for your above claim.

First of all, Lucianarchy, you are not a skeptic. But you are a hypocrite for demanding evidence of others, when you yourself never give any.

But since you mention evidence...
"Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

TLN

8th December 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
First of all, Lucianarchy, you are not a skeptic. But you are a hypocrite for demanding evidence of others, when you yourself never give any.

But since you mention evidence...
"Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

Actually, he's probably a troll in the strictest sense of the word; he's probably an actual skeptic who doesn't believe any of this, but sits at home and makes stuff up to piss people off. He's sitting at home right now stroking his penis and laughing his head off that he's got all these skeptics jumping through his imaginary hoops.

It's the only rational explanation. No one person is so wantonly dishonest, stupid, and blind to the questions of others. He's playing a game with all of us... and winning.

Dragon

9th December 2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Nor do they make them false. In fact, Officer Stumpy offered to get a copy of the CPO guidlelines for working with psychics. But to date, he has been unable to detect where they are.
Luci, didn't you used to work for the Home Office? Do you have any contacts that might be able to find the ACPO guidelines?

CFLarsen

9th December 2003, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by TLN
Actually, he's probably a troll in the strictest sense of the word; he's probably an actual skeptic who doesn't believe any of this, but sits at home and makes stuff up to piss people off. He's sitting at home right now stroking his penis and laughing his head off that he's got all these skeptics jumping through his imaginary hoops.

It's the only rational explanation. No one person is so wantonly dishonest, stupid, and blind to the questions of others. He's playing a game with all of us... and winning.

I disagree. There are actually people this kooky out there. I've met quite a few as a skeptic, and I am always amazed at how normal they can seem - most of the time.

It is, however, pure surface. It doesn't take long for them to shape-shift - pun intented - into what really drives them.

9th December 2003, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by Dragon

Luci, didn't you used to work for the Home Office? Do you have any contacts that might be able to find the ACPO guidelines?

Right. Home office = works from home = unemployed

Ersby

9th December 2003, 07:04 AM

Hmm, it could be argued that Lucian did once have (and still has, to an extent) strong links to the Home Office, otherwise how else did he do his Ladybrook prediction?

But a serious question. This Christams I'm visiting a friend in Northolt. Since this is just down the road from Ruislip I was thinking of going to the local library and checking on the local paper reports for the time of J Poole's murder (since Holohan has stated she got her info AFTER the papers had been published). I was wondering, has anyone else (Keen, Youens, Stumpy) already done this?

juninho

9th December 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

First of all, Tony, we are skeptics here and you need to provide evidence for your above claim.

Cheers.

OK, how about the claim that you worked for the Home Office?

Answers to these please;

1) In what capacity did you work for the H.O.?

and

2) In which building did you work?

BTW, if it makes it any easier for you, I worked in Cleland House doing an IT Project to put health care systems into prisons.

There, you've seen mine, now show me yours.

Stumpy

9th December 2003, 09:26 AM

Hi Ersby

Tony and I have indeed been to the local library to review the newspaper reports published after the murder. There were a number of reports regarding the case prior to Holohan's interview with PC Batters. A lot (but by no means all) of the information given by Holohan was reported in the local press prior to her interview.

regards

Stumpy

TLN

9th December 2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I disagree. There are actually people this kooky out there. I've met quite a few as a skeptic, and I am always amazed at how normal they can seem - most of the time.

One who swears they're a skeptic, then ignores or refuses any attempt to prove it?

Sorry, I'm not buying it anymore.

CFLarsen

9th December 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by TLN
One who swears they're a skeptic, then ignores or refuses any attempt to prove it?

Sorry, I'm not buying it anymore.

Yeah? How's this: I've even heard believers claim that they were real skeptics, and what they were doing was really skepticism.

The skeptics (us) were really just believers! Poor, deluded, narrowminded believers....

I'm not kidding. They completely turn the world upside down, in order for them to hang on to their beliefs. They don't even blink. They just do it, effortlessly.

It's really amazing to observe.

Ersby

9th December 2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Stumpy
Hi Ersby

Tony and I have indeed been to the local library to review the newspaper reports published after the murder. There were a number of reports regarding the case prior to Holohan's interview with PC Batters. A lot (but by no means all) of the information given by Holohan was reported in the local press prior to her interview.

regards

Stumpy

Okay, that's good to know. Normally I wouldn't think to ask such an obvious question but, well, this is parapsychology we're dealing with her. It's as well to be sure.

Lucianarchy

9th December 2003, 12:35 PM

Stumpy, have you been able to detect where the ACPO guidelines are yet?

But more importantly, have either yourself or Tony actually got any evidence of deception, or are you just supposing deception has occured?

CFLarsen

9th December 2003, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Stumpy, have you been able to detect where the ACPO guidelines are yet?

But more importantly, have either yourself or Tony actually got any evidence of deception, or are you just supposing deception has occured?

Now that you mention evidence:

Looking for psi.
WHAT are you actually looking for?
How do you define it, how do you discover it, measure it, discern it from other phenomena? HOW would you construct a set of coherent experiments that would show the existance/nonexistance of this? WHO would you accept to perform these tests? What lab, group or organization?
It wouldn't be difficult at all to find a lab that could do these tests unbiased: That's how double-blind tests work. The ones who actually performs the experiment doesn't know what we are looking for. WHY would a negative result not convince you?
Even PEAR and SRI come up with negative results sometimes, yet you don't weigh these as important as the positive ones. Are the few experiments you constantly point to as proof of psi done from a positive theory or a negative theory? Can you actually form a positive theory and construct an experiment that would prove the existence of psi, instead of relying on negative theories ("We found something, we don't know what it is, it can't be anything we know of today, so it must be psi!")?

Psi, general
Why is it so important to you to prove to this board that psi has been found? Why can't you explain - in layman's terms - the abstract from Helmut Schmidt's "PK Tests in a Pre-Sleep State" you posted? Is that too complicated for you or do you simply refuse?
Answer: Refused. What does the hypothesis for "psi" state? Which parapsychologists use this hypothesis in their work? Is it the accepted all-round hypothesis for "psi", or are there others? Could you, in your own words, describe what "psi" is? How to test for it, what protocols to use? Do you consider paranormal research a victim of the suppression of mainstream science?
If yes, how do you reconcile this with the prominent exposure of paranormal issues in media, like spiritual shows, communicating-with-the-dead programs, paranormal stories, shows, etc.?

If no, why don't we see more mainstream science take paranormal issues seriously? Why is it not a problem for you that we still don't see evidence of paranormal phenomena, if you claim the evidence exist, yet cannot show it?

Unlucky 13
How can you determine that Brits are more fearful of 13 than Danes, if you cannot quantify this? Why does the Danish lotto numbers (with more data points) show 13 placed smack in the middle? Danes are "afraid" of 13 as well. Why is 38 more lucky than 13 is unlucky?
Answer:"38, is the most frequently drawn ball in the UKNLMD. Its frequency goes way over what you can rationaly expect from chance after so many runs. Using my hypothesis, based on socio/cultural group consciousness, it would represent the projection of the most desired outcome based on the holistic S/C value." Is it not true that you came up with "pre-Christian/pagan" fear of 13 in the UK after I pointed out that similar Danish data showed other results than yours? Is it not true, that you have not been able to show this British pagan fear of 13, but that all your references point to a Christian one? Isn't it true that in many cases, 13 was considered a lucky number? Have you looked at other lotteries than the UK one? If yes, which? If no, why not? If 13 is so unlucky in UK lotteries, why is it played so much? Why do you rule out the most obvious reason for 13 coming in last: Faulty equipment? Isn't that the first we should check, if we get weird results? Do you believe that the lottery are never tested for just this? Will you accept that your theory is wrong, when 13 doesn't end up last at any point in the future? Why can you only predict 3 numbers in the UK lottery? Why not 4 or 5? Why don't you consider PGP a strong encryption method? What are your qualifications for arguing this? Why can't you make the numbers known (and encrypted!) beforehand? Will an encrypted posting be influenced? How so? What do you base your critique of PGP on in the Czech document? You said you couldn't read the language? Why did you refuse to use PGP after finding a Czech reference to PGP, when you were later shown a document in English about the same subject? Why isn't a FedEx delivery by monday good enough? Is the FedEx involved in the Great Conspiracy too? How does your predictions in the UK lottery go? Are you more successful or less successful?
Answer:Four wins in a row. Refused to provide evidence.

SAIC, Hyman, Utts, Sheldrake
What is more probable? Hyman being wrong or you? Does Hyman agree with Utts on her conclusions of the experiments? Do you agree that "blips" in scientific experiments happen all the time? If yes, why isn't the SAIC experiment a "blip"? Is an experiment more valid because it has been funded by a government agency, e.g. the CIA? Are you a spokesman for SAIC? Are the SAIC experiments proof of "psi"? Is any "blip" proof of psi? If yes, why? If no, when is it proof, and when is it not? Has all possible error-sources been eliminated in the SAIC experiments? Does Hyman claim this? Does Utts claim this? If the SAIC experiments show proof of psi, what other experiments repeat these? Is there a free, open access to the experiments made by SRI, SAIC and PEAR? Does Hyman speak exclusively about the SAIC experiments in his conclusion or does he include other experiments? Does Utts speak exclusively about the SAIC experiments in her conclusion or does she include other experiments? Does Hyman include earlier SRI experiments in his conclusion? Does Utts include earlier SRI experiments in her conclusion? If Hyman and Utts include different experiments in their conclusions, wouldn't you agree that they do not agree on the conclusions of the SAIC experiments? Do you find that Hyman is a well-respected scientist that should be taken seriously? Do you agree with Hyman that effect size in itself is in no way an indication of a paranormal phenomenon? Have you tried to replicated the SAIC experiments? If no, why do you insist we do it? If yes, can we see the results, methodology, full data set, etc.? Do you agree that in half the observations published by Sheldrake on his site, the dog goes to the window even though the owner isn't on her way home?

Targ and Geller
Why didn't Targ ask Hebard, builder of the magnetometer Swann "manipulated", if there could be any explanation? Why would Randi mention that Geller is a magician, and not mention if Targ is? Can you find an independent reference to Targ being anything else but an amateur magician? Why is it incomprehensible that Geller can fool Targ? Did Targ believe in Geller's abilities before they met? If Geller has been caught cheating, why do you still consider him "real"? Why would Geller resort to cheating, if his powers are real? Why won't Geller perform in front of conjurers? Why can't Geller bend a spoon without touching it? Why is David Blaine's opinion much more important than Randi's, Copperfield etc.?

Natalia Lulova
Are there any indications in the article that the girl doesn't speak English sufficiently to perform the test?
Status: The girl "excelled" in English. She was given the choice of answering in either language. There was a Russian interpreter present. Who is actually referred to as speaking Russian?
Status: Void. Why does the coach speak only occasionally to the girl in Russian?
Status: Void. Doesn't this indicate that the girl indeed understands English?
Status: Void. Is it possible to give the girl secret instructions in Russian?
Status: Void. Is it possible at all that the girl produced openings in the first blindfold? Why did the girl fail, when she couldn't rub or pull on her face? Where in the Challenge does it say that the results would have to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, in order for the test to be passed?
Status: Nowhere. Where in the Challenge does it say that the test must be based on scientific principles?
Status: Nowhere. If it is shown that the girl understands English well enough to give her answers in English, will you admit defeat? How would you have designed and carried out the test?

Science
Do you understand the basics of science? Do you consider it a scientifically sound method to have the presenter of a hypothesis perform the test and judge the results? Would you consider yourself unbiased towards the mainstream scientific establishment? Why do you need to have the basics of science explained to you, if you claim scientific proof of psi? Do you understand that witness testimony is utterly irrelevant in science?

Skepticism, etc.
Why do you refer to yourself as a skeptic, when you don't follow the rules of skepticism (following the scientific method, etc.)? Don't you find that the replicated personal connections between the sources you present are problematic? Are character flaws an indication of the validity of a person's findings? Can we see any psi experiment replicated with similar results published in a peer-reviewed journal, not devoted to parapsychology? Can we even see the same experiment replicated with similar results performed at any of your own listed organizations? What is the difference between an amateur and a professional? Have you considered any other theory other than your own? If so, which did you consider, and why did you abandon them? Do you want to see a list of the references I use? Do you consider Occam's Razor a good tool to investigate paranormal claims?
If yes, isn't the probability of Geller cheating and/or using simply trickey much more probable than Geller having paranormal powers?

If no, why isn't it applicable in this case? What other cases do you find Occam's Razor a wrong tool to use? What scientists are we talking about, when you talk about "Considering the evidence from so many credible people, scientists..."? Have these scientists published their findings in peer-reviewed journals, not devoted to parapsychology? Why have you switched tactics? You don't argue or show that your data is evidence, now we are all a bunch of morons in denial.

Randi/Magic
Why hasn't Dr. Gary Schwartz applied for the Randi Challenge? Why haven't SAIC applied for the Randi Challenge? Why hasn't Uri Geller applied for the Randi Challenge? Why haven't you (and your team) applied for the Randi Challenge? Have you read the terms for the Randi Challenge?
Answer:"I have read the terms of the Challenge." Do you understand the terms for the Randi Challenge?
If yes, why do you continue to refer to the test as a "grant" and not a "challenge/test"? Do you realize that the posters here are not JREF staff, except Randi, Andrew and Linda? Is this your statement, Lucianarchy?
'I take great exception to James "The Amusing" Randi dismissing my faith. He is a right bastard and I urge you to help me shut his hate site down.'
Answer:"Of course not. But perhaps that illustrates the desperation and tactics psuedo-skeptics will stoop to in order to smear, denigrate and censor."
Status: Highly likely that it is L's statement. Very similar ISPs. Why do you want to oppress and silence those who criticise your beliefs, e.g. James Randi's website? Do you think it is possible that you could be fooled by a masterful magician? Do you think it is possible that someone who has been in a spaceship or who worked for a huge, bureaucratic government agency could be fooled by a masterful magician? Do you think it is possible that David Blaine could be fooled by a masterful magician? Do you think it is possible that parapsychologists could be fooled by a masterful magician? Do you think it is possible that Jane Katra was doing a trick, when the bowl in her hand rolled up 180 degrees? If not, why not? Do you think it would be in Jane Katra's interest (financially and emotionally) to act scared, in order to heighten the believability of a trick? If not, why not? How does the "sawed-through lady" trick work? What about the "disappearing dove in a cage" trick?

Misc
Why do you consider a public plea for clarifying your point worthy of only a private email? Why can't the rest of us know what you think? Is there anything secret about that information? Would you consider "read the book!" a fair answer to a question put to you to clarify your own personal views on a subject? What are your thoughts on the random number generator using static sound? Why do you keep on posting the same links to the same reports made by the same small group of people, if you claim there are many, many reports that confirm the existence of psi? Why do you describe me as a "spoiled child", when I ask you for those reports, experiments and proof you speak of, instead of at least showing where I can find them? Why do you - after I have clarified that Hyman does not agree with Utts on the conclusions of the SAIC evaluations, and you have acknowledged this clarification - continue to claim that I said otherwise? Why do you claim that you "corrected" me on this, when I myself clarified it? When did you "correct" me on this? Who are you and your research team? Are you a professional journalist? What awards have you won and what pieces were they for and what publications were they in? Do you have data to back up your claim that you are one of the few men involved in Wicca?

And the final one:

What kind of evidence will you accept that show you are wrong?

Note: This post will be updated as Lucianarchy sloooooowly answers each question. We're in for the long haul here, it seems...

Lucianarchy

9th December 2003, 12:57 PM

Claus, you are in violation of the forum rules by again posting those silly questions whilst there is an entire thread devoted to that very subject. Your reposting is wasting bandwidth, and as such you are 'spamming' the forum. Delete the entire post or provide a link.

Suezoled

9th December 2003, 01:11 PM

LOL! Look who's pretending he's someone of authority. Or at least respectability.

CFLarsen

9th December 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Claus, you are in violation of the forum rules by again posting those silly questions whilst there is an entire thread devoted to that very subject. Your reposting is wasting bandwidth, and as such you are 'spamming' the forum. Delete the entire post or provide a link.

No, I am not in violating of forum rules. Hal has specifically stated that if you ever brought up the issue of evidence again, I could post my questions asking you for evidence.

Go bother him, if you like. Or, you could start answering some of the questions.

Every time you ask others for evidence, I will ask you for evidence. Get used to it.

After all, that's what being a skeptic is all about: Providing evidence of your claims. Or had you forgotten...?

Lucianarchy

11th December 2003, 04:35 AM

Stumpy, have you been able to detect where the ACPO guidelines are yet?

But more importantly, have either yourself or Tony actually got any e.v.i.d.e.n.c.e. of deception, or are you just supposing deception has occured?

Lothian

11th December 2003, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Stumpy, have you been able to detect where the ACPO guidelines are yet?

But more importantly, have either yourself or Tony actually got any e.v.i.d.e.n.c.e. of deception, or are you just supposing deception has occured? Luci,

After much searching I have found the relevant part of the guidelines.

…..

5.7. Dealing with information provided by Psychics.

See section 5.4 -Dealing with information provided by the certifiably insane.

CFLarsen

11th December 2003, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Stumpy, have you been able to detect where the ACPO guidelines are yet?

But more importantly, have either yourself or Tony actually got any e.v.i.d.e.n.c.e. of deception, or are you just supposing deception has occured?

Ignoring the questions again, Lucianarchy?

Being a total hypocrite again, Lucianarchy?

Lucianarchy

11th December 2003, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by Lothian
Luci,

After much searching I have found the relevant part of the guidelines.

…..

5.7. Dealing with information provided by Psychics.

See section 5.4 -Dealing with information provided by the certifiably insane.

Are you claiming that the ACPO have published the above statement?

I accept you may be lying, but the the trouble is, credophile pseudo-skeptic types actualy believe such things without question and go on to repeat them elsewhere. Which eventualy, of course, ends up with them landing in hot water at some point or other and I am sure you wouldn't want that coming back to haunt you, right?

alfaniner

11th December 2003, 06:53 AM

No psychics have succeeded in locating Dru Sjodin yet. Oh, wait, maybe they have. "Near water, shallow grave, forest-like area."

Lothian

11th December 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Are you claiming that the ACPO have published the above statement?

I accept you may be lying, but the the trouble is, credophile pseudo-skeptic types actualy believe such things without question and go on to repeat them elsewhere. Which eventualy, of course, ends up with them landing in hot water at some point or other and I am sure you wouldn't want that coming back to haunt you, right? Coming back to haunt me ? Like your probability calculations you mean.

I can confirm that the extract is from the actual guidance. I remote viewed it. You are well aware that remote viewing is a proven technique fully accepted by the courts in millions of cases.

Lucianarchy

11th December 2003, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Lothian

I can confirm that the extract is from the actual guidance.

OK, so you were lying when you tried to misalign the ACPO.

I don't know what point you were hoping to make, all you're doing is confirming the fact that pseudo-skeptics like yourself are unable to debunk and lack critical thinking skills.

Lucianarchy

11th December 2003, 07:02 AM

Stumpy, have you been able to detect where the ACPO guidelines are yet? Nil desperandum.

But more importantly, have either yourself or Tony actually got any e.v.i.d.e.n.c.e. of deception, or are you just supposing deception has occured?

Lothian

11th December 2003, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

OK, so you were lying when you tried to misalign the ACPO.

I don't know what point you were hoping to make, all you're doing is confirming the fact that pseudo-skeptics like yourself are unable to debunk and lack critical thinking skills.

You prove I am lying. It should be easy you worked for the Home Office assisting in hundreds of cases where psychic evidence was used (although I understand you have forgotten the names of any of them). I am sure you can get hold of a copy to prove me wrong.

But common sense suggests I am right.

People who hear imaginary voices in their heads are insane.
Psychics hear imaginary voices in their heads.
The should be treated the same surely.

Lucianarchy

11th December 2003, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by Lothian

You prove I am lying.

No need. You are a liar. Sue me, liar.

Lothian

11th December 2003, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

No need. You are a liar. Sue me, liar. I don’t need to sue you. I have nothing to prove. All my clients believe in my remote viewing abilities. The fact that they come back time and time again is all the proof I and they need.

Just because you don’t believe in remote viewing does not mean I can not do it. It would be so easy for you, with all your contacts, to prove me wrong but you will not because you can not.

Lucianarchy

11th December 2003, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Lothian
I have nothing to prove.

I am happy for the ACPO to be the judge of that.

Lothian

11th December 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

I am happy for the ACPO to be the judge of that. And so am I.

Let me get my remote viewing goggles on again.

It says

…..

5.7. Dealing with information provided by Psychics.

See section 5.4 -Dealing with information provided by the certifiably insane.

Well there you go I have not only proved my point but managed to successfully repeat my remote viewing experiment. Something you skeptics claim does not happen.

Lucianarchy

11th December 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Lothian
And so am I.

OK. No problem. I'll put you on ignore until then, just in case you are a minor (as your intelligence suggests) rather than a liar.

In the meantime, Stumpy, have you been able to detect where the ACPO guidelines are yet? Nil desperandum.

But more importantly, have either yourself or Tony actually got any e.v.i.d.e.n.c.e. of deception, or are you just supposing deception has occured?

Lothian

11th December 2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

OK. No problem. I'll put you on ignore until then, just in case you are a minor (as your intelligence suggests) rather than a liar.

In the meantime, Stumpy, have you been able to detect where the ACPO guidelines are yet? Nil desperandum.

But more importantly, have either yourself or Tony actually got any e.v.i.d.e.n.c.e. of deception, or are you just supposing deception has occured? On ignore. :( Just when I thought we were starting to get along.

Jaggy Bunnet

11th December 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

OK. No problem. I'll put you on ignore until then, just in case you are a minor (as your intelligence suggests) rather than a liar.

In the meantime, Stumpy, have you been able to detect where the ACPO guidelines are yet? Nil desperandum.

But more importantly, have either yourself or Tony actually got any e.v.i.d.e.n.c.e. of deception, or are you just supposing deception has occured?

Anyone guess who posted this:

"Your reposting is wasting bandwidth, and as such you are 'spamming' the forum"

I'm sure such a person would not be stupid enough to do exactly the behaviour they have condemned on the same thread.

Stumpy

11th December 2003, 12:46 PM

Stumpy, have you been able to detect where the ACPO guidelines are yet?

Err...NO! I have been rather busy with other more pressing matters at work. Have you had any luck tracking them down via your HO contacts?

But more importantly, have either yourself or Tony actually got any evidence of deception, or are you just supposing deception has occured?

Just remind me where I have stated that deception took place? Did you actually read the thread...?
Unlike Keen I am not up for coming to any definitive conclusions about an incident that took place nearly two decades ago.

Stumpy

SteveGrenard

11th December 2003, 12:56 PM

Hi Stumpy:

Was wondering if you knew or know or can learn more abut Detective Chief Superintendent Eric Rundle who headed the Genette Tate case. It was supposed to be the first in Britain to have official HO approval for the involvement of psychics. I believe the psychic worked with Chief Inspector Don Crabb. Perhaps Rundle or Crabb if they are still around can shed some light on the guidelines if, in fact, they weren't actually involved in their promulgation.

The psychic who worked on the Tate case which last I heard was never solved (?) was a man named Robert Cracknell who also worked on the Yorkshire Ripper cases. According to police sources he correctly pinpointed the area where Peter Sutcliffe lived, he predicted the date of the Ripper's last attack give or take a few days only. He also accurately described Sutcliffe's house.

References:

Moran, S. & Truzzi, M. (foreword) Psychics:Investigators and Spies who Use Paranormal Powers. 1999.

Wilson Colin The Psychic Detectives. Paranormal Crime Detection, Telepathy and Psychic Archeology. 1985,

CFLarsen

11th December 2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
It was supposed to be the first in Britain to have official HO approval for the involvement of psychics.

Please provide references for this.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The psychic who worked on the Tate case which last I heard was never solved was a man named Robert Cracknell who also worked on the Yorkshir Ripper cases.

Please provide evidence that Cracknell "worked" on the YR cases. What "cases"?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
According to police sources he correctly pinpointed he area where Peter Sutcliffe lived, he predicted the date if the Ripper's last attack give or tae a few days ony. He also accurately described Sutcliffe's house.

Please provide the sources that he "correctly pinpointed" the are where PS lived.

Please provide the sources that the date was predicted.

Please provide the sources that described Sutcliffe's house.

Lothian

12th December 2003, 02:18 AM

I doubt very much that Robert Cracknell worked with the police. According to his own website. http://www.vigil-productions.com/ his involvement was with a couple of newspapers. I would have thought that if he worked with the police he would have mentioned it.

Interestingly he relates an incident

At a dinner with his publishers, to discuss the launch of his forthcoming autobiography, CLUES TO THE UNKNOWN, the renowned author Colin Wilson was also present. The discussion led to the case of the Yorkshire Ripper and the fact that, for the past eighteen months, there had no developments or further murders. Again, in his inimitable style, Cracknell declared, "He will murder again, very soon. And that will be the final one!”

There was a murder on September 2 1979
The next murder was on August 20 1980.
There was then an attack on 24 September 1980
The was next an attack on 5 November 1980
The last murder was on 17 November 1980
Sutcliffe was arrested on 2 January 2001

It follows that there was never in the period between the second to last and last murder a time where there had been no murders or developments in the previous 18 months. Cracknell’s statement that he was 100% correct is clearly wrong and must bring his other claims into question.

Ersby

12th December 2003, 02:39 AM

Lothian's right, though I doubt his (or my) points will be addressed by grenard. Here goes anyway. His work on the Yorkshire Ripper case was not with the police, but with the newspaper The Yorkshire Post. Besides that, it is problematic to judge a psychics powers with predictions for events that have already taken place by the time the prediction is published. Here’s the only prediction by Cracknell I could find that was published (on the net, link below the quote) before the event occurred, dated Feb 5th.

We also got an incredible prediction from our first guest, Robert Cracknell, author of The Psychic Reality. He's Britain's best documented psychic, famous in that country for his incredible predictions about the Yorkshire ripper, one of the UK's worst-ever serial murderers. During a news break, he heard a report about the Gallaudet University murder case. The body of a second student, a young man from San Antonio, had just been found murdered in the same dormitory where another boy was killed on September 28.

When we came back on the air to talk with Cracknell, he said that some intuitions had just come to him about this murder. Since he lives in Cyprus, he hadn't heard anything about it before the news report last night. He said he felt that the murderer is an employee about 27 years old, who has only been working there for the last 12 to 15 months and is originally from the Balkans. He is a laundry worker who works for the laundry at the school, and he feels that the last murder has something to do with a laundry chute that is near the student's room.

Off the air, Cracknell told us that he feels the murdered boy was a homosexual and that the killer has strong homophobic tendencies. Imagine my surprise when I read the news stories today and discovered that the first murdered boy had been secretary of the Lambda Society at the school, an organization for gays and lesbians.

http://www.unknowncountry.com/diary/?id=60

then, on Feb 13th:

Washington, D.C.—Joseph Mafnas Mesa, Jr., 20, a native of Guam (born in San Fransisco), has been arrested and arraigned in connection with the murders of Eric F. Plunkett, 19, a gay student activist at Gallaudet University and Benjamin Varner of San Antonio, also 19. Both of the murdered youths were beaten to death in the dormitory they'd shared with their reputed killer. The motive, apparently, had been robbery.

So, not twenty, not from the Balkans, not working there, nothing to do with the laundry and it was robbery, not homophobia that was the motive. Interestingly, about the Cracknell’s guess about homosexuality, it seems it was aimed at the second, most recent, murder but applied to the first. What’s also interesting from a psychic point of view was that Cracknell could get “homosexual” but not “deafness” or “cerebral palsy”, both of which the first murder victim had. Is this another 100% prediciton for Cracknell?

12th December 2003, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by Ersby

So, not twenty, not from the Balkans, not working there, nothing to do with the laundry and it was robbery, not homophobia that was the motive. Interestingly, about the Cracknell’s guess about homosexuality, it seems it was aimed at the second, most recent, murder but applied to the first. What’s also interesting from a psychic point of view was that Cracknell could get “homosexual” but not “deafness” or “cerebral palsy”, both of which the first murder victim had. Is this another 100% prediciton for Cracknell?

I'd also be curious as to what was reported vis a vis the nature of the wounds. Stump might comment but I am under the impression that extreme violence to the body is taken as an indication of a gay relationship gone bad.

More psychic crap from people selling books.

Lothian

12th December 2003, 06:20 AM

To say Cracknell’s claims are inconsistent is being generous.

In connection with his personal solving of the Janie Shepherd Murder, apart from getting her name wrong he claims

Janie Shepard was an Australian girl, in her early 20’s, whose murdered body was found in the back of her red Mini car in a desolate area of Hertfordshire.
Police investigations had revealed no clues or answers

Some weeks after the murder,…., two officers from the Murder Squad did indeed visit Cracknell’s home, to interview him. It was a comparatively simple matter to convince them of his true identity and profession. They then asked if, subject to official sanction, he would assist them in their enquiries. Cracknell then, in a flash of psychic intuition, told the Police officers that there was nothing further he could do as the murderer was already in prison. He described him as being black, with a scar on his cheek. He felt he was currently serving a prison sentence for rape.
The police then left and Cracknell heard nothing further from them.
It was some seven years later when a black man with a scar on his cheek was arrested at the prison gates (having served seven years for rape) and charged with the murder of Janie Shephard. He was subsequently found guilty.
Cracknell’s uncanny psychic ability in this case has yet to be explained scientifically. Yet, without leaving the confines of his home, or becoming actively involved, he solved a murder – despite nearly being arrested as a suspect.

Compare with the Hertfordshire police view
http://www.cathus.co.uk/hertspol/history/150yr6.html

She was reported as missing and four days later her mini car was found in Notting Hill. The inside of the car showed signs of a terrible struggle.

David Ronald Lashley, a powerful built Barbadian was a prime suspect for the murder. He had previous convictions for sex attacks, but had been sentenced for another crime before the police had the chance t build up a case against him.
The investigating officers had to wait 13 years before Lashley was released. As soon as he stepped through the prison gates, he was arrested and later stood trial at St Albans Crown Court.
The police had to trace over 100 witnesses, many of whom had not been heard of since 1977.

Notting Hill is not in Hertfordshire and certainly in not remote being in the middle of London.

The arrest 13 years after the crime suggests that it was 6 years after the murder not a few weeks that a black man with a scar was suggested by Cracknell (if he ever did suggest such a thing given his total lack of ability to get any other facts right) a time when it would have been well known that Lashley was the prime suspect.

One wonders if Cranknell is reporting the same case !!

SteveGrenard

12th December 2003, 09:53 AM

Although I was really interested in Stumpy's information on Rundle and Crabb vis a vis the guidelines, I appreciate your research on this medium. With respect to the prediction about killing one last time I didn't notice any date given for the dinner where the medium made that remark. Wouldn't this be critical in determing the validity of that "prediction."? Also in the re-pasted quote did I miss a statement somewhere that the medium said Notting Hill was located in Herts? Or was the connection to Notting Hill and the Barbadian man as simple as the fact that this area of London is a West Indian section?

Thank you again for looking further into this medium.

Lothian

12th December 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Although I was really interested in Stumpy's information on Rundle and Crabb vis a vis the guidelines, I appreciate your research on this medium. With respect to the prediction about killing one last time I didn't notice any date given for the dinner where the medium made that remark. Wouldn't this be critical in determing the validity of that "prediction."? Also in the re-pasted quote did I miss a statement somewhere that the medium said Notting Hill was located in Herts? Or was the connection to Notting Hill and the Barbadian man as simple as the fact that this area of London is a West Indian section?

Thank you again for looking further into this medium.
The date of the dinner is not relevant. The psychic said that the last killing would be 18 months after the one before. That was wrong

The medium said the car was found in Hertfordshire. It wasn't it was found in Notting Hill.

I trust Stumpy will get back to you if he has had any progress on the guidelines. You could also try Luci. She used to work for the home office you know.

P.S. I don't think this man is a medium. possibly poor to medum but no better ;)

SteveGrenard

12th December 2003, 10:37 AM

At a dinner with his publishers, to discuss the launch of his forthcoming autobiography, CLUES TO THE UNKNOWN, the renowned author Colin Wilson was also present. The discussion led to the case of the Yorkshire Ripper and the fact that, for the past eighteen months, there had no developments or further murders. Again, in his inimitable style, Cracknell declared, "He will murder again, very soon. And that will be the final one!”

Sorry, but this looks like someone reading into a statement something which may or may not be there. I do not see the medium saying the last killing will come 18 months after the last one. Although he implies it. He said "kill again and that will be the last one." Kill again could mean multiple instances and then a last one but I get your point.

The fact that a car is found in Herts but the Barbadian man has ties to or lives in Notting Hill are not mutually exclusive and is quite likely since this area of London, at least when I lived in London, was heavily West Indian.

Edited to add:

I just had a chance to check my Moran reference. According to Moran, Cracknell predicted the date of the last attack within a few days plus or minus. She says nothing about Cracknell doing this using the 18 month hiatus as a lynchpin to the timing. This is why I am confused and this is why I thought the date he said what he said was important. She also says Cracknell was invited to Yorkshire to study the case by the Yorkshire police and was allowed to wander the murder sites. Right or wrong, was Cracknell invited by the police?

Lothian

12th December 2003, 02:19 PM

Steve,

The ripper murdered in September 1979. Then killed again 11 months later.
Then he attacked 1 month later
Then he attacked 2 months later
Then he killed later that month then he was caught 2 months later.

You do the maths and tell me when the prediction was made. Remember that he said there had been no developments or murders in the previous 18 months and the killer was about to murder very soon and that would be the final one. I take your point that he could have referred to multiple murders but there were three months between the last two killings presuming that the claim was made before the penultimate one it would not be very soon until the last. To have 18 months of no killings you have to go back years. Perhaps the statement was made years earlier. The story does not hang together well at all.

As for Hertfordshire you miss the point. He says the car was found in Herts with no clues to go on. The police say the car was found in Notting Hill showing signs of a terrible struggle.

He is a very unreliable witness. If he gets so many simple facts and dates wrong why should we believe his other claims.

Did the police invite him in the case of the Ripper. Not according to him. He claims he was invited by two newspapers.

Also other than carnival time Notting Hill is not a particularly West Indian Area.

Is Moran’s study a factual investigation or was it written for entertainment ?

SteveGrenard

12th December 2003, 03:28 PM

I do not now how Notting Hill shapes up today but I can assure you the area just didn't turn West Indian for Carnival back in the sixties and seventies. It was West Indian year round.

Having lived in N.W. 8 during the mid 70s to early 80s, I can assure you that the Ladbroke Grove tube station was the place to get off to visit West Indian restaurants and shops and that there was a very large colony of West Indians living in that area at that time. Here's a few excerpts from some websites that cover the history of the period. I am sure you can find more and that my memory regarding this is pretty sound.

"By end August, the disturbances had spread to Notting Hill (in northwest London). There was resentment over the 7000-strong West Indian settlement in this area. White racist gangs went ‘ni**er hunting’ with knives, guns and Molotov cocktails. With over 6000 whites involved, there were street fights, attacks on black cafes, painting of racist graffiti, holding up placards ‘Keep Britain white’. In May 1959, a West Indian was stabbed to death – the killers were never found" from: http://www.goacom.com/overseas-digest/Culture&Identity/1carnival.htm

Every August Bank Holiday the Notting Hill Carnival brings Ladbroke Grove alive. The festival began as West Indian immigrants moved into the area during the fifties and is now one of the best carnivals in the UK attracting over a million people each year. The first carnival was in 1964, and grew up from the struggle between the black West Indian community and the police. Today the carnival celebrates the diverse cultures which make up Britain's identity. from: http://www.streetparties.co.uk/nottinghill/index.shtml

SteveGrenard

12th December 2003, 03:32 PM

Re Moran's book. The late Marcello Truzzi, a co-founder of CSCIOP, wrote the foreword after having read the book in manuscript and backs up the accuracy or veracity of her reporting, especially since she drew on material collected by his center for anomalies research.

Sure it was for "entertainment" but it is still non-fiction. Are splashy books about WW II for entertainment as well as about history and learning? Sure. Same here. Truzzi a few years earlier wrote a more serious book covering much of this material, co-authored with Lyons and called Blue Sense. I have quoted this previously.

Ersby

12th December 2003, 11:00 PM

Careful, Lothian, or you'll let grenard wriggle away on a minor detail. Notting Hill does have a large black population. All year round.

So, the psychic detective's story is that the car was found in Hertfordshire while the police say the car was found in central London. That's the issue. Steve's post hoc damage limitation tactics such as:

The fact that a car is found in Herts but the Barbadian man has ties to or lives in Notting Hill are not mutually exclusive and is quite likely since this area of London, at least when I lived in London, was heavily West Indian.

... is all rather desperate. He boldy repeats the "fact" that we're trying to prove the veracity of, which shows he's barely paying attention. Maybe he thinks if he says it often enough, it'll come true. Besides, what exactly were the ties to Notting Hill?

Lothian

12th December 2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Re Moran's book. The late Marcello Truzzi, a co-founder of CSCIOP, wrote the foreword after having read the book in manuscript and backs up the accuracy or veracity of her reporting, especially since she drew on material collected by his center for anomalies research.

Sure it was for "entertainment" but it is still non-fiction. Are splashy books about WW II for entertainment as well as about history and learning? Sure. Same here. Truzzi a few years earlier wrote a more serious book covering much of this material, co-authored with Lyons and called Blue Sense. I have quoted this previously. So given the choice between his claim to have been invited by newspapers and the book’s claim that the police invited him which do you prefer ?

Any luck on dating the 'Ripper claim' dinner ? I know the book was released sometime in 1981. I reckon that the probability is that the dinner to celebrate the launch came after the arrest on January 2nd. Perhaps he misremembered again ?

I left london 2 years ago having lived there for over 10 years. I would not say Notting hill was a particularly West Indian Area but I suppose it is a matter of personal judgement. As Ersby says however it is not really relevent. I was not making an assertion critisising you merely making a personal opinion.

Lucianarchy

13th December 2003, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by Stumpy

Err...NO! I have been rather busy with other more pressing matters at work. Have you had any luck tracking them down via your HO contacts?

May I remind you, the burden of proof, officer, is on you. :p

Just remind me where I have stated that deception took place? Did you actually read the thread...?
Unlike Keen I am not up for coming to any definitive conclusions about an incident that took place nearly two decades ago.

Indeed. Thank you for clarifying the fact that there is no evidence that deception took place, at all. Many of your readers seem to have come to the conclusion that Ms H is a fraud and it is only right that you assure them that there was no evidence of fraud.

SteveGrenard

13th December 2003, 07:10 AM

Frankly if he had offered his help to the police in the Yorkshore Ripper case at that point, I don't think they would have taken the chance of comitting a p.r. blunder by turning him down and yes, especially if one or more newspapers were involved.

Sorry, still no luck dating the assertion Robert Cracknell made about the Ripper murdering again, and for the last time. There were other mediums who worked on this case. These included Doris Stokes and Gerard Croiset. Analysis of their input by Truzzi indicates they failed. Yet another was Nella Jones. Jones gave a sketch of the Ripper to police but it looked nothing like Sutcliffe. She predicted his name would be Peter (correct) and gave his house number, 6, (corect) but not the street correctly according to Truzzi. Truzzi says in any case her information was given only to the police and was not published in advance (for obvious reasons) so it would be impossible for him to verify them.

SteveGrenard

13th December 2003, 07:20 AM

By the way the Pomona (California) PD does have guidelines for dealing with psychics. Truzzi reprints them in Blue Sense. ibid. These are official guidelines to be followed in the questionning of psychic witnesses according to Truzzi:

"1. Say nothing about your case to the sensitive except the following:

a. name the crime: homicide, robbery rape .............etc

b. Give the date of the crime

c. Say how many victims were involved. Be specific: if one victim was killed and another wounded, say so. Give no other information about the victims or suspects.

d. State clearly the exact information you need for your case. Your requirements will vary from case to case and it is helpful to the sensitive if you are precise abut what you need.
On some cases you may need to know who committed the crime, on others the motivation or the location of physical evidence or suspects. Whatever you need, be specific about it

2. Give the psychometric objects to the sensitive.

3. After the sensitive has completed his report, give immediate feedback about all aspects of the case you know."

Other guidelines .... make sure the sensitive does not meet with or interview suspects, witnesses or other people involved. All contact with the case should be through one designated detective bureau officer as liasion. The psychic should be allowed to psychometrize the objects independently of the investigators.

Reference as cited by Truzzi:

Burnett, D.J. Police Chief, Pomoa (CA) P.D. Policy Memorandum on the use of Psychics. September 10, 1981.

While it would be instructive to see those UK guidelines, perhaps we should come up with our own guidelines, a model guidelines document, which could be used for this purpose.

Garrette

14th December 2003, 12:27 AM

I would add a bit to that list (except that I wouldn't have a list at all as I wouldn't have meetings with psychics in any investigation of which I was in charge):

1. The information above should be written, placed in an envelope, and given to the psychic via an uninvolved third party such as an administrative clerk.

2. In addition to the actual psychometric items, there should be included, without the knowledge of the psychic, some control items, the background of which are well known to the investigating officer but which is unrelated to the case at hand.

Hannibal

15th December 2003, 01:55 AM

This one just won't die will it?

Having not worked for all the forces in the country I am unable to coment on all the procedures they employ. However GMP - and indeed Kent - will react to ANY (note emphasis) information in the same way.

It is taken in, submitted, reviewed, graded and if valid disseminated.

In relation to specific cases (e.g. a murder/kidnap) the enquiry & investigation teams are duty bound to look into ANY (note emphasis) information provided that may have a bearing on a case.

If someone claims it comes from a psychic source then it will receive the lowest ranking in terms of intelligence quality AUTOMATICALLY. No ifs, buts or maybes - it gets the lowest rating i.e. source unknown and unproven. As Police officers we receive hundreds of items of info daily and so the grading system is important in order to keep on top of things and make sure that the wheat is separated from the chaff.

I am getting more than a little frustrated when I see Luci saying "prove it" that Police don't use psychics. Errrr...I am in the Police, have experience on Uniform, CID and covert ops, I have talked to Super's, C.I.'s, DCI's, DS's and DC's with vast amounts of experience in murder, robbery, rape, child abuse and smaller level crimes. Not a single one has EVER used or would use a psychic. This is not to say that EVERY Police officer works in the same way, but when 99.9% do then that is the norm. I consider this proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Any cases where psychics are "used" is a case of them VOLUNTEERING information. They are NOT consulted and ever have been (in the forces I have worked let me add in case Luci tries to wriggle out).

Again this will not end the thread - and I do not expect it to - but it is proof yet again that Luci is incapable of rational debate. the burden of proof is on BOTH sides in an argument. Just because one cannot prove it does not mean that the other should not dis-prove it. That is academically and philosophically sloppy.

A summary: "Police use Psychics" = 100% WRONG
"Police use INFORMATION" = 100% RIGHT

Jeff Corey

15th December 2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal
...A summary: "Police use Psychics" = 100% WRONG
"Police use INFORMATION" = 100% RIGHT

That agrees with what local police have told me. One did say, "If we get the nutcases (psychics) volunteering info, sometimes we hope that a leak to the press will scare the perp into doing something stupid, like try to flee." (Approximate quote from memory.)

Psiload

15th December 2003, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
By the way the Pomona (California) PD does have guidelines for dealing with psychics. Truzzi reprints them in Blue Sense. ibid. These are official guidelines to be followed in the questionning of psychic witnesses according to Truzzi:

"1. Say nothing about your case to the sensitive except the following:

a. name the crime: homicide, robbery rape .............etc

b. Give the date of the crime

c. Say how many victims were involved. Be specific: if one victim was killed and another wounded, say so. Give no other information about the victims or suspects.

d. State clearly the exact information you need for your case. Your requirements will vary from case to case and it is helpful to the sensitive if you are precise abut what you need.
On some cases you may need to know who committed the crime, on others the motivation or the location of physical evidence or suspects. Whatever you need, be specific about it

2. Give the psychometric objects to the sensitive.

3. After the sensitive has completed his report, give immediate feedback about all aspects of the case you know."

Other guidelines .... make sure the sensitive does not meet with or interview suspects, witnesses or other people involved. All contact with the case should be through one designated detective bureau officer as liasion. The psychic should be allowed to psychometrize the objects independently of the investigators.

Reference as cited by Truzzi:

Burnett, D.J. Police Chief, Pomoa (CA) P.D. Policy Memorandum on the use of Psychics. September 10, 1981.

While it would be instructive to see those UK guidelines, perhaps we should come up with our own guidelines, a model guidelines document, which could be used for this purpose. Further recomendations:

4. Sit the sensitive in a comfy chair by a sunny window.

a. Offer the sensitive a refreshing beverage. (i.e. coffee, tea, soft drinks)

5. Divert as much manpower, and resources as is necessary to accomodate every sensitive who walks, crawls, or is dragged into the station house.

subparagragh 14b- A "sensitive" is defined as any, and every swingin' dick with a "vision", a power crystal necklace, a deck of tarot cards, etc...

6. Allow the sensitive free access to spindle, fold, mutilate, and drool on every bit of physical evidence found at the crime scene.

sector: 4 quad: purple- allow the sensitive to take the items of official evidence home to paw, and fondle to their hearts content... this is sometimes helpful in getting the sensitive's psychometric juices flowing.

7. Hire, and assign as much full-time personnell as will be required to cater to the demands and whims, and stroke the egos of all sensitives which may offer their assisstance.

species: musk ox/ phylum: chordata- print-up, and hand out framed 'certificate of appreciation' documents to be given to each sensitive suitable for use as promotional "credibility" documentation on their personal websites. Note: handing out "honorary deputy" badges to the sensitives would also be usefull, as it encourages those bashfull sensitives which might otherwise be hesitant to come forward.

8. When making lists, use letters, or numbers to highlight specific points, so as not to confuse the reader.

Sure, these guidelines may require that countless hours of manpower, and large amounts of resources be diverted away from the actual process of investigating crimes, but when we consider the track record of sensitives involved in police work, the question of justification seems laughable...

No, we're not laughing with them.

Lothian

15th December 2003, 08:11 AM

Yes it is coming through clear,

You are looking for a suspect with a larcenous streak, someone who holds little or no respect for authority, I feel that this may not have been their first crime and suspect they could strike again. They should also avoid lending money to relatives this week. Their lucky number is 12 and lucky colour is green.

15th December 2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reference as cited by Truzzi:

Burnett, D.J. Police Chief, Pomoa (CA) P.D. Policy Memorandum on the use of Psychics. September 10, 1981.

While it would be instructive to see those UK guidelines, perhaps we should come up with our own guidelines, a model guidelines document, which could be used for this purpose.

1981, eh?
Steve, shall you give the Pomona PD a call or shall I? That policy (if indeed it ever was) was from at least 2 chiefs and 22 years ago. Your concept of evidence is truely staggering.

SteveGrenard

15th December 2003, 10:45 AM

Actually Ed the Chief at the time approved the guidelines and issued the memorandum. Lt. Kurt Longfellow and Dr. Louise Ludwig helped draw them up.

The satirical guidelines created above which point to a waste of resources by police when “listening to…” or acting on the advice of psychics has been the subject of many opinion pieces. When hundreds or even thousands of people with ideas, leads or tips contact the police over a high profile crime, those who profess to be psychic blend in with the rest of them and merely add numbers to the statistic of calls being received and “checked out.” It is indeed expensive, time consuming and a waste of valuable and short resources to not only check out every psychic tip involved but every tip involved,
period.

However, Truzzi asks , if a psychic comes in and says you will find the gun
in that bush over there, how much does it cost for the police to look in that bush? If the police get five hundred different psychic tips all over the map, all different, many contradictory, sure, they need to be weeded out just like non-psychic tips.

Dr. Marcello Truzzi, a co-founder of CSICOP, in his book Blue Sense (Lyons and Truzzi: Blue Sense. 1991. The Mysterious Press, New York, Tokyo Sweden and Milan)
quotes The California Department of Justice’s Criminal Information Bulletin Which in an editorial piece (unsigned) article states “the psychic does not replace sound investigative techniques but functions as an investigative tool.”

Truzzi also interviewed Lt. Kurt Longfellow who worked with Dr. Louise Ludwig to draw up the Pomona (California) PD’s policy on the use of psychics. According to Truzzi, Longfellow said “No matter what we do, it has to be turned into a conventional clue. We can wake up in the middle of the night (SG: how many cops and others here have done that?) with an idea about a case, but we have to convert that idea into something substantial we can take to court.” (op.cit. August 31, 1989).

Psiload

15th December 2003, 11:18 AM

Steve Grenard posted:

However, Truzzi asks , if a psychic comes in and says you will find the gun bush over there, how much does it cost for the police to look in that bush?

It costs the police the exact amount of time it takes to look in the bush... One minute too much. One hour too much. One day too much, etc... the evidence, or lack thereof, supposts this.

If the police get five hundred different psychic tips all over the map, all different, many contradictory, sure, they need to be weeded out just like non-psychic tips.

Psychic tips waste police resources in the same manner that erroneous conventional tips do... the evidence, or lack thereof, supports this.

The California Department of Justice’s Criminal Information Bulletin Which in an editorial piece (unsigned) article states “the psychic does not replace sound investigative techniques but functions as an investigative tool.”

I disagree... if police time and resources are squandered on psychic tips, then yes, they are essentially replacing sound investigative techniques... the evidence, or lack thereof, supports this.

Note: When taken at face value, the above statement could also be used to justify the use of the DKL Lifeguard, and the Quadro Tracker under the guise of "investigative tools". Just because something is used, doesn't mean it works.

Truzzi also interviewed Lt. Kurt Longfellow who worked with Dr. Louise Ludwig to draw up the Pomona (California) PD’s policy on the use of psychics. According to Truzzi, Longfellow said “No matter what we do, it has to be turned into a conventional clue. We can wake up in the middle of the night (SG: how many cops and others here have done that?) with an idea about a case, but we have to convert that idea into something substantial we can take to court.” (op.cit. August 31, 1989).

I'm not sure what the point is here...

Is Truzzi trying to say that psychic clues, are just as valid as any other clues because both need to be "converted" into conventional clues?

15th December 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

However, Truzzi asks , if a psychic comes in and says you will find the gun
in that bush over there, how much does it cost for the police to look in that bush? If the police get five hundred different psychic tips all over the map, all different, many contradictory, sure, they need to be weeded out just like non-psychic tips.

How does one differentiate between good and bad psychic tips? More importantly, how does one differentiate between any psychic tip and a tip from a drunk?

I would suggest a good police policy: Accept "tips" from psychics, by all means. If 5 or more tips are received from a given "psychic" on at least five cases, charge that person with interference in a Police investigation and lock them up.

At what point does a psychic become a serial pain in the ass?

Edit to add: As a purely practile matter, psychics are effectively no help, as evidenced by the lack of any evidence presented here. That being the case, the value of 1 correct guess out of 20,000 wild goose chases has a rather small marginal value. Perhaps the policy should be to ignore all psychic tips.

SteveGrenard

15th December 2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Ed

How does one differentiate between good and bad psychic tips? More importantly, how does one differentiate between any psychic tip and a tip from a drunk?

How do the police differentiate between any good and bad tips, even if they are not from a psychic?

At what point does a psychic become a serial pain in the ass?

When the psychic knows so much about a case the police have no choice but to lock them up and charge them for the crime, then have to release them and get sued for false arrest. This happened in Los Angeles about the time Dr. Martin Reiser was tasked with the job of debunking psychic input in police work.
Both Truzzi and Moran give details of the case in their books.

According to Truzzi's account (ibid) Etta Louise Smith, age 39, mother of 3 and an employee at Lockheed showed up in the Foothill Division of the LAPD in 1980 and told them she had a psychic vision of a woman who was murdered. She gave so many details, including information so fresh only the police knew of it, as it involved the dissapearance of a nurse, Melanie Uribe, who on her way to work at a hospital (unnamed) she dissapeared.
On a map Smith pointed out an area of Lopez Canyon where she said the body was and that she was raped and killed with a blow to the back of the head.
After finding the body the police promptly arrested her, and then four days later released her when they collared the three men who had done this and who had no connection whatsoever with Smith. Smith sued the LAPD for false arrest. She was awarded $24,184.00 for lost wages, attorney's costs and pain and suffering in March, 1987. Reiser's work couldn't get the LAPD out of their liability in this case.

Edit to add: As a purely practile matter, psychics are effectively no help, as evidenced by the lack of any evidence presented here. That being the case, the value of 1 correct guess out of 20,000 wild goose chases has a rather small marginal value. Perhaps the policy should be to ignore all psychic tips.

No doubt about it the LAPD should have ignored Etta Smith since by not doing so it did cost them. But then again they may never have found Uribe's body either.

TLN

15th December 2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
When the psychic knows so much about a case the police have no choice but to lock them up and charge them for the crime, then have to release them and get sued for false arrest. This happened in Los Angeles about the time Dr. Martin Reiser was tasked with the job of debunking psychic input in police work.
Both Truzzi and Moran give details of the case in their books.

According to Truzzi's account (ibid) Etta Louise Smith, age 39, mother of 3 and an employee at Lockheed showed up in the Foothill Division of the LAPD in 1980 and told them she had a psychic vision of a woman who was murdered. She gave so many details, including information so fresh only the police knew of it, as it involved the dissapearance of a nurse, Melanie Uribe, who on her way to work at a hospital (unnamed) she dissapeared.
On a map Smith pointed out an area of Lopez Canyon where she said the body was and that she was raped and killed with a blow to the back of the head.

After finding the body the police promptly arrested her, and then four days later released her when they collared the three men who had done this and who had no connection whatsoever with Smith. Smith sued the LAPD for false arrest. She was awarded $24,184.00 for lost wages, attorney's costs and pain and suffering in March, 1987. Reiser's work couldn't get the LAPD out of their liability in this case.

None of which proves this woman is a psychic.

Steve will you ever, ever offer anything on these boards besides anecdotes and poor science?

Paladin

15th December 2003, 03:57 PM

Apparently Smith and her children found the body, not the police, if these accounts are correct:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys1/arrestps.htm

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/psychics/8.html?sect=21

Unfortunately, critical details of this case do not seem to be available on the web.

SteveGrenard

15th December 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by TLN

None of which proves this woman is a psychic.

Steve will you ever, ever offer anything on these boards besides anecdotes and poor science?

You can spin this account anyway you want but please don't blame me for this case, its rather disingenous of you to say the least. This account was investigated by and written up by Dr. Marcello Truzzi. Do you know who he is? If not, find out.....he was a co-founder of CSICOP and one of the foremost objective skeptical investigators in the country until his recent death. His book has plenty of cases that proved fraudulent, plenty that were indecisive and any number he reserved as valid.
This was one of them. Unless you read the book I don't think you or anyone is qualified to criticize it. Its cheap now...I got a used copy for two bucks!

I referenced it properly so I am at a loss to understand why you attribute it to me unless it simply suits your rhetoric.
Truzzi regards this report as psychic, the LAPD Foothills Division validated it and even arrested the woman the information was so good.

I accept the account of Truzzi who interviewed the police involved. I do not accept the attempts by pseudoskeptics to overturn this account. They are spinning too . The only authoritative account is in Truzzi's monograph. If Mrs. Smith and her kids found the body, er, why did they arrest her for the crime after she told the police (showed on a map actually) where it could be found.

TLN

15th December 2003, 04:05 PM

Spin?

Steve, please tell me you know what an anecdote is and why it's not valuable in the examination of extraordinary claims. I can't believe after all this time you don't know this stuff.

Yet you keep offering bland anecdotes over and over and over...

SteveGrenard

15th December 2003, 04:09 PM

Yes spin. Sorry, Truzzi methodically investigated case histories. Every psychic finding such as this is anecdotal by definition so all you can determine is whether it is valid or not. So is every case of an infectious disease, so is every complication of surgery and so are a lot of things. Being anecdotal does not invalidate them. Dr. Truzzi does not think so or he wouldn't hold up this and other valid cases as evidence if he accepted that.

Are you going to apologize to me for attributing this case to me or not? Do you accept that Dr. Marcello Truzzi investigated and wrote up this case and not I? Lets see, where was I in 1980...hmmm..... or is this just more trying to suppress the evidence by spinning your own weave around it?
You guys never give up ...

TLN

15th December 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Being anecdotal does not invalidate them.

Perhaps not in your world Steve, but in the realm of science anecdotes aren't admissible as evidence of extraordinary claims.

Sorry...

SteveGrenard

15th December 2003, 04:20 PM

Sorry TLN but anecdotal accounts are acceptable in the world of science and especially in medicine. A preponderance of similar anecdotes impresses their validity on the field.

Did you know that almost every venomous snake bite is different? In some way. There are different factors that occur which makes most of them different from each other. Dry bites, one fang bites, low volume bites, defensive bites, offensive bites, bites to obtain food, diff depths of penetration, health of victim, size of victim, gender of victim, whether snake has fed recently, whether snake just came out of or was going into hibernation, health of snake... If medical science listened to you, medicine would have to assert that all snake bite victims are hypothetical unless you recover the venom in their blood stream .... a procedure that is not routinely done.

Fortunately medical science does not have to listen to you and such victims are treated. Waiting for the test results you would require could result in a dead victim as often as not.

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

15th December 2003, 04:22 PM

Only bright individuals have been ingenious enough to rightfully conclude that science denies the paranormal and the paranormal denies science since its trying to substitute the sum of what has been accomplished with the scientific method in place of rubbish claims and nonsensical quackery! - !Xx+-Rational-+xX!

TLN

15th December 2003, 04:24 PM

thaiboxerken

15th December 2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Fortunately medical science does not have to listen to you and such victims are treated. Waiting for the test results you would require could result in a dead victim as often as not.

A snake bite is not an extraordinary claim. There is lots of evidence that snakes do bite people and that some snakes have venom. That is the difference. The medical community is merely defaulting to the safe position.

Your false analogy doesn't show that anecdotes are reliably used in science or medicine as evidence of the paranormal.

Paladin

15th December 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Sorry TLN but anecdotal accounts are acceptable in the world of science and especially in medicine. A preponderance of similar anecdotes impresses their validity on the field.

Did you know that almost every venomous snake bite is different? In some way. There are different factors that occur which makes most of them different from each other. Dry bites, one fang bites, low volume bites, defensive bites, offensive bites, bites to obtain food, diff depths of penetration, health of victim, size of victim, gender of victim, whether snake has fed recently, whether snake just came out of or was going into hibernation, health of snake... If medical science listened to you, medicine would have to assert that all snake bite victims are hypothetical unless you recover the venom in their blood stream .... a procedure that is not routinely done.

Fortunately medical science does not have to listen to you and such victims are treated. Waiting for the test results you would require could result in a dead victim as often as not.
In medicine and science, regardless of how much anecdotal evidence is available, it still has to be backed up with clinical evidence. That's what the world of the paranormal lacks -- valid, consistent clinical evidence. We skeptics keep asking for it, and it is not forthcoming.

SteveGrenard

15th December 2003, 04:40 PM

TBK: Your false analogy doesn't show that anecdotes are reliably used in science or medicine as evidence of the paranormal.

You would like to believe the analogy is false but TLN clearly did NOT restrict his condemnation of anecdocity to any particular field, nor do I think you can do that. Anecdotes gain weight by their numbers. If one person comes down with the bubonic plague in a big city, it is not a big deal and is anecdotal, if 10 come down with it is cause for concern and if 1000s come down with it we know we have a problem even though we havent discovered it yet (rats and their fleas carrying the plague bacillus).

The same is true for anecdotal accounts of information that is claimed to be psychically determined. If there is 5, 10, 50 or 100 accounts that cannot be validated or which are actually invalidated (proven to be the result of cold reading, warm reading or hot reading) fine, but if there are 1000s of accounts overmany decades , or for example, the recently completed study of mediumship by Robertson and Roy involving 40 psychics and 400 persons unknown to them under stringent controlled conditions, then you are faced with having to accept the validity of some (yes, not all perhaps not even many) anecdotal accounts and certainly the validity of the stringently controlled accounts which by definition are not anecdotal.

So yes, we know snakes bite people and some are venomous and based on this anecdotal information we play it safe even when symptomatology is small and treat such victims accordingly
because we know if we didn't, and considered them unverified anecdotes, some of these people will die. I am sorry you do not see the analogy. You are too hung up on the actual subject matter to appreciate the comparison.

SteveGrenard

15th December 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Ohrryp

In medicine and science, regardless of how much anecdotal evidence is available, it still has to be backed up with clinical evidence. That's what the world of the paranormal lacks -- valid, consistent clinical evidence. We skeptics keep asking for it, and it is not forthcoming.

That's good. Clinical evidence, an excellent term. That's what the Etta Smith case is.

thaiboxerken

15th December 2003, 04:50 PM

You would like to believe the analogy is false but TLN clearly did NOT restrict his condemnation of anecdocity to any particular field, nor do I think you can do that.

The medical field does not use anecdotes as evidence alone. Sometimes they will default to a safe position, but that is a far cry from saying that they use anecdotes as reliable evidence.

Anecdotes gain weight by their numbers.

No they don't, in fact it's a fallacy called argumentum ad populum. It doesn't matter how many people tell a lie, it's still a lie.

If one person comes down with the bubonic plague in a big city, it is not a big deal and is anecdotal

No, it is medically and scientifically evident and proveable.

The same is true for anecdotal accounts of information that is claimed to be psychically determined.[/'b]

No, because psychic accounts are not evident and proveable. There is nothing but anecdotes and in REAL science, anecdotes are considered unreliable and very weak.

[b] If there is 5, 10, 50 or 100 accounts that cannot be validated ... but if there are 1000s of accounts overmany decades

This is more appeal to popularity and it's nothing but a fallacy. Reality is not something that is affected by popular vote. A myth told by many is just as valid as a myth told by one.

So yes, we know snakes bite people and some are venomous and based on this anecdotal information we play it safe even when symptomatology is small and treat such victims accordingly
because we know if we didn't, and considered them unverified anecdotes, some of these people will die. I am sorry you do not see the analogy. You are too hung up on the actual subject matter to appreciate the comparison.

No, your analogy is false. The reality is that snake bites happen, and we know that they happen. A person claiming to have been bitten by a snake is not making a claim that contradicts known science.

SteveGrenard

15th December 2003, 05:04 PM

Paladin

15th December 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am not appealing to popularity so I suggest you go back and review the deifnition of that. If I am appealing to anything, I am appealing to statistical significance. Reports of a large number of incidents has nothing to do with popularity. Appealing to popularity means a large number of the "populace" accept them. What you are saying however, is that if a large number of the population do accept something, it is wrong and then if only one person accepts it, it could be correct.

Reports of a large number of incidents are just reports of a large number of incidents; they are not necessarily true reports merely by virtue of being numerous.

This is irrelevant and not my contention.
However, by the same token if large numbers of people (large numbers of incidents of a cure) are cured of syphilis through the use of penicillin, would you say then that this is appealing to popularity? I think not. It is a misapplication for you to use that fallacy here.

That's clinical evidence, much different from secondhand reports of psychic phenomena.

Secondly, please don't move the goalposts off the planet by using the term "paranormal." I am not talking about everything some people allege to be paranormal ... I am talking about one narrow subset of subject matter, so-called psychic sleuthing which also happens to be the subject of this thread. Thanks for trying to stick to the subject.

Okay, psychic sleuthing...I don't see why we should take Truzzi's reportage as better than anyone else's. To me the whole issue is undetermined. We just don't have all the facts. Interesting stories are just...interesting stories.

I conceded we know snakes bite people, we know some are venomous and we know that if someone says they were bitten by a snake and it is venomous they may have a few, hardly any or some very severe symptoms, any subset of which would require treatment. However, by definition all snakebites are anecdotal and science can never know after the fact the circumstances that produced a particuar bite because these factors are simply unknowable.
I think you're mistaken in your understanding of anecdotal.

Psiload

15th December 2003, 05:21 PM

You can spin this account anyway you want but please don't blame me for this case, its rather disingenous of you to say the least. This account was investigated by and written up by Dr. Marcello Truzzi. Do you know who he is? If not, find out.....he was a co-founder of CSICOP and one of the foremost objective skeptical investigators in the country until his recent death. His book has plenty of cases that proved fraudulent, plenty that were indecisive and any number he reserved as valid. This was one of them. Unless you read the book I don't think you or anyone is qualified to criticize it. Its cheap now...I got a used copy for two bucks!

I've read Truzzi's The Blue Sense, I found it in a library, so I didn't even have to shell out two bucks... but I also read Joe Nickell's Psychic Sleuths:

http://www.skeptic.de/b/0177.htm

Joe Nickell, as you may know, was also a founding member of CSICOP... still is a member as a matter of fact.

I read both of the books at the same time, and compared the investigations. Both books covered several of the same "psychic detective" cases. In nearly every case, Joe Nickell's investigations were far more thorough, and came to far more critical conclusions regarding the usefullness of the "psychic detectives"contributions to the cases in question. In my opinion, Truzzi seemed content to accept, and repeat the accounts as told to him by the psychics, and police personell involved in the cases, Nickell, on the other hand, delved far deeper into the actual names, locations, and general minutiae of the cases, which resulted in a far less rosey picture of what the "psychic detectives" had actually accomplished, than Truzzi was seemingly led to belive. By all means, read the two books together, and make your own conclusions.

thaiboxerken

15th December 2003, 05:53 PM

I am not appealing to popularity so I suggest you go back and review the deifnition of that. If I am appealing to anything, I am appealing to statistical significance. Reports of a large number of incidents has nothing to do with popularity. Appealing to popularity means a large number of the "populace" accept them.

Yes, and the appeal to popularity also applies to number of anecdotes. You are trying to convince us that because a large number of people claim to experience these things, that there MUST be something.

What you are saying however, is that if a large number of the population do accept something, it is wrong and then if only one person accepts it, it could be correct.

No, I'm saying the the number of claims is irrelevant to the reality of that claim being true.

This is irrelevant and not my contention.
However, by the same token if large numbers of people (large numbers of incidents of a cure) are cured of syphilis through the use of penicillin, would you say then that this is appealing to popularity? I think not. It is a misapplication for you to use that fallacy here.

No, because that is empirical data backed up with physical evidence. This is another false analogy on your part. You are comparing physical evidence to anecdotes and tall tales.

Secondly, please don't move the goalposts off the planet by using the term "paranormal." I am not talking about everything some people allege to be paranormal ... I am talking about one narrow subset of subject matter, so-called psychic sleuthing which also happens to be the subject of this thread. Thanks for trying to stick to the subject.

The same logic applies to any claim. Your psychic sleuths have nothing but anecdotes to support them. Just because many people claim to have psychic powers, it does not follow that some (or even one) really do. You are claiming that the sheer number of claims give the claim credence. It does not.

I However, by definition all snakebites are anecdotal and science can never know after the fact the circumstances that produced a particuar bite because these factors are simply unknowable.

No, snakebites are not just anecdotal, they are physical observations that have been recorded and have physical evidence associated with them. The particular circumstance of the bit may be anecdotal, but the fact that it was a snake bite is not anecdotal.

You are playing a semantic game and ignoring the fact that there is no reliable evidence of psychics actually solving crimes using their superpowers.

SteveGrenard

15th December 2003, 05:58 PM

I think you're mistaken in your understanding of anecdotal.

My understanding of the term anecdotal as used by TLN here is that there are no controlled studies to prove whatever it is you are seeing. He relegates the observational phase to a preliminary level and will not accept it without follow-up controlled studies. W/o such studies whatever it is remains anecdotal.

Er, all case histories by their very nature are anecdotal. Whether looking at unusual case histories written up and published in medical journals (and that, btw, includes incidents of snake bite cases) or unusual complications, or drug reactions or unexpected remissions or cures associated with something, then that is all anecdotal. Not all such incidents can ever be studied under controlled circumstances. The reason I used snake bite as an example is because snake bites in the wild are very problematic in this regard.......

People not familiar with snakes are bitten and dont know what bit them.
In an area with several types of snakes, both venomous and non-venomous, including look alikes, doctors dont know with certainty what the culprit was. The snake usually gets away.

Some snakebites are defensive which impart very little or no venom. Injection with one fang, for example, gives less venom than with both fangs yet other teeth bite marks may make it look like one was hit repeatedly and/or with both fangs attached to both venom glands.

Some venomous snakes hybridize causing them to have two different types of venoms (hemorrhagic and neurotoxic). You cant tell by looking at them if they are hybrids. And they usually get away. Thus symptoms of both kinds of snake bite occur in some victims but doctors can't prove why according to TLN because it would be anecdotal.

Snakes who have recently emerged from hibernation have more, stronger venom.

Snakes that fed recently and used their venom to catch/kill a mouse or rat may have less or no venom to inject. This is unknowable where a wild snake is concerned unless you happened to see it kill and eat its prey before you picked it up and got bitten.

There are people who believe every snake is venomous and get bitten by harmless snakes and swear they were bitten by venomous ones. There is a harmless corn snake species in New Jersey that has a reddish saddle on the top of its head. Entire towns there believe because of this it is a "copper head" I have friends there who have caught them and brought them to me and they nearly have heart attacks when I stick my hand into the bag (after peeking of course) and just casually pull them out. They are not only not venomous, they are pretty docile as well.

Thus snakebite experts label all snakebites in the wild as anecdotal.
There are too many factors surrounding such bites that are unknowable....too many variables we can never know. This is why case histories of unusual bite cases are written up and published. They are anecdotes. If enough of them occur, such as victims with both kinds of venom symptoms, then thehybridization hypothesis becomes more valid. But naturalists will have to spend years collecting and milking these possible hybrids and analyzing their venom gland RNA and the venom itself before
TLN will accept this. The symptoms in these victims are mere anecdotes.
A major pharmaceutical company's antivenom was based on this faulty reasoning. This product is now gone and a new company now makes a polyvalent that covers both kinds of venoms. It took 50 years, thanks to the "anecdote" argument. . Did people die from now discarded product being non-effective? Yes some did. I dont know how many. It is anecdotal afterall.

Paladin

15th December 2003, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
My understanding of the term anecdotal as used by TLN here is that there are no controlled studies to prove whatever it is you are seeing. He relegates the observational phase to a preliminary level and will not accept it without follow-up controlled studies. W/o such studies whatever it is remains anecdotal.

I agree with that assessment in general, however, I don't equate "anecdotal" with "observational phase". On the one hand, you have anecdotes, which are informal observations or recollections, and on the other, scientific observation, which is a different thing entirely.

Er, all case histories by their very nature are anecdotal. Whether looking at unusual case histories written up and published in medical journals (and that, btw, includes incidents of snake bite cases) or unusual complications, or drug reactions or unexpected remissions or cures associated with something, then that is all anecdotal. Not all such incidents can ever be studied under controlled circumstances. The reason I used snake bite as an example is because snake bites in the wild are very problematic in this regard.......

Again, a "case history" is not the same as an "anecdote". I understand "case history" to mean a narrative based on clinical observation, not the informal recollection of an anecdote. I understand that the term "case history" might be applied to an anecdote, but I disagree with such application.

People not familiar with snakes are bitten and dont know what bit them.
In an area with several types of snakes, both venomous and non-venomous, including look alikes, doctors dont know with certainty what the culprit was. The snake usually gets away.

Some snakebites are defensive which impart very little or no venom. Injection with one fang, for example, gives less venom than with both fangs yet other teeth bite marks may make it look like one was hit repeatedly and/or with both fangs attached to both venom glands.

Some venomous snakes hybridize causing them to have two different types of venoms (hemorrhagic and neurotoxic). You cant tell by looking at them if they are hybrids. And they usually get away. Thus symptoms of both kinds of snake bite occur in some victims but doctors can't prove why according to TLN because it would be anecdotal.

If a doctor is examining a patient with snakebite wounds, it's hardly anecdotal. The doctor can at least verify that a bite did occur; the patient bears physical evidence.

Snakes who have recently emerged from hibernation have more, stronger venom.

Snakes that fed recently and used their venom to catch/kill a mouse or rat may have less or no venom to inject. This is unknowable where a wild snake is concerned unless you happened to see it kill and eat its prey before you picked it up and got bitten.

There are people who believe every snake is venomous and get bitten by harmless snakes and swear they were bitten by venomous ones. There is a harmless corn snake species in New Jersey that has a reddish saddle on the top of its head. Entire towns there believe because of this it is a "copper head" I have friends there who have caught them and brought them to me and they nearly have heart attacks when I stick my hand into the bag (after peeking of course) and just casually pull them out. They are not only not venomous, they are pretty docile as well.

Thus snakebite experts label all snakebites in the wild as anecdotal.
There are too many factors surrounding such bites that are unknowable....too many variables we can never know. This is why case histories of unusual bite cases are written up and published. They are anecdotes. If enough of them occur, such as victims with both kinds of venom symptoms, then thehybridization hypothesis becomes more valid. But naturalists will have to spend years collecting and milking these possible hybrids and analyzing their venom gland RNA and the venom itself before
TLN will accept this. The symptoms in these victims are mere anecdotes.

Well, yes, they are anecdotal until supported by clinical evidence. Once clear explanations of symptoms had been gathered, diagnosis of otherwise anecdotal symptoms was possible. As you've noted, "There are too many factors surrounding such bites that are unknowable...too many variables we can never know." This is precisely the objection we raise when confronted with anecdotal evidence for psychic sleuthing, ghost stories, UFO reports, etc. The case histories you mention had to be corroborated by evidence gathered in the field. This is the sort of evidence we ask for in regards to psychic sleuthing, etc.

A major pharmaceutical company's antivenom was based on this faulty reasoning. This product is now gone and a new company now makes a polyvalent that covers both kinds of venoms. It took 50 years, thanks to the "anecdote" argument. . Did people die from now discarded product being non-effective? Yes some did. I dont know how many. It is anecdotal afterall.
Hmm. I don't think you can blame this on the "anecdote argument". If good evidence was lacking, it meant that someone needed to find it. Heck, in recent years, drugs have been pulled from the market because adverse events occurred in patients that did not occur in clinical trials...it wasn't pulled because of anecdotal evidence.

The chief problem in the use of anecdotal evidence is the reliance upon it to support a conclusion in the absence of other evidence, as noted here:

http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/anecdotal.asp

There is, of course, nothing wrong with presenting representative cases to illustrate an inductive conclusion properly drawn from a fair sample. The representative case serves to put a human face on what would otherwise be just a mass of cold statistics. However, it is the inductive argument as a whole (i.e. all those cold statistics) that justifies the conclusion. The anecdote merely illustrates and humanizes the properly drawn conclusion.
The fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence mimics this legitimate use of illustrative story-telling. It presents us with a case that puts a human face upon a conclusion. The fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence errs, however, in using the single case in place of the properly conducted study. The fallacy implies that the anecdote is illustrating a properly drawn conclusion, when in fact it is attempting to replace the proper inductive argument altogether.

SteveGrenard

16th December 2003, 03:30 AM

PSILOAD: I've read Truzzi's The Blue Sense, I found it in a library, so I didn't even have to shell out two bucks... but I also read Joe Nickell's Psychic Sleuths.....

reply:

Dear Mr. Psiload:

Do you always answer for each other? My remarks concerning this matter were directed at TLN's negative spin of the account by Truzzi. If you are also TLN or a TLN sockpocket I stand corrected.

Mr. TLN objected to the case history of the Etta Smith case; he specifically directed his criticism at me as if I invented the case. I was scolded for presenting it . He thought he was my mother saying now now, you know better than that. Who the hell does he really think he is? The malignant narsicissm I see on this board is amazing . I did not present this case. Dr. Marcello Truzzi investigated and wrote up the case. Someone checked it out and provided corroborating accounts from the Associated Press and Court TV which, since they backed up Truzzi, they said were not good enough. If these accunts debunked the case, I am sure they would have been superb. Eh?

More importantly, Joe Nickell did NOT write the book "Psychic Sleuths" . He edited it. He patched it together from a bunch of articles from the pseudoskeptic press. Your review of the book, is, therefore, misleading. You make it sound as if Nickell himself went out and rebutted each of Truzzi's positive cases in greater depth than that investigated by Truzzi. In reality Nickell's l994 effort was editorial, designed solely to counter Truzzi's 1991 published original investigations which were made through his center in Michigan set up for the purpose. Truzzi did this himself Nickell relied on oher writers. Talk about second hand. Ha.

Nickell, is of course, on Kurtz' payroll and Kurtz demanded that he rush out a book to rebut The Blue Sense. So here was a book, not written by Nickell, but really mostly a collection of other people's works, published specifically to rebut Blue Sense. There is no love lost between Truzzi and Kurtz as you are well aware. Truzzi felt, rightfully, that Kurtz and Co, corrupted everything CSICOP was set up for and to stand for.
He quit CSICOP and accused them of betraying the ideals they had established in its formation. There were other reasons also I won't go into. Its all water under the bridge now.

The poblem pseudoskeptics have with Truzzi's work is its honesty. He not only does not endorse all psychic detectives, he actually debunks many of them, including some famous high profile ones. He carefully discusses which cases are inconclusive and says why they may not be true. The few cases he believes genuine are presented as well.
He also dispels the myth perpetrated by pseudoskeptics that all cops, all police forces, the FBI, etc everywhere and especially in the U.S. and UK., spurn the use of psychics.

And he provides referenced first hand interviews, detailed references and chapter notes which, since Nickell did not write the book you credit him with writing, are not found in such detail in that book.

Yes I agree w/ you and encouage everyone interested in this to get three books: Moran's, Lyons and Truzzi and the editorial effort by Nickell et al and read them side by side.

Hannibal

16th December 2003, 04:29 AM

Psychic investigations are next to useless because the info CANNOT STAND UP IN COURT and only ever become relevant AFTER the killer/kidnapper or whatever is caught.

"Ahh, but how else can you explain their results?" I hear people cry...well alright maybe just Luci. Again, simple.

Profiling

The results gained by profilers are infinitely more precise and accurate than anything gleaned from a psychic. This area of investigation is also inadmissable, but instead is used as a basis for enquiries and the results are far more impressive an accurate than anything a psychic has ever provided. They are also willing to say "sorry, my mistake" if they get it wrong.

Can I propose we end this debate now please? No-one is going to change anyone's mind and it is now degenerating into a slanging match.

16th December 2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

How do the police differentiate between any good and bad tips, even if they are not from a psychic?

Well, I suspect that a newly arrived Lithuanian immigrant marching in and suggesting he has first hand knowledge of the OJ case might be safely ignored. Similarly, if psychics tend to produce wild ass guesses (or, for a real hoot, look at the "reading" from the RVers re. Saddam) they become, for all intents and purposes, Lithuanians. (This is a metaphor)

I am suggesting, based on performance, that this is a dismissable class. A bit of profiling, if you will.

Hannibal

16th December 2003, 05:44 AM

Thus far, a psychic's reliability for law enforcement has not been established. Anecdotal information is sometimes impressive and even surprising, but nothing can be concluded about using psychics as resources in solving a crime.

Source: here (http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/psychics/11.html?sect=21)

Never a truer set of words spoken.

Steve you asked about grading quality of normal info - see my previous answer relating to grading info on the "5x5" scale

SteveGrenard

16th December 2003, 06:42 AM

O: If a doctor is examining a patient with snakebite wounds, it's hardly anecdotal. The doctor can at least verify that a bite did occur; the patient bears physical evidence.

Reply: It would amaze you how many people come in complaining of a snakebite, with puncture wounds, who were not bitten by a snake: people who placed their hands, for example, into some brush that was thorny and people bitten by spiders and other stinging bugs. Or a non-venomous snake. Or a dry bite. Or a??? Diagnosing a snakebite in the absence of a visual
identification of the offender is sometimes quite problematic.
Before beginning treatment, which itself is not exactly fun, doctors are forced to sometimes play a waiting game for symptoms. This can be very risky as they lose the element of early neutralization of the toxic components.

O: Hmm. I don't think you can blame this on the "anecdote argument". If good evidence was lacking, it meant that someone needed to find it. Heck, in recent years, drugs have been pulled from the market because adverse events occurred in patients that did not occur in clinical trials...it wasn't pulled because of anecdotal evidence.

Reply: I think I can as this is an area I have been studying and observing for 40 years. My first piece on this appeared in a journal called Modern Medicine back in 1964. Up until the FDA approved the new antivenom a few years ago, cries of anecdotal
provided the justification for Wyeth to have NEVER ever considered changing the formula or method of manufacturing its North American polyvalent crotalidae antivenom. Faced with the same cries of "anecdotal" from evolutionary biologists who rightfully point out there is no evidence that hybridization between neurotoxic and hemotoxic species occurs in spite of enormous quantities of anecdotal evidence and even live specimens which provide evidence of this, I almost didn't get to publish the piece in the URL below. But it was published, in the same issue of the magazine with one of Steve Gould's last contributions on this subject. So in spite of these cries of anecdotal, Natural History still was willing to publish my article on this. Two months after this the FDA, after years of delay and objections by the current maker, approved the new antivenom. The FDA in fact raided and shut down their plant for making these products shortly before approving the new antivenom. And it only took 40 years and anecdocity as the cause of the inertia, a saga that began with the death of a herpetologist-physician named Fred Shannon from one of these neurotoxic species. But , Fred was just another anecdote.

http://www.amnh.org/naturalhistory/features/0700_feature.html

SteveGrenard

16th December 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal

Source: here (http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/psychics/11.html?sect=21)

Never a truer set of words spoken.

Steve you asked about grading quality of normal info - see my previous answer relating to grading info on the "5x5" scale

Sorry, but with 18 pages and some 700 posts to this thread I must have missed it. Can you reference this again please. Thank you.

BillHoyt

16th December 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Sorry, but with 18 pages and some 700 posts to this thread I must have missed it. Can you reference this again please. Thank you.

here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870231039&highlight=grading#post1870231039). Took 3 seconds.

CFLarsen

16th December 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870231039&highlight=grading#post1870231039). Took 3 seconds.

Surely, you cannot ask Steve Grenard to do his own homework.

Really, Bill!

BillHoyt

16th December 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Surely, you cannot ask Steve Grenard to do his own homework.

Really, Bill!

Silly me. It is an old habit. Often the ladies at the strip club ask me to help them with their outfits. Its not in my job description, but how can I say no?

SteveGrenard

16th December 2003, 11:35 AM

Thanks, I have just proved what I was hypothesizing all along ... everybody here does answer for others. But this is not the information I asked about, at least it does not appear to be.

CFLarsen

16th December 2003, 11:37 AM

thaiboxerken

16th December 2003, 02:14 PM

Reply: It would amaze you how many people come in complaining of a snakebite, with puncture wounds, who were not bitten by a snake

Which exactly illustrates our point that anecdotes are not reliable. Thank you for changing your position.

SteveGrenard

16th December 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Reply: It would amaze you how many people come in complaining of a snakebite, with puncture wounds, who were not bitten by a snake

Which exactly illustrates our point that anecdotes are not reliable. Thank you for changing your position.

So you would say if half the people who come in with puncture wounds believe they were bitten by a snake, it is okay then not to treat 100% of all the puncture wound victims who think they've been bitten because one anecdotre is no better than another? My point is yes, anecdotal. No, you can't ignore even if it is anecdotal.

Lets say we did a study and really found half the victims of puncture wounds are eventually proven to be not the result of being bitten by a snake. So by the reckoning of those who want such studies then, if two people come in with puncture wounds you would treat one for snakebite and send the other home with a tetanus shot and a band-aid.

You may not find anecdotes 100% reliable sir, but you cannot ignore them.

CFLarsen

16th December 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You may not find anecdotes 100% reliable sir, but you cannot ignore them.

This, from someone who (pretends to) ignore my questions....

thaiboxerken

16th December 2003, 03:01 PM

So you would say if half the people who come in with puncture wounds believe they were bitten by a snake, it is okay then not to treat 100% of all the puncture wound victims who think they've been bitten because one anecdotre is no better than another?

No.. you do what you have said doctors do. They look for evidence of that bite and if it may be something else.

My point is yes, anecdotal. No, you can't ignore even if it is anecdotal.

This snake-bite analogy is a false analogy, it is nothing like the claims of ESP. There is physical evidence that some people have been bitten by snakes, it's a fact that some snakes have venom and that snakes bite. The "anecdotes" that the victims are giving do not contradict known sciences and neither do they threaten to change our understanding of physics. The nature of an anecdote plays an important role as to whether it is reliable or not.

You illustrated that many people that claim to have been bitten really weren't. Yes, we must consider the snake bite claim seriously and look into it because that person's life may be at stake AND it is a fact that snakes can bite and kill people. The ESP claims have ZERO scientific evidence to support the anecdotes and often waste police resources.

You may not find anecdotes 100% reliable sir, but you cannot ignore them.

Dependant on the nature of the claim, yes we can and we should in cases of ESP and other paranormal claims... Until some reliable scientific evidence is found.

16th December 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

You may not find anecdotes 100% reliable sir, but you cannot ignore them.

So, rather than evidence that there is value we are reduced to the intellectually barren position of listening because they have some non-zero probability of being correct? Not a very efficient use of resourse, is it?

Jeff Corey

16th December 2003, 04:45 PM

Freud related anecdotes. He didn't take notes during a session, he scribbled them down at a later time, filtered through his interpretation.
He never did an experiment, except in medical school, with electric eels.
But his pseudoscientific cult dominated the practice of psychiatry and clinical psychology for about 50 years.
And anecdotes are the food of science?

So endeth the lesson.

Hannibal

17th December 2003, 05:59 AM

Steve - what bit didn't answer what you asked? Itelligence is recieved, graded, reviewed and disseminated. Did I miss something out? if so tell me - I yearn to talk!

It still doesn't alter the fact that psychics and Police are not bedfellows.

BillHoyt

17th December 2003, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Thanks, I have just proved what I was hypothesizing all along ... everybody here does answer for others. But this is not the information I asked about, at least it does not appear to be.
If this is somehow problematic for you, may I respectfully suggest you never enter a thread without a specific, personal invitation from another poster?

17th December 2003, 06:44 AM

This entire discussion is absurd on the face of it (Figures, Luci started it).

Let us take a step back and look at this rationally.

I am going to make a big assumption now.

Police are judged/evaluated/promoted based, primarily on their track record in closing cases.

If that is not a primary indicator of success in police work, please state that now (and frankly, the only responses that a\will not be BS are those of Cops or city officials or some other political type).

IF this is so, and given the number of psychics crawling out of the woodwork (Steve said thousands, as I recall) would one not expect, if there were any value at all to these characters, that there would be a cop network, both within and accross departments, that knew about this stuff? Would it, in fact, not be ubiquitious? Is it?

No. This simple fact, the lack of awareness and public knowledge suggests that psychics don't add a whole lot and that their use is notable by infrequency. This whole area is Woo-wooism of the worst sort.

SteveGrenard

17th December 2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal
Steve - what bit didn't answer what you asked? Itelligence is recieved, graded, reviewed and disseminated. Did I miss something out? if so tell me - I yearn to talk!

It still doesn't alter the fact that psychics and Police are not bedfellows.

In the answer I received from Hoyt pointing me to a post on the previous page which, in fact I did see, I saw nothing of the term "5 x 5."..... if you check my original question to you it was to re-reference this term. Thank you. I am sorry for any misunderstanding. Your last remark is irrelevant to my question
but I left it in.

So can you explain 5 X 5 for me? (Besides saying 5 x 5 = 25).

Hannibal

21st December 2003, 02:36 AM

Hello Steve,

Been away working for a while so i have not been to the boards for a while - hence the delay.

I forget that what is everyday to me is jargon to everyone else. Sorry!

A 5x5 (or to be more accurate a 5x5x5) is a short terminology for an intelligence report. Intelligence has three areas each with 5 grades attached to them. The first two are quality of the source, quality of the information. These are the most important. They are submitted by the reporting officer with their perception then they go to the intelligence unit who perform their validation and analysis before the intelligence is rated formally and placed on the intelligence database. All intelligence is auditable.

The third category is connected with dissemination of the info so is not of immediate concern to the matter at hand. Also most officers defer authority on this to the intel unit. That is why it is called a 5x5.

Any questions still? Please bring 'em on.

SteveGrenard

21st December 2003, 02:48 AM

Thank you.

Does this exercise result in a score for the data/information and if so is there a scale attached to various score levels?

Lucianarchy

30th January 2004, 03:48 AM

A sad note to update this thread.

The passing of Monty Keen.

Montague participated in this thread via Dr Grenard, for which we will remain eternaly grateful.

A man dedicated to truth, and the spirit of humanity.

Condolences to Montague's surving family.

See you later, Monty. Peace.

"I regret to inform you of the tragic death of my beloved husband, Montague Keen, on the 15th January. He died whilst attending a debate at the Royal Society of Arts, London. In accordance with his wishes, he will be cremated at 4pm on Thursday 22nd January at Hendon Crematorium, Holders Hill road, NW7. He will be in our home from 10am Wednesday until the time of the cremation. All friends welcome.

72 Southway, Totteridge, London N20 8DB.

Only family flowers, please; donations may be sent to the British Heart Foundation.

Veronica Keen

Some details from Dr. Bruce Greyson:

He was in the front row of the audience at the Royal Society of Arts for a debate between Rupert Sheldrake and Lewis Wolpert, the British skeptic. During the question-and-answer period, Monty rose to speak in support of Rupert, and in mid-sentence his voice faded and he lost consciousness from a heart attack. Two doctors in the audience immediately tried to resuscitate him, but he died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. He was 79 and had had a triple bypass. He died as he would have wished, championing the cause of survival.

Bruce

Bruce Greyson, M.D.
Carlson Professor of Psychiatry
Division of Personality Studies
Department of Psychiatric Medicine
University of Virginia Health System"

Hannibal

30th January 2004, 07:38 AM

Condolences to all who knew him. Anyone willing to debate deserves acknowledgement even when we disagree on points.

Steve, I have forgotten the above question - yes it does. The evidence is graded on reliability of the source and accuracy of the information. Like everything else a source gains credibility the more they provide accurate information. Psychics tend to hovver around the "one fluke hit" mark. Seldom are they heard of again.

A "dip test" of all my colleagues revealed that my original assertion (that the information is taken and the provider is viewed as a bit of a loon) is indeed correct. Out of everyone I have spoken to (service levels from 1 - 30 years) none have had positive experiences with so-called psychic leads.

Lucianarchy

4th February 2004, 01:07 PM

Stumpy, any sign of those guidelines you claimed existed. It's been a long time. :(

Hannibal

5th February 2004, 02:44 AM

Classic example;

I had to waste 30 minutes of my time two days ago plodding through a mire in Heaton Park because some dipstick had a "premonition". It was a "strong feeling that something was wrong" in a specific area of the park. Having been there in person this "visionary" found discarded clothes, a mattress and a photo of a mans genitalia. She had the premonition that "something terrible had happened".

Well, we plodded through mud, mud and a bit more mud to find....a popped lilo (near a lake), a manky old cardigan which had to have been at least 300 yards from the scene and ....that was it. Pathetic. This is absolutley typical of the sort of tripe that so called "psychics" come up with. Now bear in mind this genius had actually visited the scene and STILL got it wrong.

Now I wish to re-iterate a point here. I am NOT saying that i disbelieve in psychic phenomena; I am NOT saying I disbelieve in everything paranormal. What i AM saying (for the 300,00th time) is that....

POLICE DO NOT USE PSYCHICS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT PROVIDE RELIABLE INFORMATION.....period.

Luci, ignore me all you want but you are totally wrong on this subject and always will be. It will do you no harm to admit it - in fact it will boost your reputation.

An if we are talking about things having "been a while", when will you answer ANY questions of the "Larsen List"?

Armi Shanks

5th February 2004, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Stumpy, any sign of those guidelines you claimed existed. It's been a long time. :(

I hope Stumps won't mind me commenting on his behalf - he's been extremely busy with work. I'm sure he'll get back to you when he can.

CFLarsen

5th February 2004, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal
An if we are talking about things having "been a while", when will you answer ANY questions of the "Larsen List"?

What, you mean this?

"Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

Hannibal

5th February 2004, 03:16 AM

Yes, that's the one!

Lucianarchy

27th March 2004, 03:32 AM

*cough*

Lucianarchy

27th March 2004, 03:34 AM

Officer Stumpy, any news on detecting the whereabouts of those CPO guidelines you claimed existed?

CFLarsen

27th March 2004, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
*cough*

Yes?

"Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

27th March 2004, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Ed
This entire discussion is absurd on the face of it (Figures, Luci started it).

Let us take a step back and look at this rationally.

I am going to make a big assumption now.

Police are judged/evaluated/promoted based, primarily on their track record in closing cases.

If that is not a primary indicator of success in police work, please state that now (and frankly, the only responses that a\will not be BS are those of Cops or city officials or some other political type).

IF this is so, and given the number of psychics crawling out of the woodwork (Steve said thousands, as I recall) would one not expect, if there were any value at all to these characters, that there would be a cop network, both within and accross departments, that knew about this stuff? Would it, in fact, not be ubiquitious? Is it?

No. This simple fact, the lack of awareness and public knowledge suggests that psychics don't add a whole lot and that their use is notable by infrequency. This whole area is Woo-wooism of the worst sort.

Elequent, to the point, unaddressed. Once again the Jewish Cabel (tm) has made the language award slip from my grasp. Yet, the point remains.

Mike D.

8th April 2004, 03:11 PM

There are claims in this article that psychic Phil Jordan has been highly successful in aiding police departments:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11256914&BRD=1395&PAG=461&dept_id=216620&rfi=6

thaiboxerken

8th April 2004, 03:16 PM

It's amazing what garbage newspapers will print these days.

magicflute

9th April 2004, 07:15 PM

I wish I had a nickle for every article printed in some Oshkosh periodical that claims someone as a "true" paranormal, and a million dollars for every one that is proved to be true. ;)

Clancie

9th April 2004, 07:22 PM

Interesting article, Mike. I'm sure those skeptics who are always hoping a psychic will "find a missing child" are already calling the police department to check this one:

Individuals who knew of Jordan's gifts recruited his assistance and within one hour of beginning his search, he successfully led a search team to the frightened boy who had been missing for 17 hours. Jordan said he used a map he envisioned the night before, and his mental capabilities to locate the boy, Tommy Kennedy, safe and alive - even after 200 searchers were unsuccessful in their attempts.
I notice that his website adds this:

A short time thereafter, the Tioga County Sheriff had him sworn in as a Deputy to assist in other cases. He graduated from New York State Municipal Police Training Academy in 1976, and continues to work with the police agencies in all levels of government across the country. His cases include missing persons, homicide, and arson. His investigative skills and unusual abilities have earned him respect throughout the police agencies he has worked so closely with.

He sounds well worth seeing on next week's LKL. :)

Kopji

9th April 2004, 08:38 PM

Chapter titled:

The Mythologised Psychic Detective: Phil Jordan, by Kenneth L. Feder and Michael Alan Park

Prometheus, 1994, 190 pp, appendices, index,
ISBN 0-87975-880-5

Psychic Sleuths is an in-depth look at those who supposedly use extraordinary powers to help solve crimes. Investigative writer Joe Nickell has put together a special "task force" of experienced researchers - professional magicians, private detectives, paranormal investigators and writers on pseudoscience - each of whom examined the claims of a famous psychic crimebuster and reported on him or her at chapter length. Featured are Gerard Croiset; Peter Hurkos ("The Man with the Radar Brain"), "superstar" Dorothy Allison; Noreen Renier, who "predicted" the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan; veteran psychic Bill Ward; Rosemarie Kerr; Phil Jordan; and Greta Alexander, who supposedly acquired her special abilities after being struck by lightning. An afterword by noted psychologist James E. Alcock offers an assessment of the psychics' claims in light of the investigative reports.
Representing a unique approach, Psychic Sleuths carefully examines specific claims made by individual psychics and the methods they actually use to obtain information about a particular case. Entertaining, informative and thought-provoking, this critical study will appeal to all - believers and skeptics alike - with an interest in psychic claims and the paranormal.

http://www.skeptic.de/index.php3?action=author&articleno=0177

Anyone have this book?

Kopji edited to add more negative vibrations:
http://www.scifidimensions.com/Sep00/jnf_psychics.htm

CFLarsen

9th April 2004, 10:26 PM

Since those early days Jordan has worked on "hundreds of homicide cases" and countless cases involving missing persons, lost children, and even arson. His investigative skills and unusual abilities have lead to him working with police agencies in all levels of government across the country.
Source: Ithaca Times (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11256914&BRD=1395&PAG=461&dept_id=216620&rfi=6)

Sniff test: Not one of these "hundreds of homicide cases" can be identified.

Sniff test: Not one of these "countless cases involving missing persons, lost children, and even arson" can be identified.

Sniff test: Not one of these "police agencies in all levels of government across the country" can be identified.

Please remember that with any psychic consultation, it is for your own entertainment, amusement, and information and 100% accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Your own free will and the course of life's events can alter the course of a reading.
Source: philjordan.com (http://www.philjordan.com)

Sniff test: If he gets lucky, it's because he is psychic. If he doesn't, it's your fault.

Please note that many times Phil receives telephone calls from individuals seeking his advice. Although it may be a simple question, often times it results in a lengthy conversation which takes time from his hectic schedule. For this reason, Phil generally does not involve himself with the office telephone communications.
Also, many of you have found out, when the following week's appointments have been filled...
Source: philjordan.com (http://www.philjordan.com)

Sniff test: People give a lot of information a week before they get read. He has ample time - and a police deputy background - to dig up information.

He graduated from the prestigious Simmons School of Funeral Service in Syracuse, NY in 1988 and pass the requirements to be licensed as a New York State funeral director in 1989 and currently owns the Candor Funeral Parlour, Inc.
Source: philjordan.com (http://www.philjordan.com)

Sniff test: He is very aware of how grieving people behave.

A Testimonial of Phil's Psychic Ability
In 1975, a six-year old boy became lost in the dense woods of Upstate New York during a fierce August thunderstorm. Individuals who remembered Phil Jordan's gifts recruited his assistance. Within one hour after beginning his search, Phil successfully led a search team to the frightened little boy who had been missing for 17 hours. Phil used a map he envisioned the night before, and his mental capabilities to locate Tommy Kennedy, safe and alive, after two hundred searchers were unsuccessful in their attempts. Phil totally credits the event of August 4, 1975 to his psychic ability.

A short time thereafter, the Tioga County Sheriff had him sworn in as a Deputy to assist in other cases. He graduated from New York State Municipal Police Training Academy in 1976, and continues to work with the police agencies in all levels of government across the country. His cases include missing persons, homicide, and arson. His investigative skills and unusual abilities have earned him respect throughout the police agencies he has worked so closely with.
Source: philjordan.com (http://www.philjordan.com)

The episode detailed how Jordan in 1974 found a six-year old boy who became lost in the dense woods of Tioga County during a fierce August thunderstorm.

Individuals who knew of Jordan's gifts recruited his assistance and within one hour of beginning his search, he successfully led a search team to the frightened boy who had been missing for 17 hours. Jordan said he used a map he envisioned the night before, and his mental capabilities to locate the boy, Tommy Kennedy, safe and alive - even after 200 searchers were unsuccessful in their attempts.

Jordan will be on hand to discuss his recent appearance on "Psychic Detectives" and to talk about his nearly 30-year career helping authorities solve mysteries. A career that began with his discovery of Tommy Kennedy in 1974 and lead to his subsequent swearing in as a deputy in Tioga County (he would graduate from the New York State Municipal Police Training Academy in 1976).

Since those early days Jordan has worked on "hundreds of homicide cases" and countless cases involving missing persons, lost children, and even arson. His investigative skills and unusual abilities have lead to him working with police agencies in all levels of government across the country.
Source: Ithaca Times (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11256914&BRD=1395&PAG=461&dept_id=216620&rfi=6)

Sniff test: His reputation was not investigated by the Ithaca Times, but simply lifted from his website.