Police and Psychics

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I don't really have much of an opinion on psychics solving crimes.

Well thank you for the response, but I'm afraid that's not what I was asking. I specifically tried to stay away from that issue. My question is why we don't see court challenges to warrants based on psychic evidence, the way we do in fact see court challenges for other warrants.

However, a psychic can contact the police and have their information classified as 'anonymous'. The police can and do act on anonymous information, which is a good thing, I hope you agree. Because if the psychic had given that information anonymously, then perhaps the police could have acted sooner.

Of course police should (in fact, AFAIK, must) act on anonymous tips. But surely you're not saying that in every criminal case where a psychic has helped police, the information was given anonymously and with no hint that it came from psychic means? There are many cases of psychics who publicly claim to have helped police solve criminal cases, so at least for these there could not be any anonymity.

It is perhaps a shame that the sort of prejudice we see from the cynical skeptics, is the sort of prejudice which perhaps stops many other people like the psychic evidenced by The Police Federation from coming forward.

I don't think 'cynical skeptics' are a majority, at least in the US. In fact I think they are a minority. I can't see the perceived prejudice of a minority to be a big factor in a truly accurate psychic 'coming forward'.

Also, I have to say that in a business environment I'm generally dismissive of those who won't commit to what they can accomplish. If I say I can do it in four weeks, and they say no way, our engineers said it would take at least eight, I say well let's see. And then I deliver in four weeks. If, instead, I complained about their prejudice and withdrew my bid, they would be right to dismiss me as a poseur. I don't care if my opinion is in the minority if I know I can back it up when the rubber meets the road. In fact it's kinda fun to show off a little. I can't imagine that no successful psychics feel that way.

[SteveGrenard]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[SteveGrenard]

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]

Beyond all reasonable doubt.

[juninho]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

"'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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Ed]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 you consider answering them?

[juninho]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Stumpy.

Any news?

[SteveGrenard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[CFLarsen]

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]

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.

[Ed]

Claus, the questions, please.

Also, luci, how do you calculate probabilities again?

[Lucianarchy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


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






Or are Gollum.

[CFLarsen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You're a loonie.

[SteveGrenard]

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. Devas