Police and Psychics [Archive]

Lucianarchy

6th September 2002, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Ersby
I think we should give credit where it is due. Luci's given a decent link from that Police Federation thingy, and it's worth looking into.

The second one is not so good, since it gives no details as to whether the psychic was successful or not.

Thanks. The first one is the Police Federation magazine and gives evidence from one of their detectives about how a psychic was used and hhow she scored direct hits, particularly in repsect of the nickname. To suggest that either the psychic is involved in the crime or that a secrit police conspiracy operates which gives the info to the psychics on the sly, is so stupid, that any claims to it must furnish extraordinary evidence.
http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2001/12_2001_ghost.htm

The second, demonstrates that the police indeed do use psychics to "help" with their enquiries, and is confirmed by Scotland Yard and the NCF by the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/04_april/08/taro9.shtml

Both these examples come from highly credible sources, and as such prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that Hanniball and the Fool are evidently *wrong* in any claim they may have that the police don't use psychics in the UK. Ed has already confirmed that the police use psychics to "help" solve cases in the US, this evidence confirms that the same is true in the UK.

Pahansiri

6th September 2002, 06:41 AM

Greetings Lucianarchy I hope you are well and happy..

I do not simply believe or discount anything. There is much unknown. But we must live by facts and logic not emotion of what we wish to be true. The simple fact is no psychic has ever solved any case, ever.

Marc

6th September 2002, 06:58 AM

I would say accurate statements of the subject of this debate would be this:

1. Police and law enforcement agencies do not make use of psychics.

2. Claimed psychics are sometimes brought in by victem's families, or simply volunteer their information to the police, leading to claims of 'helping' the police on a case. They are not actually part of the investigation.

3. Individual police / law enforcement officers may believe in psychics, and either seek out or accept such help on their own. This does not reflect the agencies policies or practices, it is the actions of an individual.

4. The opinion of an individual officer who believed in psychics is in no way evidence that the psychic was of any actual help. As was demonstrated before despite the officer's belief the psychic was of great help, her information was in fact useless. Just like Nostrodumbass quatrains, they only seem to be predictive after the fact.

6th September 2002, 07:11 AM

Why a new thread? (http://66.192.47.137/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6776&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)

headscratcher4

6th September 2002, 07:14 AM

IT seems to me that there are a couple of bigger questions...

1. Has anyone ever been convicted of a crime based on evidence generated by a psychic?

The answer, I suspect, is an emphatic, deafening "no". Indeed, it is impossible (at least in the US), because the evidence is no good. It wouldn't pass a court test, there is not only no scientific consensus on it as probative evidence, the mass of "evidence" and expertise, is that it is worthless. If psychics were real, or only just believed they were real, they'd be pusning for acceptance of phychic evidence as real evidence. That can't, don't and aren't.

2. If the evidence has no value, it is irrlevant to the solving of a crime. In other words, regardless of any individual investigators personal belief in the power, they can't rely on it. A individual investigator knows that even if he/she thinks a "psychic" provides interesting or unusual information on a case that is valuable to solving the case (an assertion that I would argue has NEVER been shown to be true), they know the "evidence" is useless. So, therefore, they have to get real evidence, the old fashioned way to solve a case and convict a criminal.

Bottom line, psychics can line up from here to the moon, but unless they are willing to be tested under controlled conditions to prove the probative and actual value of the evidence they supposedly generate -- and have that "proof" accepted not only by fringe scientist but by the vast majority of scientists and investigative experts...it is all useless and a joke. In short, evne IF the power were real, it is useless because the things it tells us in an investigation have to be proven or shown by other methods. So, it is essentially a parlor trick. Like with Uri -- even if he bends spoons with a "power" (yeah, right), every cheap magician on the backwater circuit can do the same trick without the power...so what good, use, value of the power?

Hannibal

6th September 2002, 08:02 AM

Marc,

Pretty spot on really.

Luci,

Why the new thread? We are having sufficiently good debate on the other. If anyone wishes to catch up read "are we looking at all the evidence". I am the one who is/was a Police Officer - for some reason Luci thinks this means I do not know what I am talking about. Interesting logic...

I am currently chasing up contacts to prove once and for all that Luci is incorrect in his/her assertions.

Looking at it pragmatically who is more likely to know - a Police Officer with first hand experience or a forum member with NO experience only third hand accounts that are not even in agreement on what they say (see my QED reference in the oter forum).

Andalyn

6th September 2002, 09:59 AM

I'm a Deputy Sheriff.

We do not use psychics here, or that I know of in the area.

The Tulsa Police Dept (http://www.tulsapolice.org/)

Tulsa County Sheriff (http://www.tcso.org/)

Andalyn

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 02:14 AM

"Without Noreen Renier we would not have
located Norman Lewis. I'm extremely
impressed with her abilities. She told
us things that she would have to have
been an eyewitness to have known."
- Williston Cheif of Police, Olin Slaughter.

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 02:15 AM

"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.

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 02:16 AM

"Scotland Yard confirmed they had consulted Mrs Evans in the past to help them with an investigation and the National Crime Faculty confirmed she was registered on their database as a psychic."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/04_april/08/taro9.shtml

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal

Looking at it pragmatically who is more likely to know - a Police Officer with first hand experience or a forum member with NO experience only third hand accounts that are not even in agreement on what they say (see my QED reference in the oter forum).

You are an un-named board poster, who enhaces his credibility with of claiming to be a police officer with a picture and screen alluding to a serial-killer. Your statements alone mean nothing here, you need to back them up with e.v.i.d.e.n.c.e., like I have done, coming from a credible and verifiable source.

It has been proved to you now that the police work *with* psychics. As I have demonstated that I can admit to mistakes re my aplogy to you, likewise, please have some honour and apologise for your mistake. It is the only way you will be able to move on in this life.

You have provided nothing short of opinion. You say you were a police officer, well in light of the evidence from the BBC, the Police Federation magazine and Scotland Yard, you were either an ignorant officer or a misinformed one, but the verifiable fact is, you are wrong and anyone who has even bothered to look into these leads now knows that you are wrong.

http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2001/12_2001_ghost.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/04_april/08/taro9.shtml

De_Bunk

7th September 2002, 04:59 AM

Luci..

I see you quoted Olin Slaughter again...

What you missed out is that when pressed, he recanted everything...and then claimed that the mediums help was total garbage...

Other officers also claimed, off the record, that Slaughter was a complete f*ckwit and had made the Dept. look ridiculous...

I dunno...

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Luci..

I see you quoted Olin Slaughter again...

What you missed out is that when pressed, he recanted everything...and then claimed that the mediums help was total garbage...

Other officers also claimed, off the record, that Slaughter was a complete f*ckwit and had made the Dept. look ridiculous...

I dunno...

URL where this can verified past your claim above, please.

De_Bunk

7th September 2002, 05:06 AM

Luci..

Remember last time you brought up Olin Slaughter...

ages ago....

I posted a link then...but i cant be assed looking for it again...it took me hours last time..

It could be still here somewhere...

But thats about the gist of it....

(PS...I went on a mad, drunken thread deleting spree a while back..it could have gone then....)

I might see if i can find it again...later...

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Luci..

Remember last time you brought up Olin Slaughter...

ages ago....

I posted a link then...but i cant be assed looking for it again...it took me hours last time..

It could be still here somewhere...

But thats about the gist of it....

(PS...I went on a mad, drunken thread deleting spree a while back..it could have gone then....)

I might see if i can find it again...later...

Yes, you do that. Until then, your claim is non-sense.

De_Bunk

7th September 2002, 05:43 AM

Luci...

Yeah...'cos everything you post is absolutely proveable and sesnsible isnt it...

Im not the woowoo making ridiculous statements about all these mediums and psychics solving masses of crimes...am i...

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Luci...

Yeah...'cos everything you post is absolutely proveable and sesnsible isnt it...

Im not the woowoo making ridiculous statements about all these mediums and psychics solving masses of crimes...am i...

No. I provide evidence, you provide alcohol.

De_Bunk

7th September 2002, 06:05 AM

Heres some links that actually tell the truth about Renier and Willaston PD....plus how she acutally has done no better than chance....

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v04/n12/psychic.html

http://members.aol.com/tbskep/v9n2rpt.html

http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/notSoPsychic.htm

http://members.aol.com/garypos/Pos_AandE.html

http://members.aol.com/garypos/Renier_list.html

Now i looked for the article about Slaughter being a idiot..but i couldnt find it...maybe its been removed....

But im gonna offer as much proof as you do...and say i read it...posted the link here a few months ago...

Anyway the links above show how delusional Renier is...

Lucianarchy

7th September 2002, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by De_Bunk

Now i looked for the article about Slaughter being a idiot..but i couldnt...

No, because it only exists in your imagination.

Anyway the links above show how delusional Renier is...

No, they show the opinion of one Gary Posner, so what? He ain't the cheif of Williston Police or a detective involved in the case. Those guys are trained in spotting deception and fraud, that's why they are called professional detectives.

De_Bunk

7th September 2002, 06:34 AM

Luci woowoo

I offer as much proof as you do...except im not insane and as gullible as you...

Heres a good link about Scotland yard and other Police Depts and their official stance on mediums...

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/psychic.htm

ktesibios

7th September 2002, 09:15 AM

First off, claiming that "the police use psychics" or "the police do not use psychics" on the basis of individual cases or statements from individual police agencies is stretching things way too far.

There ain't any monolithic creature known as "the police". There are hundreds, at least, of agencies involved in police work, made up of many thousands of individuals. The only way one could make a gneneralization about police use of psychics would be to poll all of the relevant agencies in a given area about their experiences and policies, and you would still only be able to generalize to the extent of your sample.

Also, there's a difference between "solving" a case, in the sense of figuring out what happened to the satisfaction of an individual investigator, and assembling a body of evidence that can prove the solution to the satisfaction of the courts.

The logic involved in "solving" a crime is closely related to that used in troubleshooting a problem in a technical system, or in diagnosing a disease. When you're at the stage of spinning working hypotheses which you can test and eliminate, very few holds are barred. A possibility could be suggested by the evidence gathered so far based on rigorous deduction, it could be a leap based on previous experience ("I've seen that before. Last time the answer was-----. I'll test that first."). It could be a guess, educated or otherwise- it could even be brought to mind by a suggestion from someone with no particular knowledge on which to base their suggestion. The important thing is that the hypothesis, once formed, has to be tested against reality- does it account for the evidence in hand, does it predict other findings and are the predictions found to be true?

The fact that a self-proclaimed psychic makes a suggestion that leads to a hypothesis which is subsequently found to be valid doesn't demonstrate per se that the psychic actually used paranormal powers in making that suggestion.

If you're curious about how a charlatan can make an accurate prediction and dress it up as paranormal, the tale of Thrasyllus' first meeting with Tiberius, in Tacitus' "Annals of Imperial Rome" is very instructive.

Latimer

7th September 2002, 10:02 AM

Hello,

http://www.randi.org/jr/07-02-2000.html
http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/psychicSleuths.htm
http://www.parascope.com/en/renier02.htm
http://skepdic.com/psychdet.html
http://www.she-dc.com/pages/educ/Articles/psychics.htm
http://pac-c.org/police_use_of_psychics.htm
http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~rwynar/PsychicDetectives.html
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/020197/psychic.htm
http://rivendell.fortunecity.com/perilith/919/bio/Psychic5.htm
http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/notSoPsychic.htm
http://www.mbdojo.com/~rssl/howtobeapsychic.html

That's enough.

De_Bunk

7th September 2002, 10:34 AM

Luci...

Your links...

What actual authority is the Police Federation...thats making these claims...Is it the official voice of Scotland Yard and they approve everything that written in it...

Is it a governmental dept....

A Police Union....

Is the the official voice of HM Government Police forces....

Just like to know....

JSFolk

7th September 2002, 10:52 AM

SLC Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/09072002/utah/769194.htm)

Police, Archaeologists Wary of Psychics' Theory of Smart Mystery
Saturday, September 7, 2002

(c) 2001, THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

The months-old search for Elizabeth Smart took a strange twist last week when two Salt Lake City detectives -- at the behest of a group of psychics -- ventured into a crypt that holds the skeletal remains of ancient American Indians.
Officials from PSI Tech, a Seattle-based company, claimed that more than a dozen of its members had determined the location of Elizabeth's body by using a special psychic process they call "Technical Remote Viewing."
Independently, the company claims, 14 visionaries all pointed to a concrete burial vault built by the state of Utah about 10 years ago. The vault, located in Salt Lake City's This Is the Place State Heritage Park in the mouth of Emigration Canyon, contains the remains of 75 American Indians, many unearthed by construction projects around Utah.
But the crypt was searched and no trace of the 14-year-old girl, snatched June 5 from her bedroom, could be found, said state archaeologist Kevin Jones.
"We searched it very thoroughly. The whole thing was very secure," Jones said. "I certainly didn't want to start opening coffins."
The investigators' fruitless Aug. 28 search through cobwebs and stale air was one example of how thousands of tips from self-proclaimed psychics have occupied overworked detectives desperately trying to crack the baffling case.
"Many of these [psychic tipsters] are well-meaning, but these tips certainly take manpower away from the investigation," said Salt Lake City Police Chief Rick Dinse.
Still, he said that investigators will check out every "psychic vision" if the tip is specific.
"I don't encourage it or discourage it," Dinse said, speaking of psychics sharing their beliefs. In fact, Dinse said officers still may recruit a psychic to assist with the case.
"To this point, we haven't brought in any psychics -- but I don't rule anything out," Dinse said.
While recently staffing the police department's Elizabeth Smart tip line personally, Dinse took several calls from psychics, some of whom he said seemed "apologetic," but nevertheless felt they had "to help however they could."
Contacted by Elizabeth's uncle, Dave Smart, PSI Tech gathered the company's "special operations team" of 14 professional "remote viewers," who attempted to discern from afar the location of Elizabeth's body.
The same group had decided Elizabeth was killed within hours of her abduction, PSI Tech CEO Dane Spotts wrote on the company's Web site.
"All people are born with natural psychic or sixth-sense abilities," writes Spotts, explaining his technique, which "result[s] in an accurate transfer of information from the viewer's unconscious mind into conscious awareness . . . During this process, the viewer becomes linked directly to the collective unconscious."
Using the process, Spotts said, his team created sketches which it believed matched the burial vault in the foothills of Salt Lake City.
The vault -- which is a simple concrete shaft protected by a steel grate -- "is a special and consecrated place," Jones said. He said he balked at allowing the group of visionaries into the crypt. "I said, 'I'm not going to open the vault unless there is a police presence.' I have the key. I guard that with the trust of the Native American people of Utah."
Dave Smart called the police for assistance, and two lead case investigators shortly arrived. "They showed up and we went in," Jones recalled.
But Spotts was not satisfied with the search, calling it a "cursory peek." He questions why a trained cadaver dog was not allowed inside the crypt.
"I don't know how that dog is trained, but I do know there are 75 remains in there," retorts Jones.
Dave Smart added that he was satisfied with how the police handled the situation. He said the detectives responded promptly and assured him that his niece was not down there.
Spotts remains unsatisfied, and believers have peppered Jones' office with more than two dozen angry e-mail messages. "Is Elizabeth's body inside this Native American burial tomb?" Spotts asks. "We still can't rule it out. As far as I am concerned, the site has not been officially cleared."
kcantera@sltrib.com
mvigh@sltrib.com

:rolleyes:

Smalso

7th September 2002, 02:41 PM

The one thing that I can never figure out, and the one question that is never answered is: Why don't these psychics remove all doubt once and for all by accepting the JREF challange? No excuses, no hemming and hawing; just go take the f**king test, claim the million bucks, and get headlines worldwide. While they're at it, someone ask one of these people to solve one of the biggest mysteries of modern times: Why won't Sylvia Browne accept the challange?

The Fool

7th September 2002, 08:45 PM

luci has gone crazy posting these latest 2 links. They were posted bu luci multiple times in the previous thread and now luci has gone mad multiple posting them on this new thread....I suppose the principle is repetition adds credibility? Luci is very proud of these latest links....Having read them I have no idea why......

Lucianarchy

8th September 2002, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
luci has gone crazy posting these latest 2 links. They were posted bu luci multiple times in the previous thread and now luci has gone mad multiple posting them on this new thread....I suppose the principle is repetition adds credibility? Luci is very proud of these latest links....Having read them I have no idea why......

What's wrong with them? Are the Police Federation and the BBC lying or involved in some big konspiracy together?

The first one is the Police Federation magazine and gives evidence from one of their detectives about how a psychic was used and hhow she scored direct hits, particularly in repsect of the nickname. To suggest that either the psychic is involved in the crime or that a secrit police conspiracy operates which gives the info to the psychics on the sly, is so stupid, that any claims to it must furnish extraordinary evidence.
http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2..._2001_ghost.htm

The second, demonstrates that the police indeed do use psychics to "help" with their enquiries, and is confirmed by Scotland Yard and the NCF by the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pr.../08/taro9.shtml

Be honest, be skeptical.

Why don't you answer the question about whether people should be treated innocent until proven guilty, Fool? Are you completely devoid of honour?

The Fool

8th September 2002, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Why don't you answer the question about whether people should be treated innocent until proven guilty, Fool? Are you completely devoid of honour?

ok luci, but please understand, I've answered you twice in the previous thread and now once more here. I have my limits, If you are going to post the same thing over and over its a pointless waste of time.

Firstly...your evidence. you claim the police in this case "used" a psychic, implying they went looking for a psychic to use....Wrong, she turned up unasked and offered information.

second....you claim the information she provided "proved" she is psychic.... well, I will agree with you that one police officer on the case believed she was psychic. His superior officer didn't. His superior believed she had recieved information from a witness or someone involved in the crime. You dismiss this by saying it is my "grand conspiracy theory" well, its not my theory at all, its the theory of the officer in charge of the case and you provided this evidence yourself...I had nothing to do with the origins of this alternate explanation...you provided it luci, you provided it luci, you provided it luci. I repeated that as you don't seem to get that point.

I fail to see what the innocent until proven guilty statement has to do with this? Its not illegal to provide information to the police, even if the police believe you recieved the information from a witness or someone involved. What you are really saying is that if there are two possible explanations, inside info (hot reading) and psychic powers, then we must decide it is psychic powers because this is the most plausible explanation. I have no doubt it is the most plausible to you... But its not the most plausible to me.

Now, I'm not going to explain this again, ok..... If you repost the same theory and that same old link again. I'll just repost this reply......

Now a question for you...If, as you say, police use Psychics...why have they not got psychic squads? Departments of Paranormal investigation.... they use dogs and have dog squads? Why is there not police psychic officers....uniformed psychics from the psychic department??........ "Good morning sir my name is Detective Blogs from the psychic branch"....what a joke. Get a grip luci.....

headscratcher4

8th September 2002, 10:09 AM

Here's a thought...why not scrap the jury system and allow psychics and people like John Edwards to act as juries? In other words, in a murder case, the dead person could tell if the accused is the perp.

Luci: you willing to stand before a psychic, any psychic, and let them determine your guilt or innocent? If not, you are a coward and unwilling to stand by your "convictions" (which, BTW, is a play on the theme of the post -- get it? :) )

xouper

8th September 2002, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Luci: you willing to stand before a psychic, any psychic, and let them determine your guilt or innocent?That cuts right to the heart of the matter, money where your mouth is, along the lines of dowsers who are not afraid to put their beliefs on the line and dowse a minefield.

KelvinG

8th September 2002, 03:58 PM

So, if psychics can solve crimes, why are there so many unsolved murders still on the books?
Shouldn't these amazing psychics have solved them all by now? Why are they holding out on us?

And so what if police do use psychics? Just like every other sector of society, there are all kinds of police officers, including ones naive and simple enough to assume psychics can help. In fact, I'll go as far as saying they aren't totally naive and simple, but just want to make it seem to family members of victims that they are doing everything they can to help an investigation.

And what of the amazing antedoctal evidence that Luci provides links to. ****, that means little. I'm sure some police are just as easily duped as the average audience member of a John Edward taping. And prone to embellishment and exageration when telling a story.

And what about the links provided by Latimer and De_Bunk, Luci? Any comments? Did you review them? C'mon, be honest, be skeptical.

Hannibal

9th September 2002, 01:00 AM

These boards are like cheese sandwiches...you leave them for two days and they get a life all of their own!

Luci, Luci, Luci....You will not get me into a flame war again. I have given my force number and constabulary previously as well as the area I worked in. That is more than enough proof for anyone to be able to verify if they doubt me. Need more? It can be arranged by scanning in and posting to a third party - Diezel/Ed maybe.

Now, listen carefully to this next bit because it is important... Police Officers in the United Kingdom DO NOT USE PSYCHICS IN THEIR INVESTIGATIONS. They MAY act on information provided by somebody who claims to be a psychic, but that is volunteered by the "psychic" themselves and is not actively sought by the OIC's. If they were used do you not think they would be employed on high profile cases? Where are the Psychics in use for tracking the serial rapist on the loose at the moment?

Now you may argue I am being pedantic, but there is a great difference between using a psychic and using information provided by someone. One is an investigative tool, one is a line of enquiry provided BY AN OUTSIDE SOURCE. It is like a witchdoctor coming into the front counter and giving info. That does not then become "Police use Voodoo to solve a case" does it? Even if the Witchdoctor says the info came from Ybo.

I am also interested as to why you choose to ignore the bit in the BBC link where the Police say "We do not use psychics". Care to comment or are you merely being selective in what you believe? If a piece of evidence is cotradictory it cannot be used for either "side" as proof positive of anything (not that I take sides - I just try to get to the bottom of things).

I am not saying psychics do not exist, I am not saying that they do not VOLUNTARILY go into a Police station and give information. I am not even saying you are an idiot if you do. What I am saying is that POLICE DO NOT CONSULT OR USE PSYCHICS AS PART OF THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS.

I KNOW this is true because I was a Police Officer. Come on all you JREF'ers who were/are in the job! Join the chorus! (thanks Andalyn by the way)

Oh and Luci, my screen-name is my business - just as your hideous avatar is yours. Just for your info it was a nickname I was given by some very good friends I used to train with in the US because of my preference for/aptitude in the art of Kino Mutai. Look it up if you want to know what it is. In any case it has no bearing on the discussion and makes you look as if you are trying to divert attention away from the matter in hand.

Bahala Na!

Edited for pour spellyn and punkchewatian

De_Bunk

9th September 2002, 01:54 AM

London......Juliet Whisky....'88-'92

Jade

9th September 2002, 07:08 AM

As for police and psychics, I find this very hard to swallow. It defies all logic, if this is so, we would not require a police force whatsoever. He who lacks logic, is a threat to himself and other's. Absolutely bogus.... :D :D

LucienVanImpe

9th September 2002, 07:19 AM

Choose 10 distinct locations. Grocery store. Church. Corn field. Highway. Woods. School cafeteria. Etc.

Pick out one of the locations randomly and place a person there at a specific time.

Grant a psychic access to personal details, personal belongings of that individual. Clothing, pictures, birth certificate. Whatever the psychic needs.

Then let the alleged psychic show his or her ability by disclosing where the test subject is placed. Run this procedure ten times or more. Each time, the psychic must choose one of the 10 locations.

Count the correct hits. If they score 0, 1, or 2, we should tell them to stop bothering the police - if they are that kind of a psychic. If they score 3, 4, or 5, it might be worthwhile to repeat the test.

Any score above that would be sound indication that they do have some ability. Again, further testing would be called for to explore what exactly they are capable of.

If they only work with dead people, I'm sure that can be arranged too.

Marc

9th September 2002, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Jade
As for police and psychics, I find this very hard to swallow. It defies all logic, if this is so, we would not require a police force whatsoever. He who lacks logic, is a threat to himself and other's. Absolutely bogus.... :D :D

Monty Python remembered:

"Are you the Church Police?"

"Oh Yes!"
...

"Alright men, the chase is on! Now we shall all kneel. Oh Lord, tell us who croaked Lester"

**The one in the braces. He dunnit.**

Or you get Minority Report where they catch the guy before they even do the crime.

Wolverine

9th September 2002, 03:19 PM

Out of sheer curiosity, I e-mailed Scotland Yard the following:

Dear Sir:

Amongst certain circles there has been debate as to whether or not law enforcement agencies employ the services of psychics to aid in ongoing or unsolved criminal investigations.

Has Scotland Yard ever secured the services of, or worked with psychics to solve crimes?

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Regards,

xxxxxxxxxxx

To which I received this reply:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email. My knowledge is that we do not employ psychics but if they offer suggestions we take them into consideration as we do with any evidence offered by anyone.

Email Office
Metropolitan Police Service
New Scotland Yard
London SW1H 0BG
www.met.police.uk

Which corroborates Hannibal's statements:

Now you may argue I am being pedantic, but there is a great difference between using a psychic and using information provided by someone. One is an investigative tool, one is a line of enquiry provided BY AN OUTSIDE SOURCE. It is like a witchdoctor coming into the front counter and giving info. That does not then become "Police use Voodoo to solve a case" does it? Even if the Witchdoctor says the info came from Ybo.
...
I am not saying psychics do not exist, I am not saying that they do not VOLUNTARILY go into a Police station and give information. I am not even saying you are an idiot if you do. What I am saying is that POLICE DO NOT CONSULT OR USE PSYCHICS AS PART OF THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS.

How long must this topic endure? :rolleyes:

RandFan

9th September 2002, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Wolverine
Out of sheer curiosity, I e-mailed Scotland... What a novel idea...ask the source. Of course the links provided were pretty clear.

I suppose that there is sufficent anecdotal evidence that if one wnated to, one could believe that psychics solve crimes. Emperical evidence however is just not there.

Wolverine

9th September 2002, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
What a novel idea...ask the source. Of course the links provided were pretty clear.

Oh of course, I didn't think there was any doubt about the matter, but was just curious to see specifically what sort of reply I'd receive. :)

RandFan

9th September 2002, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Wolverine
Oh of course, I didn't think there was any doubt about the matter, but was just curious to see specifically what sort of reply I'd receive. :) Well I was impressed. To bad more people don't use such "critical thinking" skills instead of relying on anecdotal information.

"Officer so and so said it happened. Hey it must be true."

The Fool

9th September 2002, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Wolverine

Oh of course, I didn't think there was any doubt about the matter, but was just curious to see specifically what sort of reply I'd receive. :)

Good one Wolverine. You do understand that this is not going to worry Lucianarchy one little bit. Luci will either say you made the whole thing up or do the usual trick......The usual trick is to vanish for a couple of weeks then return and start again with an identical proposition and some stupid "cops use psychics" link.

Hannibal

10th September 2002, 02:04 AM

Thank you for the corroboration.

Luci, can we say now that I was right all along? I won't think less of you for it.

Lucianarchy

10th September 2002, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by Wolverine
Out of sheer curiosity, I e-mailed Scotland Yard the following:

To which I received this reply:

" My knowledge is that we do not employ psychics but if they offer suggestions we take them into consideration as we do with any evidence offered by anyone."

Indeed, that quote completely debunks Hannibal's claim about psychics, to wit:

"They may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. "

...is now proven to evidently, completely and uttery wrong.

In fact the Police Federation magazine and the BBC both report how psychics work in a*positive* and helpfull way with the police, in fact, no one has provided *any* credible evidence that the police *don't* take them seriously.

In light of thiis, I think Hannibal and Fool should behave like grown men and now offer their apology.

Hannibal

10th September 2002, 05:57 AM

If information is handed over at the front counter of a station by a member of the public it will be analysed and evaluated through the proper channels. If that info is from someone who claims to be psychic then it will instantly be rated as unproven and unreliable. That is a rating of x5 on the intel report. Do you now see why I wanted you to answer my questions Luci?

If however there is information submitted by a "psychic " DURING AN INVESTIGATION it will be looked at and treated as any other lead. Although a lot lower down the hierachy.

I will apologise for not posting a more detailed summary the first time around. If the info is given on an enquiry it will be looked at - if it is someone coming in saying "the spirits have told me who stole a packet of crisps from tescos" it will be dismissed. Luci, what is "light hearted"? I was using humour to make a point - I was NOT expecting that to be taken as a 100% official guide to dealing with "psychics". For believing you were inteliigent enough to differentiate I apologise.

Now - how about YOU apologising for being a)wrong and b)calling me a liar. I also find it curious you focus on an off the cuff remark rather than the core of my postings. There are numerous questions that have been asked of you and numerous points raised which you have FAILED to address.

Here's one to get you started - Do you now accept that Police do not use Psychics but will respond to ANY information given by ANY member of the public? In other words THE PSYCHICS GIVE THE INFO FREELY IT IS NEVER REQUESTED!

Look at the witchdoctor analogy.

Bahala Na!

Psiload

10th September 2002, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

In fact the Police Federation magazine and the BBC both report how psychics work in a*positive* and helpfull way with the police, in fact, no one has provided *any* credible evidence that the police *don't* take them seriously.
(snipped for brevity)

Quote:

Inspector Edward Ellidon of the U.K's Scotland Yard stated that:
1. Scotland Yard never approach psychics for information.
2. There is no official police psychics in England.
3. The yard does not endorse psychics in any way.
4. There is no recorded instance in England of any psychic solving a criminal case or providing evidence or information that led directly to its solution.

and:

And now to the Los Angeles police dept. where according to Dan Cooke, head of the public relations for the department. "The LAPD has not, does not and will not use psychics in the investigation of crimes, period, if a psychic offers free information to us over the phone, we will listen to them politely, but we do not take them seriously. It is a waste of time." (my emphasis)

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/psychic.htm

Lucianarchy

10th September 2002, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Psiload

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/psychic.htm

I put the credibility of the BBC, The Police Federation and Scotland Yard *way* above some obscure, clearly biased web source. Way above.

There is *no* evidence that the police act in the manner claimed by Hannibal. To claim such in the face of such strong evidence, is not only reprehensible, but downright misleading and may stop some psychics from offering information at all. Given the fact that psychics *do* help the police, which has been evidenced by the Cheif of Williston PD, USA , Ed's confirmation from the Williston detective involved in the case and the UK's own Police Federation, such continuance of misinformation is plain stupid.

Even wolverine confirmed that Scotland Yard don't treat psychics in the disrespectful and dismissive manner claimed by Hannibal!

Case solved.

RonSceptic

10th September 2002, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

I put the credibility of the BBC, The Police Federation and Scotland Yard *way* above some obscure, clearly biased web source. Way above.

The BBC Press office? That out ranks an experienced Police officer and all of his contacts in the force?

Scotland Yard? Remember this........

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email. My knowledge is that we do not employ psychics but if they offer suggestions we take them into consideration as we do with any evidence offered by anyone.

Email Office
Metropolitan Police Service
New Scotland Yard
London SW1H 0BG

:confused:

Hannibal,

This troll is yanking your chain. It's plain you won this argument hands down days ago.

Now, about those lottery numbers...............

Psiload

10th September 2002, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

I put the credibility of the BBC, The Police Federation and Scotland Yard *way* above some obscure, clearly biased web source. Way above.

There is *no* evidence that the police act in the manner claimed by Hannibal. To claim such in the face of such strong evidence, is not only reprehensible, but downright misleading and may stop some psychics from offering information at all. Given the fact that psychics *do* help the police, which has been evidenced by the Cheif of Williston PD, USA , Ed's confirmation from the Williston detective involved in the case and the UK's own Police Federation, such continuance of misinformation is plain stupid.

Even wolverine confirmed that Scotland Yard don't treat psychics in the disrespectful and dismissive manner claimed by Hannibal!

Case solved.

I'm extremely uninterested in debating whether police agencies treat psychic detectives with gentility or hostility... pointless discussion. Whether they serve them tea and buttered sconces, and sit them in the comfy chair as they listen in rapt attention to their "impressions", or whether they kick them in the ding ding, and tell them to make like a drum, is of no consequence.

I'd like to stick to the crux of the issue: do psychic detectives help or hinder police? I'm sure that a vast majority of law enforcement officers and officials would agree that the majority of psychic "assistance" is anthing but. For every one "psychic tidbit" that neatly retrofits the specifics of a crime ex post facto, there are piles of useless psychic crap that send police on fruitless wild goose chases. Considering a few positive outcomes, to the exclusion of the majority of negatives, is a classic example of that old parapsychological hobgoblin, 'trumpeting the hits, while forgetting the misses.'

Here's an interesting point to ponder... consider some of the utter nonsense that taxpayer dollars have paid for, and are paying for, in the name of law enforcement:

-The DKL Lifeguard
-The Quaddro Tracker
-lie detectors
-graphology(not to be mistaken with forensic document examination)
-remote viewing

Proof positive of the willingness of certain law enforcement agencies to devote a portion of their fiscal budgets to the employment of unorthodox, unproven, and controversial methods. Yet not a single psychic detective on any agencies payroll? Go figger? Why do you suppose that is?

headscratcher4

10th September 2002, 11:43 AM

How do you know that police do not use or rely on Psychics? Simple, because the whole criminal judicial system (at least in the U.S. and I would imagine the UK) would fall apart if police relied on “psychic” evidence.

Why, you might ask? Well just imagine. A psychic calls up, tells the police “I am a psychic and I have had a vision of …” a crime scene, a murder, what have you.

First, the police designed to enforce the law (we are not yet living in the age of Minority Report), would only be interested if they had knowledge that a crime has been committed – for example a missing person. Otherwise, their first response would be complete dismissal. However, it is critical to keep in mind that the police don’t just investigate crimes; their goal is to gather evidence of crimes for presentation to proper judicial and legal authority. In short, they are very concerned with not just the fact of a possible crime, but in the evidence that proves the crime exist.

So, second, let us next say that there is indeed a crime being investigated. In the US, at least, calling up and telling the police that you know where a body is buried while potentially interesting information, is in and of it self insufficient to trigger many of the things that the police need to act on a possible crime. For example, they need to have some idea how the informant knows? I.e. is there a reasonable basis for that knowledge?

Why, because in many cases, for example, the police must get a warrant to search a premises or site. To get a warrant, they have to convince a judge or magistrate that they have reliable information that a crime has been committed, that a search is necessary, and that the police have a good faith, reasonable belief that the warrant will turn up information necessary to the investigation.

In any case involving a psychic, this basic requirement does not even pass the first level of credibility. I.E. “your honor, we need a warrant?”

“Why?”

“A psychic called and told us that there was a body buried at that location.”

“A psychic you say? How do you know they are psychic? What is the proof?”

You can see where it degenerates from there BECAUSE there is no scientific proof, little less consensus that psychic powers exist (one of the problems of Luci’s assertions and the psychics doing everything they can to avoid proving their powers to a scientific certainty).

However, in that instance where the police do not need a warrant – for example requesting permission of a property owner to search a site that is granted. They still are faced with two critical questions?

How did the psychic know – evidence of psychic power can not be presented to a judge or jury specifically because it is not recognized as scientific evidence. In short, the police must, ultimately dismiss the “psychic evidence” as being usable because it has the same quality as the police arguing to a judge when asked how they found the body: “well, your honor, a little birdie told us.” Indeed, at least in the US, any criminal defense lawyer would get that evidence tossed so quickly as to make one’s head spin.

So, second, they almost have to assume that the supposed psychic who calls up and) states that they have had a vision of where a body lies (which, btw, I contend has never occurred) that the alleged psychic is in on the crime, for how else would the psychic know where the body was buried? I note that psychics are not generally being prosecuted as murder suspects, or abettors of these kinds of crimes. Indeed, it would provide them with a perfect and very public opportunity to make their case to a jury – “I didn’t do the crime, but I have visions. Let me show you how this works…” (it has never happened).

In the end, and where I am getting with this, is that the police cannot legally make a case with “psychic” evidence. Their job is to make a legal case. Even in that circumstance where they have heard “psychic” information and consider it (as they state they consider all offers of help in solving a case), they have to have usable evidence from credible sources to make a case. To this end, psychic evidence is not only unusable it is irrelevant. Again, why? Because you couldn’t get a search warrant for someone’s house based on the assertion of a psychic…it makes for a bad case, and for bad law.

Which gets back to a point I made earlier. Luci: if you are serious about this, are your supposed beliefs in this mumbo jumbo so strong as to state that you would you stand before a judge in a criminal case and let that judge (or jury) determine your guilt or innocence based on the police use of psychic evidence?

Would you tell your lawyer not to challenge the validity of the psychic and psychic evidence?

Do you believe that any of the citations that you’ve posted here to prove your case about Uri or any psychic should or world stand in a court of law to make the case that “psychics” are real?

If so, why hasn't it been done so...for instance, 10 years ago, DNA testing was at lest "questionable" evidence (Remember the challenge in the OJ case?). Today, because the scientific community accepts the premise, it is generally accepted, indeed dispositive in many criminal cases. IF the science proving psyi is so good, why hasn't it been accepted in courts as evidence?

Latimer

10th September 2002, 12:53 PM

Hello,

This is a reply I posted on the 'Are We Looking at all the Evidence' thread, which does bear directly on what Lucianarchy is saying here. I noticed the similarity in his dismissal of evidence that contradicts his own; to wit:

Lucianarchy wrote:
I'm a skeptic, and I put the credibility of the BBC and The Police Federation before some obscure site.

Ummmm...does that mean you are not even going to look at the site (http://pac-c.org/police_use_of_psychics.htm)at all?

Lucianarchy wrote:
Skeptical, logical and critical.

No, it's not skeptical, logical, nor critical. If you are taking, at face value, the information the BBC and Police Federation are putting forth and accepting it without further verification; you are standing precariously upon an 'argument from authority.' You are picking facts to suit your theory, rather than constructing your theories and beliefs to fit the available facts. That is a common failing, of both believer and skeptic alike.

If you truly wish to be 'logical and critical' you need to see what your opponents are saying; and if their argument has enough weight behind it, either incorporate those ideas into your theory; or discard the theory in light of the new evidence. The links I provided you in the 'Police Psychics' thread are quite full of sourcing material; are you looking at those ideas or evidence? Or are you avoiding it, afraid you'll have to modify your own?

You are also making a huge assumption, in your simple reply to me, above. I wonder if you know what that assumption is?

Keep smiling,

xouper

10th September 2002, 12:54 PM

For those who are using a score card to follow along:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
There is *no* evidence that the police act in the manner claimed by Hannibal.Another lie by Luci. There is plenty of evidence, but Luci dismisses it all because it contradicts her claim.

To claim such in the face of such strong evidence, is not only reprehensible, but downright misleading and may stop some psychics from offering information at all.This might actually be a good thing if so-called "psychics" stopped pestering the police with their nonsense. As many police have said, psychics are a waste of their time. This is another fact that Luci dismisses since it contradicts her claim.

Given the fact that psychics *do* help the police, which has been evidenced by the Cheif of Williston PD, USA , Ed's confirmation from the Williston detective involved in the case ...Here we go yet again with this same stupid lie from Luci. No matter how many times this lie has been refuted, Luci continues to repeat it, perhaps hoping some uninformed person will fall for it.

It has been repeatedly shown on this forum that the information given by Noreen Renier was wrong. The body was not found where she said it would be. This irritating fact never seems to stop Luci from claiming that the psychic "helped" in this case, when clearly she did not, regardless of anything the police told Ed. Ed did not confirm that psychics helped the Williston police solve the case.

Edited to fix spellnig error.

10th September 2002, 02:45 PM

What is the name of your "laboratory" that you have referred to?

What about those lottery predictions?

Just curious.

Wolverine

10th September 2002, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Even wolverine confirmed that Scotland Yard don't treat psychics in the disrespectful and dismissive manner claimed by Hannibal!

Case solved.

Uh, no.

Imagine you are a desk sergeant at a police station:

A citizen walks in off the street, approaches you, and states: "Hello. I have some information I'd like to report that may be pertinent to case X."

-or-

A citizen walks in off the street, approaches you, and states: "Hello. Last night while I was communicating with my spirit guide Chauncey, he brought to my attention this poor spirit who says he was murdered, and I have reason to believe it was the deceased in case X. I'd like to channel his spirit for you now so he can tell you who murdered him."

I would be most curious to see the sergeant that would actually file a report to his superiors based on the latter other than for the purpose of having a laugh.

This statement... :

from Scotland Yard
My knowledge is that we do not employ psychics but if they offer suggestions we take them into consideration as we do with any evidence offered by anyone.

... does not offer verification that psychics are not treated in a disrespectful or dismissive manner. It merely asserts that Scotland Yard:

1) does not employ psychics to participate in police investigations

2) takes evidence provided by any individual into consideration

Again...

Originally posted by Hannibal
Do you now accept that Police do not use Psychics but will respond to ANY information given by ANY member of the public?

This just isn't so difficult to grasp. Is it?

KelvinG

10th September 2002, 05:38 PM

Luci
Have you looked at any of the links yet offered up by others on this board? Seems to me a true skeptic, as you often proclaim yourself to be, would have researched everything and would be willing and able to discuss alternate viewpoints.
Can we expect that to happen anytime soon, or are you simply going to continue on like a broken record pointing to the same story over and over.
What do you say Luci? Unleash that powerful skeptic mind on us.

The Fool

10th September 2002, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
In fact the Police Federation magazine and the BBC both report how psychics work in a*positive* and helpfull way with the police, in fact, no one has provided *any* credible evidence that the police *don't* take them seriously.

In light of thiis, I think Hannibal and Fool should behave like grown men and now offer their apology.

Luci, That is now 8 times in 2 threads you have sited that "Police Federation and BBC" rubbish, I told you last time that I would refuse to continue to point out the flaws in it.

You are not interested in debate, you just restate the same flawed argument over and over and over and over. This is the style of the propagandist not the debater.... Ever thought of taking up the "conciousness creates matter" cause? Your style would really suit it.

Ok, Here is your apology....

I apologise for providing evidence that is not consistant with your conclusions.

I note you have not posted to this thread for a while, your usual
behaviour is when the weight of contrary evidence starts to make you look more and more stupid you vanish for a while.....wait till the thread drifts off the page, then post another, using the same tired "evidence" and hope some people will think it is something new....

Hannibal

11th September 2002, 12:42 AM

Hannibal,

This troll is yanking your chain. It's plain you won this argument hands down days ago.

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

Thank you. I think everyone can see that. I have no agenda here, I am simply stating things that I KNOW (as opposed to read).

Luci, I am no longer debating the issue with you. I am sure that you will post more demnads for apologies but you will not get them. You are obstinate and I for one do not relish debate with that kind of mentatlity. At least Bethke was good for a laugh...at times.

RonSceptic

11th September 2002, 01:08 AM

Luci,

As our crackpot in residence, please pass on to all your crackpot friends the sincere thanks of a grateful nation for the great assistance they had rendered to police investigations over the years..............by staying out of the way.

As for the meddling dimwits who waste valuable police time by peddling their unwanted, useless, and inane mumbo jumbo I would say this. Tell them they can take their crystals, their pendulums, their crystal balls and their dousing rods and shove them right up their.................but wait. I don’t need to say it. They already know.

And so do you.

Jeff

12th September 2002, 01:47 PM

Bump lower...

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by Marc
I heard somewhere that one definition for insanity was if a person repeatedly takes the same actions, under the same conditions, and expects different results.

By that definition just about everyone on this thread might be considered insane.

Indeed, given the fact that Hannibal and Fool have been given the evidence from the BBC and The Police Federation and Scotland Yard that the police work in a positive relationship with psychics, it is quit irrational in the face of such evidence for Hannibal and Fool to be so reticent to apoligise for their repeated and evidently erroneous claims.

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 01:53 AM

Given the fact that Hannibal and Fool have been given the evidence from the BBC and The Police Federation and Scotland Yard that the police work in a positive relationship with psychics, it is quit irrational in the face of such evidence for Hannibal and Fool to be so reticent to apoligise for their repeated and evidently erroneous claims.

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:36 AM

I put the credibility of the BBC, The Police Federation and Scotland Yard *way* above some obscure, clearly biased web source. Way above.

There is *no* evidence that the police act in the manner claimed by Hannibal. To claim such in the face of such strong evidence, is not only reprehensible, but downright misleading and may stop some psychics from offering information at all. Given the fact that psychics *do* help the police, which has been evidenced by the Cheif of Williston PD, USA , Ed's confirmation from the Williston detective involved in the case and the UK's own Police Federation, such continuance of misinformation is plain stupid.

Even wolverine confirmed that Scotland Yard don't treat psychics in the disrespectful and dismissive manner claimed by Hannibal!

Case solved.

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:37 AM

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:38 AM

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:38 AM

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:39 AM

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:39 AM

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:41 AM

No flaws have been demonstrated. No one has provided a more credible source other than the BBC or the Police Federation. Both demonstrate that the police work *WITH* psychics in a positive way, *both* demonstrate that Hannibal has been mislead or misinfomed in his claim:

"They may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " - Hannibal

Hannibal is not man enough to admit his mistake in the face of the evidence, for shame.

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:41 AM

No flaws have been demonstrated. No one has provided a more credible source other than the BBC or the Police Federation. Both demonstrate that the police work *WITH* psychics in a positive way, *both* demonstrate that Hannibal has been mislead or misinfomed in his claim:

"They may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " - Hannibal

He is not man enough to admit his mistake in the face of the evidence, for shame.

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:42 AM

The first one is the Police Federation magazine and gives evidence from one of their detectives about how a psychic was used and hhow she scored direct hits, particularly in repsect of the nickname. To suggest that either the psychic is involved in the crime or that a secrit police conspiracy operates which gives the info to the psychics on the sly, is so stupid, that any claims to it must furnish extraordinary evidence.
http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2..._2001_ghost.htm

The second, demonstrates that the police indeed do use psychics to "help" with their enquiries, and is confirmed by Scotland Yard and the NCF by the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pr.../08/taro9.shtml

Both these examples come from highly credible sources, and as such prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that Hanniball and the Fool are evidently *wrong* in any claim they may have that the police don't use psychics in the UK. Ed has already confirmed that the police use psychics to "help" solve cases in the US, this evidence confirms that the same is true in the UK.

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:42 AM

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:43 AM

bump lower

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 02:45 AM

No flaws have been demonstrated. No one has provided a more credible source other than the BBC or the Police Federation. Both demonstrate that the police work *WITH* psychics in a positive way, *both* demonstrate that Hannibal has been mislead or misinfomed in his claim:

"They may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " - Hannibal

He is not man enough to admit his mistake in the face of the evidence, for shame.

Hannibal

13th September 2002, 04:06 AM

test

Hannibal

13th September 2002, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal
See my previous answer and stop clutching at straws

For shame on you too for being so petty.

Oh, and define "being a man" for me. I would like to know how I fit into your definition...that is actually a lie I don't give a poop I just like to know what I am being accused of being (or not).

Luci, do you seriously think you are convincing anyone here? Honestly?

Still stands

Lucianarchy

13th September 2002, 04:35 AM

" My knowledge is that we do not employ psychics but if they offer suggestions we take them into consideration as we do with any evidence offered by anyone."

Indeed, that quote completely debunks Hannibal's claim about psychics, to wit:

"They may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. "

...is now proven to evidently, completely and uttery wrong.

In fact the Police Federation magazine and the BBC both report how psychics work in a*positive* and helpfull way with the police, in fact, no one has provided *any* credible evidence that the police *don't* take them seriously.

In light of thiis, I think Hannibal and Fool should behave like grown men and now offer their apology.

Hannibal

13th September 2002, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Psiload

And now to the Los Angeles police dept. where according to Dan Cooke, head of the public relations for the department. "The LAPD has not, does not and will not use psychics in the investigation of crimes, period, if a psychic offers free information to us over the phone, we will listen to them politely, [B]but we do not take them seriously. It is a waste of time." [QUOTE]

Gee, what does it mean Luci? It is so ambiguous isn't it?

"Do you now accept that Police do not use Psychics but will respond to ANY information given by ANY member of the public?"

Gosh, that too! I wonder what it means?

Oh yeah, Luci, I am being sarcastic. You have already proven your inability to differentiate between offhand comments and genuine points so I will try and keep it simple for you from now on.

Have a nice day though! :D

As does this...Luci you are making yourself look a tit...just look at the others comments to see...you stand alone and have convinced NOBODY..I have. Therefore I would suggest you back off, back down and go watch JE or whatever takes your fancy. I reufse to debate logic with someone who is not holding a logical view.

Latimer

13th September 2002, 11:26 AM

Hello,

Luci wrote:
No one has provided a more credible source other than the BBC or the Police Federation.

http://www.randi.org/jr/07-02-2000.html
http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/psychicSleuths.htm
http://www.parascope.com/en/renier02.htm
http://skepdic.com/psychdet.html
http://www.she-dc.com/pages/educ/Articles/psychics.htm
http://pac-c.org/police_use_of_psychics.htm
http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~rwynar/PsychicDetectives.html
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/020197/psychic.htm
http://rivendell.fortunecity.com/perilith/919/bio/Psychic5.htm
http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/notSoPsychic.htm
http://www.mbdojo.com/~rssl/howtobeapsychic.html

That's enough. Again.

Latimer

13th September 2002, 11:32 AM

Hello again,

Luci wrote:
The first one is the Police Federation magazine and gives evidence from one of their detectives about how a psychic was used and hhow she scored direct hits, particularly in repsect of the nickname. To suggest that either the psychic is involved in the crime or that a secrit police conspiracy operates which gives the info to the psychics on the sly, is so stupid, that any claims to it must furnish extraordinary evidence.
http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2..._2001_ghost.htm

The second, demonstrates that the police indeed do use psychics to "help" with their enquiries, and is confirmed by Scotland Yard and the NCF by the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pr.../08/taro9.shtm

I hate to tell you this; but I tried both links and got nothing but 404 errors. They, therefore, do not support your case.

Can you check them, please? Or perhaps cite other evidence?

Keep smiling,

Latimer

13th September 2002, 09:57 PM

Hello,

Strange; how time changes seem to affect where the posting appears... I thought I posted after those last three.

Anyhow, sorta bump for posts above the last ones; regrading links and the fact that Lucianarchy's appear not to work...

Keep smiling,

xouper

13th September 2002, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Hannibal to Lucianarchy
...Luci you are making yourself look a tit...just look at the others comments to see...you stand alone and have convinced NOBODY..I have.Agreed.

Lucianarchy

14th September 2002, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Luci, That is now 8 times in 2 threads you have sited that "Police Federation and BBC" rubbish, I told you last time that I would refuse to continue to point out the flaws in it.

No flaws have been demonstrated. No one has provided a more credible source other than the BBC or the Police Federation. Both demonstrate that the police work *WITH* psychics in a positive way, *both* demonstrate that Hannibal has been mislead or misinfomed in his claim:

"They may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " - Hannibal

He is not man enough to admit his mistake in the face of the evidence, for shame.

Hannibal

14th September 2002, 02:21 AM

See my previous answer and stop clutching at straws

For shame on you too for being so petty.

Oh, and define "being a man" for me. I would like to know how I fit into your definition...that is actually a lie I don't give a poop I just like to know what I am being accused of being (or not).

Luci, do you seriously think you are convincing anyone here? Honestly?

Hannibal

14th September 2002, 02:26 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Psiload

And now to the Los Angeles police dept. where according to Dan Cooke, head of the public relations for the department. "The LAPD has not, does not and will not use psychics in the investigation of crimes, period, if a psychic offers free information to us over the phone, we will listen to them politely, [B]but we do not take them seriously. It is a waste of time." [QUOTE]

Gee, what does it mean Luci? It is so ambiguous isn't it?

"Do you now accept that Police do not use Psychics but will respond to ANY information given by ANY member of the public?"

Gosh, that too! I wonder what it means?

Oh yeah, Luci, I am being sarcastic. You have already proven your inability to differentiate between offhand comments and genuine points so I will try and keep it simple for you from now on.

Have a nice day though! :D

headscratcher4

14th September 2002, 04:04 AM

Luci:

I know my last post was long, and as my wife has told me, I am often worth ignoring. However, given the bogus material you cite for your assertions, please respond to my factual point. That is:

Police do not use Psychics because it creates bad evidence. No chain of evidence created by reliance on a psychic would be admitted into a court of law. Finally, can you point to one case, anywhere in the western world in the last 50 years where evidence created by a psychic has been critical to the determination of a case -- i.e. the conviction of a criminal.

I do not know, but I would bet all I have, that in England and the US, at least, the answer to that question is NO.

Because that answer is no, no credible police force will ever use or rely on psychics. Now, if you believers want to put it to a test, submit those "studies" you claim establish proof of Psi to a court in order to have psychic testimony declared scientifically valid, e.g. DNA, fingerprints (I know, there's been some recent questions about fingerprints), etc. That would be real first steps toward actually proving that you believe those “studies” have any real merit. It would prove the scientific acceptance of the alleged phenomenon. It would prove the utility and value of psychic "insight", and it would prove that police use psychics.

However, as they don't, you and those who assert the reality of "psychics" wont.

You can always find some odd police officer somewhere to blather about this. However, the fact remains that there is no recorded police case or crime that has been solved as a result of evidence discovered through use of a psychic. Not one.
______

The Fool

14th September 2002, 04:06 AM

Luci..
Turning up to the track every day with the same beaten Greyhound on a lead is not going to do your long term reputation any good. Get a new link eh???
Can't stay and chat, my house got burgled and the detectives are here. So far there has been no usefull leads from the Crystal ball But they said not to worry because they have a ouija board in the van if we get stuck....

Marc

14th September 2002, 04:47 AM

I heard somewhere that one definition for insanity was if a person repeatedly takes the same actions, under the same conditions, and expects different results.

By that definition just about everyone on this thread might be considered insane. You keep repeating the same actions: using logic and demanding evidence from lucian. Do any of you expect to get any other reaction than denial, deflection, obfuscation, and lies?

Just wanted to point that out. :)

Marc the Troll Starver

chrisjt

16th September 2002, 05:25 AM

Since the BBC press release is ambiguous and gives no direct quote from any source at Scotland Yard you have to read between the lines:

"Scotland Yard confirmed they had consulted(been contacted by) Mrs Evans in the past to help them with an investigation(which she didn't) and the National Crime Faculty confirmed she was registered on their database as a psychic(timewaster)."

RandFan

16th September 2002, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I know my last post was long, and as my wife has told me, I am often worth ignoring. However, given the bogus material you cite for your assertions, please respond to my factual point. That is:

Police do not use Psychics Because it creates bad evidence. No chain of evidence created by relience on a psychic would be admitted into a court of law. Finally, can you point to one case, anywhere in the western world in the last 50 years where evidence created by a psychic has been critical to the determination of a case -- i.e. the conviction of a criminal. ...waiting...

Charlie in Dayton

16th September 2002, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

No flaws have been demonstrated. No one has provided a more credible source other than the BBC or the Police Federation. Both demonstrate that the police work *WITH* psychics in a positive way, *both* demonstrate that Hannibal has been mislead or misinfomed in his claim:

The BBC is a news organization. Take what they say with whatever quantity of salt you think appropriate.

What is the 'Police Federation', who or what is its membership, and where is its jurisdiction (if any)? Is this any sort of official law enforcement group (a la Interpol), or is it more of a fraternal organization? Do they speak officially for anyone, or just unofficially for themselves? Or are they some sort of PR group?

I haven't seen these questions yet, and I believe the answers will reflect greatly on the credibility of the entire issue.

Hannibal

17th September 2002, 12:56 AM

The Police Federation is teh job equivalent of a union. The Police are not actually allowed a union or to go on strike so the Federation provides negotiation with the government and support for its employees. They also provide legal representation if necessary for any officer "in a spot of bother".

They are NOT a body that is allowed to dictate policy - and ultimately there is little they can do anyway (for reasons stated above). They are not an enforcement group and are there solely for the welfare of members. Any report they make on the ins/outs of a case will be in a similar vein to any news report and subject to the same criteria for credibility.

Lucianarchy

17th September 2002, 01:38 AM

These two references have still not been debunked. the Police Federation represent the rank and file police officers, those that actually *do* the work. The second comes from the BBC well known for accuracy and credibility throughout the world.

The first one is the Police Federation magazine and gives evidence from one of their detectives about how a psychic was used and hhow she scored direct hits, particularly in repsect of the nickname. To suggest that either the psychic is involved in the crime or that a secrit police conspiracy operates which gives the info to the psychics on the sly, is so stupid, that any claims to it must furnish extraordinary evidence.
http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2..._2001_ghost.htm

The second, demonstrates that the police indeed do use psychics to "help" with their enquiries, and is confirmed by Scotland Yard and the NCF by the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pr.../08/taro9.shtml

Both these examples come from highly credible sources, and as such prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that Hanniball and the Fool are evidently *wrong* in any claim they may have that the police don't use psychics in the UK. Ed has already confirmed that the police use psychics to "help" solve cases in the US, this evidence confirms that the same is true in the UK.

Ove

17th September 2002, 01:41 AM

I heard somewhere that one definition for insanity was if a person repeatedly takes the same actions, under the same conditions, and expects different results.

To be correct i believe that is the signs of a "Manic Depression"
http://216.40.241.68/ups/DeNiro/idiot.gif

Lucianarchy

17th September 2002, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Ove

To be correct i believe that is the signs of a "Manic Depression"
http://216.40.241.68/ups/DeNiro/idiot.gif

Indeed, so in the face of such highlt credible evidence it does seem very irrational for the Fool and Hannibal to keep making personal opinion over verifiable facts. It perhaps has more to do with their unwillignness to behave in an honourable manner and apologise for their misinformation and act like grown men.

xouper

17th September 2002, 04:13 AM

Hannibal

17th September 2002, 04:16 AM

Hear, hear!

chrisjt

17th September 2002, 04:19 AM

The second, demonstrates that the police indeed do use psychics to "help" with their enquiries, and is confirmed by Scotland Yard and the NCF by the BBC.

The following statement by Mrs Evans clearly implies that the police don't use "psychics" to help with their enquiries:

"They don’t want to look as if they’re not doing their job properly. In 20 or 30 years I think the police will be using psychics to help them solve crimes."

This press release is both ambiguous and self-contradictory and is typical shoddy, sensationalised press reporting of the alleged supernatural.

Hannibal

17th September 2002, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Indeed, so in the face of such highlt credible evidence it does seem very irrational for the Fool and Hannibal to keep making personal opinion over verifiable facts. It perhaps has more to do with their unwillignness to behave in an honourable manner and apologise for their misinformation and act like grown men.

Luci, are you being obtuse or stupid?

I am NOT stating personal opinion - I am stating FACTS derived from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. There is a wealth of difference.

The links you posted are self-contradictory and have been de-constructed on several posts. to whit, there is NO EVIDENCE for the Police approaching the psychic; NO EVIDENCE for the information actually being fundemental in solving the case (intelligence analysis) and NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that Police use psychics IN A LINE OF ENQUIRY unless the "psychic" has first approached them and VOLUNTEERED the info.

Please re-read my post referring to Ybo - the logic is IDENTICAL to that which you are using.

Also Luci, why do the stale, tired and often reposted TWO links that you provide have more weight than the ELEVEN provided by Latimer? I would say your "evidence" has been countered more than adequately.

Furthermore why ignore DIRECT TESTIMONY from myself (UK based Police experience), Scotland Yard (about as "official" as you can get) and from Andalyn (US based Police experience)? All have stated that POLICE DO NOT EMPLOY PSYCHICS!! Follow the links - they all say the same. Even yours for goodness sake!

As a final note, this is how stupid your logic and your statemnets are;

If psychics are USED by the Police (note the emphasis) to solve crimes, then th eevidence they present must be testable and credible. To put it another way, it must be admissable in a court of law. Why is it Luci that they only offer info that relates to matters that DO NOT REQUIRE A COURT APPEARANCE? I think that you'll find it is because the case would be thrown out. Try this for size

"How did you find the knife in the house Officer"
"Information from a psychic"
"I see...and was the warrant signed by a Senior Officer on those grounds alone"
"Err..yes.."
"Your Honour I move that this case be dismissed on the grounds that the evidence presented was as the result of an illegal search and therefore inadmissable"

This is only a potted example and greatly over-simplified but NO OFFICER IN THE WORLD WILL STAKE THEIR REPUTATION LIKE THIS on info that is provided bya psychic. The fact you claim they would shows your ignorance of the legal system and the Police force in general.

Luci, I will not engage in a flame war with you. You seem to think that by attacking my masculinity you will goad me - you will not.

How many lives have you saved Luci? How many crimes have you solved? How many assaults have you prevented? How many domestic incidnets haveyou cleaned up? How much of a difference have YOU made in the world by your DIRECT actions? I am DAMN PROUD of my work in the Police - and I am going to resume my career in a few weeks. I have proven to anyone with a sense of impartiality that you are spouting forth nonsense. Look at the responses I get compared to yours? Does that not tell you something?

Think on this too Luci - "When more than three people tell you you that your pipes are leaking, see a plumber"

Bahala Na!

chessmanskeptic

17th September 2002, 05:27 AM

I think the police should stop trying to rely on psychics for finding people. The idea is just nonsense. Why this is even debatable is out of the question. Face it, psychics are not god with finding people, and most of them are quacks in the first place. No psychic has won Randi's challenge yet!

Hannibal

17th September 2002, 05:31 AM

Chessman,

READ THE THREADS!

Police DON'T! Only Luci seems to think that!

Bahala Na!;)

chessmanskeptic

17th September 2002, 05:31 AM

We need to rely more and more on physical evidence, instead of quack psychics! John Edwards, if you read this, go and hang yourself already. You do not stand a chance when it comes to Randi's challenge. I myself think that you are a deceiver of people. Face it, you can not give a true clear reading, because you started alot of this new age psychic stuff in the first place. So understand, you need to just quit it, orface the Wrath of the skeptic community. I would lol if he actually went to the police to be a psychic on the case.

The Fool

17th September 2002, 05:36 AM

Hey luci.....
I Think you've worn those 2 links out by posting them that often...Have you checked them lately? They don't seem to exist any more.....Hey, why don't you get a police Psychic to find out what happened to them? Its obviously a conspiracy to supress the truth.

On a side issue, are your posts to usenet still getting rejected by the spam filters??

Lucianarchy

17th September 2002, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal
Hear, hear!

Thank you, I accept your apology.

Wolverine

17th September 2002, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
These two references have still not been debunked. the Police Federation represent the rank and file police officers, those that actually *do* the work. The second comes from the BBC well known for accuracy and credibility throughout the world.

The first one is the Police Federation magazine and gives evidence from one of their detectives about how a psychic was used and hhow she scored direct hits, particularly in repsect of the nickname. To suggest that either the psychic is involved in the crime or that a secrit police conspiracy operates which gives the info to the psychics on the sly, is so stupid, that any claims to it must furnish extraordinary evidence.
http://www.polfed.org/magazine/12_2..._2001_ghost.htm

The second, demonstrates that the police indeed do use psychics to "help" with their enquiries, and is confirmed by Scotland Yard and the NCF by the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pr.../08/taro9.shtml

Both these examples come from highly credible sources, and as such prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that Hanniball and the Fool are evidently *wrong* in any claim they may have that the police don't use psychics in the UK. Ed has already confirmed that the police use psychics to "help" solve cases in the US, this evidence confirms that the same is true in the UK.

LOL :D For a second, I thought further posting problems with the forum had arisen... now I can see that Luci's record is stuck.

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
We need to rely more and more on physical evidence...

So true. Speaking of which, where's the physical evidence that Cybershaman had anything to do with your gardening success or any of the other nitwit claims of which you spoke? Regardless of the fact you deleted your posts on that ludicrous thread in an effort to cover your tracks, and seem to now be making an attempt to jump on skepticism's bandwagon, your credibility meter still reads a fat zero.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...many who call themselves 'skeptics' here, are, in fact, pseudo-skeptics, relgious zealots, control freaks and sufferers of clinical denial

Wow Luci, I have to agree with you on this one, simply because...

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...like myself and other fellow skeptics here...

... you made an oustandingly accurate self-diagnosis.

Lucianarchy

17th September 2002, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Wolverine

LOL :D For a second, I thought further posting problems with the forum had arisen... now I can see that Luci's record is stuck.

Those references have yet to be debunked. This is why you like to throw insults around, in the hope that the attention can be drawn away from the FACT no one has provided any more credible references than those from the BBC and The Police Federation. No flaws have been demonstrated. Repeat, *no one* has provided more credible sources other than the BBC or the Police Federation. Both demonstrate that the police work *WITH* psychics in a positive way, and *both* demonstrate that Hannibal has been mislead or misinfomed in his claim:

"They may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " - Hannibal
[/B][/QUOTE]

Lucianarchy

17th September 2002, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by chessmanskeptic
I think the police should stop trying to rely on psychics for finding people. The idea is just nonsense. Why this is even debatable is out of the question. Face it, psychics are not god with finding people, and most of them are quacks in the first place. No psychic has won Randi's challenge yet!

I am a fellow skeptic, like your self. I agree, there are a lot of fraudsters and scam artists out there looking to roll a few rubes before lunch, but if you remain skeptical and look at *all* the evidence, and be honest enough and open minded enough to be skeptical of claims from wherever they come, including those who call themselves 'skeptic', then you are sometimes left with data which just won't simply be 'debunked' away by making loud shouting noises. The claim of some here is that the police

"may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " "

Which given the references from the BBC and the Police Federation - see the links at the first post in the thread - is demonstrably and quite evidently, wrong. BTW (a) there is plenty of evidence to suggest that some remote viewing works - look at the SAIC experiments and the replications by PEAR. (b) Why would anyone who understands the importance of the scientific method and independant peer review take a mere challenge? These people go to proper labs where magicians and scientists can look at these effect in an unbiased and independantly peer reviewed manner. Maybe Randi does a good job of weeding out the scammers and self deluded, but when we get to the real interesting stuff, you have to have a conjourers input *together* with independant and unbiased sound scientific methodology.

De_Bunk

17th September 2002, 09:44 AM

Luci...

You a skeptic......dont make me laugh....

You believe anything anyone tells you....as long as it prefers the paranormal....

Skeptic my ass....you already think the paranormal exists...

RichardR

17th September 2002, 09:48 AM

Another public service announcement again:

There is no point in engaging in debate with Lucianarchy because he/she/it simply repeats him/her/itself and ignores valid criticisms/questions he/she/it cannot answer.

darling

17th September 2002, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by RichardR
There is no point in engaging in debate with Lucianarchy because he/she/it simply repeats him/her/itself and ignores valid criticisms/questions he/she/it cannot answer.

... example - asking for 'credible' souces. The definition of 'credible' in this case is 'agrees with me'.

Hannibal

18th September 2002, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Thank you, I accept your apology.

What apology?

I was using humour to make a point - I was NOT expecting that to be taken as a 100% official guide to dealing with "psychics". For believing you were inteliigent enough to differentiate I apologise.

Oh....THAT one. Your welcome...good to see you recognise your own stupidity. That is the first step to curing yourself.

There is no point in engaging in debate with Lucianarchy because he/she/it simply repeats him/her/itself and ignores valid criticisms/questions he/she/it cannot answer.

Never a truer word spoken. I am now going to stop feeding this Troll. I have already proven it to be full of poop and the entire board agrees with me. The truly sad thing is this troll fails to realise what a complete joke it is seen as.

Oh to be that blissfully stupid.....

Lucianarchy

18th September 2002, 12:50 AM

There are a lot of fraudsters and scam artists out there looking to roll a few rubes before lunch, but if you remain skeptical and look at *all* the evidence, and be honest enough and open minded enough to be skeptical of claims from wherever they come, including those who call themselves 'skeptic', then you are sometimes left with data which just won't simply be 'debunked' away by making loud shouting noises. The claim of Hannibal is that the police

"may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " "

Which given the references from the BBC and the Police Federation, (no one has provided a more credible source - see the links at the first post in the thread) Hannibal's claim is demonstrably, factualy and quite evidently, completely wrong.

Hannibal

18th September 2002, 12:52 AM

Answered this one, won't again, shut the feck up...

Have a nice day!

RonSceptic

18th September 2002, 12:56 AM

Luci wants an apology. Ok I am happy to provide one as follows....

A few post back I described Luci as a 'crackpot'. I realise now that the comment was totaly unfair and must have caused great distress to crackpots the world over.

So to all you crackpots out there I am truly sorry for associating you with Luci.

Luci is in a class of it's own when it comes to dimwitted naivety.

Lucianarchy

18th September 2002, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal
Answered this one, won't again, shut the feck up...

Have a nice day!

You haven't answered with verifiable facts at all, you've just provided your personal opinion, based on obviously limited or ill infomed data, this much is proven through the BBC and The Police Fed, and I tend to put these sources way above the perosnal opinion of someone who claims to be a copper and posts with an avatar which alludes to a serial killer!

chrisjt

18th September 2002, 01:10 AM

"I was a member of the Jackie Poole Murder Squad throughout the original 15-month investigation. Within a few days of the incident, a colleague and I were assigned to visit 22-year old Christine Holohan at her council house in South Ruislip, after she had telephoned to offer information.Her call omitted to mention her belief that her source of information was the dead victim."

And this is the best evidence that the police do use psychics?

Hannibal

18th September 2002, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

You haven't answered with verifiable facts at all, you've just provided your personal opinion, based on obviously limited or ill infomed data, this much is proven through the BBC and The Police Fed, and I tend to put these sources way above the perosnal opinion of someone who claims to be a copper and posts with an avatar which alludes to a serial killer!

Again. already answered all these points, won't again...learn to read..shut the feck up...have a nice day!

Lucianarchy

18th September 2002, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by chrisjt
"I was a member of the Jackie Poole Murder Squad throughout the original 15-month investigation. Within a few days of the incident, a colleague and I were assigned to visit 22-year old Christine Holohan at her council house in South Ruislip, after she had telephoned to offer information.Her call omitted to mention her belief that her source of information was the dead victim."

And this is the best evidence that the police do use psychics?

No, just some of the available evidence from credible sources. Aside form accusing the woman of being involved in a joint police conspiracy or accusing her of being involved in the crime, what is your mundane explanation for her providing the correct nickname and her accuracy in reading the police officer's change of job?

Hannibal

18th September 2002, 01:46 AM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................................

Brickroad

18th September 2002, 01:58 AM

The thought of me or one of my loved ones being falsely accused and convicted on evidence presented by a psychic scares the bejesus out of me, but not as much as the fact that folks like Lucianarchy would be cheering at my trial.

I'm glad that my country's judicial system is designed to protect me from such nonsense.

Hmm... I wonder if I spelled "bejesus" correctly. :)

Ceinwyn

18th September 2002, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

You haven't answered with verifiable facts at all, you've just provided your personal opinion, based on obviously limited or ill infomed data, this much is proven through the BBC and The Police Fed, and I tend to put these sources way above the perosnal opinion of someone who claims to be a copper and posts with an avatar which alludes to a serial killer!

Wow.

I'm a newbie here, and even I realize when the bell rings and the party's over.

Lucianarchy is a troll, pure and simple. Keep replying, he'll give you more.

Why waste your time?

Lothian

18th September 2002, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

No, just some of the available evidence from credible sources. Aside form accusing the woman of being involved in a joint police conspiracy or accusing her of being involved in the crime, what is your mundane explanation for her providing the correct nickname and her accuracy in reading the police officer's change of job?

I know nothing about the case but would guess luck. What is your mundane explanation for the fact that psychics could not provide useful information in respect of the two girls from Soham and numerous other cases of missing children. What is your mundane explanation for the reasons that the information that psychics produce is so vague. If the messages come from the deceased why do they not give names and addresses when the victims clearly know them. What is your mundane explanation for the fact that we insist on using Juries when according to you Psychics clearly know the answer. What is your mundane explanation for conflicting information provided by psychics. What is your mundane explanation for repeatedly posting the same trite.

Ove

18th September 2002, 04:00 AM

What is your mundane explanation for repeatedly posting the same trite.

Like i said: Manic Depression. Only problem is that Luci (like most other ga-ga's) believes that it is everybody else that are crazy and he/she/it is normal. ;)

RonSceptic

18th September 2002, 05:07 AM

Luci,

I saw this and thought of you.....

The Woo Woo Credo (http://watchingyou.com/woowoo.html)

Hannibal

18th September 2002, 05:11 AM

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!:D :D :D

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!:D :D :D

Lucianarchy

18th September 2002, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by Lothian

I know nothing about the case but would guess luck.

You know nothing about the case, but would rather make wild guesess? Well to have had a 'lucky' guess in getting that particular nickname would be pushing 'luck' to a ridiculous degree, it was "Pokie", a very, very, uncommon nickname, but she gave this name to the police.

But there's more to this 'luck'...

"During the course of the investigation, we received several calls from people offering their services as psychics, but they talked nonsense. Christine was exceptional. We were never to find the remotest connection between her and anyone who could have told her all that she seemed to know. In theory, and given nough time and resources, she could have collected much of her information through contact with the actual killer or someone in whom he confided, and with the victim’s relatives and friends, and also with Murder Squad officers. I collated every statement and document throughout the 1983-4 investigation. However bizarre the conclusion, the only single source of all her knowledge had to be the victim. If any lesson is to be learnt, it is that one should not dismiss the possibilities out of hand. [...]

[...]Christine then described three different aspects of his (a police officer's ) 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. "