Diane Lazarus - Psychic Challenge 'winner' - Dishonest

[chillzero]

OK, Many of you may remember my having a hissy fit a while back about Diane Lazarus, the 'winner' of "Britain's Psychic Challenge". She was involved in the family's search for a Northern Irish youth, and I took a closer look at her website. On one page : http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/letters.php she includes correspondence.

One letter is from the garda about a case in 1999, when it claims that Diane's "assistance greatly enhanced our investigation".

Another letter is from the Midlands police. Their DC Daly mentions that although Diane was helfpul in searching in Birmingham, the young man they sought was actually found dead in Coventry. Nevertheless she is impressed by whatever Diane had to say.

I emailed both forces to ask about the truth of these letters.

I have still had no response from the garda, but Midlands police responded very much to Diane Lazarus's detriment. The person who emailed me also copied me a letter from the Head of Major Investigations, which I have included below. Should the Irish garda ever return to me, I will add their comments to this thread.

As for the emails:
my request:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I have been intrigued by a recent UK television series on Channel Five, entitled ‘Britain’s Psychic Challenge’ which has asserted that police forces routinely use such ‘psychics’ to assist in solving crimes. The winner, a lady called Diane Lazarus includes a letter on her website from the West Midlands' Detective Constable Marcella Daly (http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/invest_1.php).

In this letter D.C.Daly thanks Ms Lazarus for her assistance, and then states: "Personally I have learnt a great deal from you, and will take those new skills forward when dealing with other cases. I am most grateful for your time and I will always consider other methods in trying to find that piece of missing evidence."

I am very interested in finding out more details about the use of psychics in the police force, and what the success rates have been. If you could pass this email to anyone who could give me more information about this particular case I would be very appreciative. I am intrigued to find out how much information about the murderer, who has apprently been brought to justice, matched what Ms Lazarus detailed. Apparently Mark's body was found in Coventry on the 7th June 2002. Can you let me know if this was due to any information provided by Ms Lazarus?

Additionally, would it be possible for you to provide details of where, when and at what public cost other such psychics have been used - if at all - within your force’s jurisdiction? If psychics have been used, might I ask whether their input was useful?

I look forward to your response,

Response:
Your request for information, received 21 March 2006, concerning the uuse of psychics in West Midlands Police has now been considered.

I am afraid that Marcella Daly no longer works for West Midlands Police and so I cannot provide any further information regarding the page on Diane Lazarus' website. Indeed I am unable to verify the validity or provenance of that letter.

Unfortunately, the officer in charge of the case referred to on Diane Lazarus' website has subsequently retired. I was, however, able to speak to another officer who worked with the case quite closely. He states without any doubt that no psychic was used to locate the body (the method of discovery was much more mundane).

In respect of the use of psychics by West Midlands Police, please find attached to this email an extract from a recent letter by the Head of our Major Investigations Unit.

My questions from my original email:
Would it be possible for you to provide details of where, when and at what
public cost other such psychics have been used - if at all - within your force’s
jurisdiction? If psychics have been used, might I ask whether their input was
useful?

Response:
Extract from a recent letter from David Mirfield, Head of West Midlands Police Major Investigations Unit (MIU):
As head of the West Midlands Police Major Investigation Unit (MIU) we are the
team commissioned to tackle the majority of murder investigations within our force area.
We use a variety of specialists to assist the Department during investigations; some are within the team itself while others are experts employed on a consultancy basis.
The use of psychics is not a common practice and we do not have what you may call a regular contributor.
I have consulted with all of my senior investigating officers (SIO's), and none can recall using such a person. I have personally received letters on an unsolicited basis from individuals claiming to have information; often these are of little if any value and will not be acted upon.
They can often be misleading and inconsistent with the facts. The investigation of murder is, like all major crimes, merely a systematic approach using standard procedures in a methodical way. They are often complex processes using multiple and concurrent lines of enquiry but again like all crimes the police rely heavily on information it receives, most often from eyewitnesses, other witnesses, and technical and scientific support. We also work very closely with the families of the deceased, this is a sensitive area and often information given by well meaning individuals can cause hurt and often disappointment to the family.
I would never say never as far as the investigation of murder is concerned and of course all information received is treated in the same way and processed through the 'system'. I am not personally aware of any occasion where the use of a psychic has resulted in the detection of a murder.

Now, finding missing people is supposed to be Diane's specialty, and she claims that: "its said by DJ's that she's 98-100% accurate and one amazing lady !!!"
Another new claim on the site since her victory on tv is:"She has worked with both media and police, and has given guided information on several high profile investigations including the Jill Dando murder." I will also be looking into this claim, and will put any results here too. She has a new tv series coming up, and will be having her autobiography written by the same woman who wrote Doris Stoke's biography (not my error - that's what the site says - autobiography).
It's becoming very apparent to me that she is going to be able to use this last program as a major step up to a lucrative career. I would just prefer to see careers built on a foundation of honesty and integrity.

[Zep]

Bravo! Well done! And good on the Midlands Police for stating it clearly too!

Perhaps copies of this correspondence should find its way to (1) the author and publishers of the pending autobiography ;); (2) the media, and (3) the "psychic" in question. She still has time to back out...or find an excuse to become a hermit or something! :)

[CFLarsen]

Bravo! Well done! And good on the Midlands Police for stating it clearly too!

Perhaps copies of this correspondence should find its way to (1) the author and publishers of the pending autobiography ;); (2) the media, and (3) the "psychic" in question.

Or me (http://www.skepticreport.com).

Hint, hint, chillzero....

[Mojo]

Another new claim on the site since her victory on tv is:"She has worked with both media and police, and has given guided information on several high profile investigations including the Jill Dando murder." Saying that she has "given guided information" is so vague as to be essentially meaningless. It could be taken as simply meaning that she phoned the police and told them something. I'm sure that the police get a few crank calls whenever there's a high profile case.

[Oleron]

Nice one, Chilly. I still haven't heard any response from the Garda press office to my queries about Lazarus.

Maybe it's time I sent them a reminder...

[Oleron]

Reminder sent.

[The Don]

... and will be having her autobiography written by the same woman who wrote Doris Stoke's biography (not my error - that's what the site says - autobiography).
It's being ghost-written

[Zep]

It's being ghost-writtenSTOP! NOW!

Before the puns drown the thread!








Good one though, Don! :D

[valis]

It's being ghost-written

And her TV show will be channeled.

[arthwollipot]

Nice try, Zep.

[CFLarsen]

And has a remote...viewer....

[arthwollipot]

Please. Kill me now, before it gets worse.

[Oleron]

Got a reply from the Garda, see this (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=18.75) page for details.

It's quite a "maybe we do, maybe we don't" kind of answer but the case remains unsolved nevertheless.

Think about that - if you were a psychic, would you post a letter from a unsolved case on your website? I would suggest that an honest psychic would not.

[Mojo]

Think about that - if you were a psychic, would you post a letter from a unsolved case on your website? I would suggest that an honest psychic would not.I certainly wouldn't have thought an intelligent psychic would be boasting about helping with unsolved cases!

[Zep]

Nice try, Zep.Please. Kill me now, before it gets worse.*SIGH* Sometimes you win, and sometimes... :rolleyes:

[John Jackson]

I certainly wouldn't have thought an intelligent psychic would be boasting about helping with unsolved cases!
They don't have a lot of choice considering that not one of them has ever actually solved a case. :D

[Kelly]

Thanks to the UK folks for doing such a great job with these scammers!

[chillzero]

Or me (http://www.skepticreport.com).

Hint, hint, chillzero....

Mr Larsen, you are certainly free to use this information as you see fit.
:D

... as is anyone else here. I'll add any further information I manage to glean as it arrives. I have emailed the Metropolitan Police about her claim about Jill Dando's case. Disgusting publicity whoring, if it's the same kind of response as above.

Very disappointed not have received anything more concrete from the garda, but at least you finally got a response - I've sent reminders too, and so far nothing.

[CFLarsen]

Mr Larsen, you are certainly free to use this information as you see fit.
:D


That's not what I meant, and you know it. :)

But, maybe I will....

[Azrael 5]

That Jill Dando case had more psychics involve dthan Police.Here's is Mia Dolan's claim
Due to the accuracy of her readings, she has been called to the scenes of criminal investigations, including the murders of Jill Dando and Rachel Nickell, .
http://www.harpercollins.com.au/global_scripts/product_catalog/author_xml.asp?authorid=uk_1522

Called to the scene! No ambiguity there.

[Luke T.]

That Jill Dando case had more psychics involve dthan Police.Here's is Mia Dolan's claim
.
http://www.harpercollins.com.au/global_scripts/product_catalog/author_xml.asp?authorid=uk_1522

Called to the scene! No ambiguity there.

Called to the scene by whom? Reporters? Family members? The dear departed? Aliens?

Called to the scene when? Shortly after the police arrived? A week later? Five minutes before this was written?

Lots and lots of ambiguity built in.

[Azrael 5]

Called to the scene by whom? Reporters? Family members? The dear departed? Aliens?

Called to the scene when? Shortly after the police arrived? A week later? Five minutes before this was written?

Lots and lots of ambiguity built in.

Sorry Luke,you're right.Posted in a rush.Further research discovers she was "called to the scene" by the Daily Mail.;)

[Temp3st]

Sorry Luke,you're right.Posted in a rush.Further research discovers she was "called to the scene" by the Daily Mail.;)

...ah the Daily Mail.

If I'm not mistaken it is the last bastion of truth left in this country!

Every psychic investigator I read about seems to have been involved in the Jill Dando case. I wonder if we could keep a record of every liar who claims to have received information about Jill from the great beyond.
How frustrating it must be for them to know that the real killer was found without any mystical interference from the ‘other side’.

[CFLarsen]

...ah the Daily Mail.

If I'm not mistaken it is the last bastion of truth left in this country!

I sense a touch of irony here. I'm cool with that.

But, if not the Daily Mail, just what media can be trusted?

Oh, just the top 10, world wide.

[Azrael 5]

Real killer,Tempest ,or scapegoat?
The Mail does give a lot of space to woo! ;)

[sat556]

I can't help but wonder how the sceptics who appeared on the program that helped this fraud to her new found fame feel about it. I would feel bad if it was me, that I didn't do more to get my point over or at least refuse to do the show after seeing how it was going.

[Zep]

Mr Larsen, you are certainly free to use this information as you see fit.
:D

... as is anyone else here. I'll add any further information I manage to glean as it arrives. I have emailed the Metropolitan Police about her claim about Jill Dando's case. Disgusting publicity whoring, if it's the same kind of response as above.

Very disappointed not have received anything more concrete from the garda, but at least you finally got a response - I've sent reminders too, and so far nothing.Pssssst! Claus wants you to write an article about this for the Skeptic Report!;)

[CFLarsen]

Pssssst! Claus wants you to write an article about this for the Skeptic Report!;)
Pssssst! He knows! Well, now he does....

[chillzero]

Pssssst! He knows! Well, now he does....

Pssssst! She knows! Well, now she does....

;)

[CFLarsen]

Pssssst! She knows! Well, now she does....

;)
Sorry, didn't check.

(checks)

Oops. You're right.

:)

[RSLancastr]

Sorry, didn't check.

(checks)

Oops. You're right.

:)You're close enough to her to check? :eye-poppi

[joller]

You're close enough to her to check? :eye-poppi

We're talking psychics here...
And has a remote...viewer....
There you go.
Shouldn't be a problem to check .

[CFLarsen]

You're close enough to her to check? :eye-poppi
Remote viewing works.

Oooh, nice Minnie Mouse boxers, dude!

[Luke T.]

Mr Larsen, you are certainly free to use this information as you see fit.
:D

... as is anyone else here. I'll add any further information I manage to glean as it arrives. I have emailed the Metropolitan Police about her claim about Jill Dando's case. Disgusting publicity whoring, if it's the same kind of response as above.

Very disappointed not have received anything more concrete from the garda, but at least you finally got a response - I've sent reminders too, and so far nothing.

This is exactly the sort of stuff that needs to go on psychicpredators, too. It should be an ongoing project to explore their claims, investigate those claims, and publish the results. Statements by police agencies on the site would be invaluable.

Good work, cabby! Uh, chillzero.

[CptColumbo]

Is Lazarus actually her name? Is it a coincidence like a DA named Justice, or a cop named Bullit?

[tkingdoll]

Is Lazarus actually her name? Is it a coincidence like a DA named Justice, or a cop named Bullit?
it's her married name.

[Big Les]

That's Traffic Control...

[chillzero]

I'll let these emails speak for themselves:

From me, to South Wales Police:
Hello,

I hope you can help me gather some information. I am pulling together some information on two fronts :

I am looking into the use of psychics by police forces n the UK. I would like to know how often psychics are used by your police force. Can you give me any examples of verifiable information provided by them that helped solve a case? How much money is invested in using psychics?

The other information I would like to ask about concerns one psychic in particular. Diane Lazarus claims on her website that you reopened the case of Muriel Drinkwater based on information provided by her. She also claims that you were checking the DNA of a suspect based on her input. Can you verify any of these claims? Was anyone convicted for this murder, and if so wasa it based on what Diane had to tell you? Did she give you any specific information that was verified as the case was completed? I understand that she was working with detective sergeant Peter Hall. Would he be available to comment on this case at all?

I look forward to receiving your response,

Their response (finally)
Dear ****,
I write in connection with your request for
information dated 14th April
2006, concerning use of psychics. Your request for information has
now been considered and the response is
as follows :

I have spoken to the Senior Investigating Officer dealing with the Muriel
Drinkwater murder (1946). He has no recollection of South Wales Police
ever using a psychic on any murder enquiry over the last 30 years,
including that of Muriel Drinkwater. South Wales Police have had
no dealings with the named Diane Lazarus and
can confirm that the statements you allege she has made on her website are
untrue. Peter Hall was a Sergeant with South Wales Police and has
since retired.

I have replied to ask if they will be taking steps to have the incorrect information removed.

[Zep]

The wheel grinds slow, but it grinds very fine... ;)

[Meffy]

*salute* Well done.

[tkingdoll]

Good work chilly!

I hope the police do write to her to ask her to remove the information. It might be worth contact their Public Relations department seperately with a copy of the correspondence, unless that's who you're already talking to.

[Azrael 5]

I have emailed the radio station where she has a regular slot.Lets see if they reply.

[Azrael 5]

I have recieved a reply from Wave radio in Wales,specifically Chris Blumer whose show she appears on.
Hi John

I am sorry to hear that you are not a fan of Diane, as you would expect from a psychic show there are people like yourself who don't like or believe in this sort of thing as well as people who are massive fans. The figures for this show are fantastic so as you will appreciate until the figures go down I won't be changing anything.

Thanks for the interest.

Chris.



My reply:There is no evidence for "this kind of thing",when there is I'll
believe.Please take a look at this website and maybe ask Diane why she
doesn't apply http://www.randi.org/research/index.html (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) .
What has listening figures got to do with anything? Tell people enough
rubbish and they will believe unless they are educated differently.As
someone in the media ,maybe you should attempt to educate people.Put
something in a sealed box today and next time you see her she will "know"
what is in it won't she? If she is psychic she will.But she isnt.
Do feel free to contact me with some evidence for psychic phenomenon,or
arrange for me to speak to her on air.I'll soon show she isnt a medium or
psychic.
Regards
Maybe I should contact the station controller next?

[RSLancastr]

Well, give Mr. Blumer credit for honesty: nothing matters to him but the ratings.

[tkingdoll]

Azrael, ask him if he is comfortable having a proven liar on his show...

[rjh01]

Or maybe they should say at the start of the show 'The information provided on this show is for entertainment purposes only.'

[Azrael 5]

Azrael, ask him if he is comfortable having a proven liar on his show...

Ok.Just done that.;)

[Interesting Ian]

Thanks to the UK folks for doing such a great job with these scammers!

Are you claiming that Diane Lazarus is a scammer? I assume you have watched the programme "psychic challenge" carefully in coming to your conclusion? It seems to me that unless there was collaboration with the people who produced these programmes, a reasonable person is compelled to conclude that anomalous abilities were employed. Thus I am curious as to how you conclude otherwise.

[tkingdoll]

Are you claiming that Diane Lazarus is a scammer? I assume you have watched the programme "psychic challenge" carefully in coming to your conclusion? It seems to me that unless there was collaboration with the people who produced these programmes, a reasonable person is compelled to conclude that anomalous abilities were employed. Thus I am curious as to how you conclude otherwise.

Have you read chillzero's posts? Diane Lazarus has lied on her website about her involvement with the police in an attempt to increase her own credibility and therefore financial value. She's deliberately deceiving the public in order to make money. If that's not scamming, nothing is.

[Interesting Ian]

Have you read chillzero's posts?



Well the opening post of the thread. I've only read the first few posts of the thread so far.



Diane Lazarus has lied on her website about her involvement with the police in an attempt to increase her own credibility and therefore financial value.



Eh? She's lied?? I hope you can substantiate your claim? What's she lied about? Nothing in chillzero's opening post indicates she's lied.



She's deliberately deceiving the public in order to make money. If that's not scamming, nothing is.

Do you have any evidence to back this allegation up?

[tkingdoll]

Read the thread, Ian.

[Interesting Ian]

Read the thread, Ian.


I can't be bothered with the hysterical anti-paranormal rants. Could you point me to what you feel is a relevant post?

[tkingdoll]

I can't be bothered with the hysterical anti-paranormal rants. Could you point me to what you feel is a relevant post?

If you can't be bothered to read the entire thread then what makes you qualified to comment on its content?

Or perhaps you think that cherry-picking the content you like the look of is the proper way to research?

Either way, you're going to have to do the work yourself.

[Interesting Ian]

If you can't be bothered to read the entire thread then what makes you qualified to comment on its content?



I'm commenting on what I had read so far in the thread. If subsequent posts vindicate Kelly's position this would do nothing to justify what she? said at that time.



Or perhaps you think that cherry-picking the content you like the look of is the proper way to research?

Either way, you're going to have to do the work yourself.

Cynical person that I am, you should be aware that I might suspect that you are unable to point to any such post.

[tkingdoll]

Cynical person that I am, you should be aware that I might suspect that you are unable to point to any such post.

Then you're making a fool of yourself.

[alfaniner]

Ian, how about reading a few more posts before replying? Or do you read one chapter of a book and mail the publishers "Wow! I wonder what's gonna happen next!"

[Jocky]

Ian,

You've misrepresented Chillzero and annoyed teek into the bargain :mad: but since you can't be bothered to read it and I want to give you a chance to apologise, here is the relevant passage from Chilly's OP:

Extract from a recent letter from David Mirfield, Head of West Midlands Police Major Investigations Unit (MIU):
[snip]
The use of psychics is not a common practice and we do not have what you may call a regular contributor.
I have consulted with all of my senior investigating officers (SIO's), and none can recall using such a person. I have personally received letters on an unsolicited basis from individuals claiming to have information; often these are of little if any value and will not be acted upon. They can often be misleading and inconsistent with the facts. [snip] I am not personally aware of any occasion where the use of a psychic has resulted in the detection of a murder.

OK, the word you're looking for now is "sorry" :cool:

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,

You've misrepresented Chillzero and annoyed teek into the bargain :mad: but since you can't be bothered to read it and I want to give you a chance to apologise, here is the relevant passage from Chilly's OP:



OK, the word you're looking for now is "sorry" :cool:

I don't understand how this is relevant. How do we go from that to concluding Diane Lazarus is a scammer?

[Flo]

I don't understand how this is relevant. How do we go from that to concluding Diane Lazarus is a scammer?

Go back read the whole thread and stop proving everybody why your name should be "Un-interesting-Ian" :rolleyes:

[tkingdoll]

Go back read the whole thread and stop proving everybody why your name should be "Un-interesting-Ian" :rolleyes:

I predict that Ian will go and read the whole thread, then declare that it does not prove anything.

I'm saying this upfront in the hope that it will actually stop it happening. I'm like a reverse psychic :D

[chillzero]

I predict that Ian will go and read the whole thread, then declare that it does not prove anything.

I'm saying this upfront in the hope that it will actually stop it happening. I'm like a reverse psychic :D

nice tactic, teek!

:D

[Jocky]

*sigh*

1. Look at this (http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/invest_1.php)

2. Now read Chilly's OP. Properly.

3. Reach a reasoned judgement about whether the facts supplied by the senior Police officer tally with the claim implicit in the correspondance with a constable on Diane Lazarus' website.

4. Apologise

[Interesting Ian]

I can't help but wonder how the sceptics who appeared on the program that helped this fraud to her new found fame



What evidence is there that she's a fraud?




feel about it. I would feel bad if it was me, that I didn't do more to get my point over or at least refuse to do the show after seeing how it was going.

Wow! Incredible.

They wouldn't be allowed to do that anyway would they? You can't agree to participate in the programme but stipulate that the programme should not be shown should the results be positive!

I do agree they should make every effort to put the skeptical point of view as forcefully as possible. I thought they did a reasonable enough job though.

[chillzero]

*sigh*

1. Look at this (http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/invest_1.php)

2. Now read Chilly's OP. Properly.

3. Reach a reasoned judgement about whether the facts supplied by the senior Police officer tally with the claim implicit in the correspondance with a constable on Diane Lazarus' website.

4. Apologise

I may be wrong, but I think Teek was referring more specifically to post 38 on this thread, than the OP.
I am currently waiting for a further phone call from my contact to discuss whether the police will take steps to have the untrue statements removed from Ms Lazarus's website.
I'll let you know.

[Jocky]

I do agree they should make every effort to put the skeptical point of view as forcefully as possible. I thought they did a reasonable enough job though.

If Randi's idea of a reasonable job was the same as yours, he'd have been a million poorer years ago :)

[Interesting Ian]

What evidence is there that she's a fraud?



Wow! Incredible.

They wouldn't be allowed to do that anyway would they? You can't agree to participate in the programme but stipulate that the programme should not be shown should the results be positive!


And it's good that skeptics participated in the programme because hopefully they should be in a reasonable position to ensure that no cheating is going on. And it makes it more persuasive if positive results are still achieved.

[chillzero]

Oh ***!
I realised I had omitted the link and text from my email to the police and went back to check it (http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/about.php).

She has updated her wording. It now says:
"Diane recently re-investigated the murder of twelve year old Muriel Drinkwater, a case that was closed fifty years ago. She was able to describe the child's final walk home from school, her rape and the shooting by a "friend". She identified the murderer as an old man living in Wales and police re-opened the file. DNA testing is currently being carried out."

It originally said the DNA testing was based on her information. Does anyone have that tool thing to find old versions of web pages? She has also included some new claims about the great things she has done (there's a claim about the Mary Rose, for example), and yet - to make it look like the page has been untouched, perhaps - they left in the following: "She produces her own theatre show annually this year at the 1000+ seated Grand theatre in Swansea on the 29 June 2004."

I'll keep following up, but if anyone has the old page cached, I'd appreciate it.

(Or perhaps the South Wales Police have already been on to her).

[Interesting Ian]

Diane Lazarus claims on her website that you reopened the case of Muriel Drinkwater based on information provided by her.

Where does she state this precisely?

[Interesting Ian]

Where does she state this precisely?

I didn't see chillzero's post before I sent this.

[Interesting Ian]

Oh ***!
I realised I had omitted the link and text from my email to the police and went back to check it (http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/about.php).

She has updated her wording. It now says:
"Diane recently re-investigated the murder of twelve year old Muriel Drinkwater, a case that was closed fifty years ago. She was able to describe the child's final walk home from school, her rape and the shooting by a "friend". She identified the murderer as an old man living in Wales and police re-opened the file. DNA testing is currently being carried out."

It originally said the DNA testing was based on her information. Does anyone have that tool thing to find old versions of web pages? She has also included some new claims about the great things she has done (there's a claim about the Mary Rose, for example), and yet - to make it look like the page has been untouched, perhaps - they left in the following: "She produces her own theatre show annually this year at the 1000+ seated Grand theatre in Swansea on the 29 June 2004."

I'll keep following up, but if anyone has the old page cached, I'd appreciate it.

(Or perhaps the South Wales Police have already been on to her).

Google cache won't be any use?

[Jocky]

may be wrong, but I think Teek was referring more specifically to post 38 on this thread

Correction noted - sorry.

The reference to your OP still stands though - she misrepresents her relationship with West Midlands Police too.

Where does she state this precisely?

You din't read chilly's last post either, did you :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

You din't read chilly's last post either, did you :rolleyes:

It wasn't there before I composed my post. It only appeared after I had submitted my post.

[Jocky]

Fair enough, that can happen to anyone.

Now you've read it, what do you think?

[Mojo]

She has updated her wording. It now says:
"Diane recently re-investigated the murder of twelve year old Muriel Drinkwater, a case that was closed fifty years ago. She was able to describe the child's final walk home from school, her rape and the shooting by a "friend". She identified the murderer as an old man living in Wales and police re-opened the file. DNA testing is currently being carried out."

It originally said the DNA testing was based on her information. The sentence "she identified the murderer as an old man living in Wales and police re-opened the file" certainly implies a causal relationship.

Did she actually suggest a name, or is she suggesting that the police are DNA testing every old man in Wales?

Does anyone have that tool thing to find old versions of web pages? Wayback machine didn't appear to be working (at least for this site) when I tried it, and Google's cache has the current version.

[chillzero]

I tried Google Cache, and the version date there is 2 weeks after I sent my email.

I'm so annoyed at myself - most unlike me to have omitted relevant references like that.

[tkingdoll]

I tried Google Cache, and the version date there is 2 weeks after I sent my email.

I'm so annoyed at myself - most unlike me to have omitted relevant references like that.

For future projects, it might be useful to keep an offline version of any webpage you reference, just in case of this sort of thing.

You can simply File>Save As, or add to your favourites as an offline version (just make sure your browser doesn't automatically update offline pages).

ETA: on second thoughts, the safest way to guarantee it doesn't get updated it to do the Save As thing rather than the favourites thing.

[chillzero]

For future projects, it might be useful to keep an offline version of any webpage you reference, just in case of this sort of thing.

You can simply File>Save As, or add to your favourites as an offline version (just make sure your browser doesn't automatically update offline pages).

ETA: on second thoughts, the safest way to guarantee it doesn't get updated it to do the Save As thing rather than the favourites thing.

Thanks for that.
I wish I'd read that before I sent my email to the Mary Rose Trust, asking about their version of how she challenged them about a boat sinking.

I've decided to stop beating myself up about it anyway, because the gist of what the page now says, still stands close enough to be refuted by the response from the police.

[Azrael 5]

Im going to email Air Ambulance rescue service as they are another company that have "requested her help".

No reply from Radio Wave as yet.

ETA; From link below.Bolding is mine for obvious reasons.
At the age of eight Diane Lazarus (known to many as Diane Lloyd-Hughes) first experienced the power of her amazing gift by seeing, hearing and speaking to spirits and since then Diane has learned to control her gift and can switch on and off at will. Today she is rated in the top five professional practitioners in the sphere of non physical science, worldwide
http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/about.php

[Interesting Ian]

Oh ***!
I realised I had omitted the link and text from my email to the police and went back to check it (http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/about.php).


I can't get that link.



She has updated her wording. It now says:
"Diane recently re-investigated the murder of twelve year old Muriel Drinkwater, a case that was closed fifty years ago. She was able to describe the child's final walk home from school, her rape and the shooting by a "friend". She identified the murderer as an old man living in Wales and police re-opened the file. DNA testing is currently being carried out."



So she's saying the police reopened the file because of her investigation. You say the police deny this. Yup someone's lying. How tedious.

For the sake of argument let's assume she's lying and doing so deliberately. It's a hell of a long way from this to concluding she's a fraud!

[tkingdoll]

For the sake of argument let's assume she's lying and doing so deliberately. It's a hell of a long way from this to concluding she's a fraud!

By using the names of police departments, she is giving credibility and authority to her claims where none exists (presuming the police are telling the truth and not her). That credibility and authority will contribute to her chances of being hired as a professional psychic, for which she will accept payment.

That is fraudulent. Obtaining money by deception.

[Azrael 5]

If that isn't fraud then surely this must warrant investigation.Its clearly taking money for something for which she cannot prove.
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=14325567%26method=full%26siteid=50082-name_page.html

[Interesting Ian]

By using the names of police departments, she is giving credibility and authority to her claims where none exists (presuming the police are telling the truth and not her). That credibility and authority will contribute to her chances of being hired as a professional psychic, for which she will accept payment.

That is fraudulent. Obtaining money by deception.

I agree that if true this is reprehensible. But by fraud I meant charlatan. In other words the total absence of any anomalous abilities.

[Azrael 5]

I agree that if true this is reprehensible. But by fraud I meant charlatan. In other words the total absence of any anomalous abilities.

She hasn't proved that she has any,so we must assume she hasn't got any.

[tkingdoll]

I agree that if true this is reprehensible. But by fraud I meant charlatan. In other words the total absence of any anomalous abilities.

You mean we don't know if she really has any paranormal abilities? I agree, we don't. I wonder if she would allow herself to be tested under controlled conditions?

She hasn't proved that she has any,so we must assume she hasn't got any.

I don't agree with that statement. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Deetee]

Judging by her efforts on "Britain's Psychic Challenge", if Diane is the best this country has to offer up as someone with super-de-duper al la Peter T Hooper psychic powers, it speaks volumes about the nonexistence of paranormal phenomena in general.

[Azrael 5]

I don't agree with that statement. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Basis of probability,then.

[Interesting Ian]

Judging by her efforts on "Britain's Psychic Challenge", if Diane is the best this country has to offer up as someone with super-de-duper al la Peter T Hooper psychic powers, it speaks volumes about the nonexistence of paranormal phenomena in general.

The trouble with skeptics is that they expect far far to much. Psychic abilities generally tend to be weak. I think it's about time skeptics made some attempt to get their heads around this fact. Given that they are weak, then the anomalous abilities demonstrated by these individuals were incredibly impressive (assuming no cheating was going on). I for one was extremely surprised and impressed.

[Hellbound]

The trouble with skeptics is that they expect far far to much. Psychic abilities generally tend to be weak. I think it's about time skeptics made some attempt to get their heads around this fact. Given that they are weak, then the anomalous abilities demonstrated by these individuals were incredibly impressive (assuming no cheating was going on). I for one was extremely surprised and impressed.

If we expect too much, it's because we're continuously promised more than we expect.

The expectations of sceptics are barely a tenth of the claims made by various practitioners of this fraud.

So where ware your posts decrying the exaggerated claims made by "psychics"? Where are your posts telling the mediums to quick making absurb claims about their abilities, and come clean? Where are your lectures to those who claim to be able to do anything, and take money based on those expectations, yet really only have 'weak' powers?

And this isn't a case of claiming to lift 150lbs when you can only lift 125. It's a matter of claiming to be able to play catch with a 747, and you need both hands to lift a toothpick.

Bu||$hit.

You don't believe psychic powers are 'weak'; you just want another argument you can throw at skeptics to keep trying to pick away at those more intelligent than you. It's another desperation tactic by you to paint those who don't agree with your delusions as the deluded ones. Your internal logic is inconsistent, in that you'll defend charlatans that claim outrageous success for 'weak' powers, then turn around and decry those who expect these people to live up to what they claim.

You are an ignorant, hypocritical ********* who doesn't have the intelligence to know what he's talking about, the wisdom to learn before speaking, the courage to say what he really means, or the honesty to debate rationally.

[Mojo]

Psychic abilities generally tend to be weak. Why do "psychics" generally suggest otherwise?

[Azrael 5]

What psychic ability should be demonstrable(sp?) with weak power? Lets remember Diane lazarus couldn't identify a pair of shoes in a closed box,yet could find(apparently unaided)hidden people in sand dunes and woods.
Which-going by your theory Ian-should she have been able to do easily? Which of those feats would be practical with weak psi?
Me? I say knowing what's in a closed box.

[EHocking]

Oh ***!
I realised I had omitted the link and text from my email to the police and went back to check it (http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/about.php).

She has updated her wording. It now says:
"Diane recently re-investigated the murder of twelve year old Muriel Drinkwater, a case that was closed fifty years ago. She was able to describe the child's final walk home from school, her rape and the shooting by a "friend". She identified the murderer as an old man living in Wales and police re-opened the file. DNA testing is currently being carried out."

It originally said the DNA testing was based on her information. Does anyone have that tool thing to find old versions of web pages? She has also included some new claims about the great things she has done (there's a claim about the Mary Rose, for example), and yet - to make it look like the page has been untouched, perhaps - they left in the following: "She produces her own theatre show annually this year at the 1000+ seated Grand theatre in Swansea on the 29 June 2004."
Could you give me an idea of the time that this page was from? The results from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/web/*sa_dc_re_/http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/about.php) doesn't have any reference to this case.

[Interesting Ian]

If we expect too much, it's because we're continuously promised more than we expect.



Than have a word with them, not me.



The expectations of sceptics are barely a tenth of the claims made by various practitioners of this fraud.



I'm sorry, what makes you imagine I have any interest whatsoever make by these people? I don't care what they claim, I have no interest. Have a word with them, not me.



So where ware your posts decrying the exaggerated claims made by "psychics"? Where are your posts telling the mediums to quick making absurb claims about their abilities, and come clean? Where are your lectures to those who claim to be able to do anything, and take money based on those expectations, yet really only have 'weak' powers?



It doesn't really interest me. Otherwise I'd talk about ethics on the philosophy forum. Or contribute to the politics forum.

[blutoski]

And this isn't a case of claiming to lift 150lbs when you can only lift 125. It's a matter of claiming to be able to play catch with a 747, and you need both hands to lift a toothpick.

I once saw a chart of paranormal progress, which had a timescale across the bottom, scrolling to the right.

At the leftmost side was stuff like 'creation of the universe, planets, people, beetles... lots of beetles', then in the middle we have 'moving huge limestone blocks to build the pyramids', then on the right we have 'nudging paperclips', and finally 'statistical anomalies in random number generators'. Which appears to be the present state of the art.

[Azrael 5]

Could you give me an idea of the time that this page was from? The results from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/web/*sa_dc_re_/http://www.dianelloyd-hughes.co.uk/about.php) doesn't have any reference to this case.

That software is very good.I noticed these very different accounts.From Feb 2004
The Wales on Sunday newspaper also took me to the scene of the Jill Dando Murder and information was then passed onto the Police to assist them in their enquiries. The police later arrested the person who was recently convicted of her murder.

Now in 2006
She has worked with both media and police, and has given guided information on several high profile investigations including the Jill Dando murder
Not quite the same as working with police is it?

[Jimbo07]

Psychic abilities generally tend to be weak.

So is gravity.


I think it's about time skeptics made some attempt to get their heads around this

G=6.673x10^-11m^3/kgs^2 That's 1 part in 15 billion! The gravitational 'attraction' between 2 - 100 kg people would be only 1 in 1.5 millionth Newtons! :eek:

I'd sooner rely on telekinesis to bring us together!

Care to guess which provides more consistently measurable effects? ;)

[chillzero]

That software is very good.I noticed these very different accounts.From Feb 2004


Now in 2006

Not quite the same as working with police is it?

I noticed that as well.

I'm a bit confused as to why her other updates have not been logged. She definitely updated the site after 'winning' the psychic challenge program. That would have been well after the last indicated update on that software from Feb 2005. It was definitely worded differently before mid-April when I emailed the police to check the info.

Ian - if you remove the ')' that somehow appears at the end of that link, it will work.

[Azrael 5]

I have a feeling Diane Lazarus is a compulsive liar.More news as and when.
She obtained the ability to see into past and future after a convulsion aged 8! So she is insinuating that it is connected to a medical condition?

Also she helps her husband(a QC) with murder cases for court! Isnt this something court should be aware of,and also a little unethical?

[chillzero]

Her predictions about Catherine Zeta Jones haven't changed since Feb 2004.
:D

[Azrael 5]

Her predictions about Catherine Zeta Jones haven't changed since Feb 2004.
:D

Im sure they'll come true eventually! No time scale on them.Isn't it wonderful?! :D

[sat556]

Wow! Incredible.

They wouldn't be allowed to do that anyway would they? You can't agree to participate in the programme but stipulate that the programme should not be shown should the results be positive!

I know I'm a bit late in replying. Maybe I didn't make my point specific enough for Ian. I was not meaning that any sceptics should quit the show should the results be positive, rather that should the protocols be appaling, which they were. You will no doubt disagree, but to me, somebody suggesting something else when the psychic 'missed' is hardly going to give a clear result.
Also, unless the sceptics had already signed a contract for the series before they made the pilot episode, there is no reason why they couldn't have left. I can only speak from my own experiences of this. The set up here may have been different.

[Mojo]

Also she helps her husband(a QC) with murder cases for court! Isnt this something court should be aware of,and also a little unethical?No, he's a solicitor. What her site says is: Diane frequently assists him in his court work and has liased with him on queen's counsel in a number of murder trials.It's a bit difficult to tell exactly what "has liased with him on queen's counsel" means (why can't woos write decent English?), but it sounds a bit like acting as some sort of go-between to me. It could mean anything though. Outdoor clerking? Making the tea?

[John Jackson]

I did a weekly commentary of the programme here: Britain's Psychic Challenge (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/commentary_display.php?d=britains_psychic_challeng e)

My commentary, whilst attempting to be educational, is of course subjective. The quotations and results from the programme displayed in my commentary are as broadcast. I would say, however, that Diane Lazarus, along with the other self-proclaimed psychics, did absolutely nothing in the way of demonstrating psychic ability.

There is only one result in the entire series that was of interest: Diane Lazarus's finding of the body on the beach.

All I can say is: my first line of investigative inquiry would be to check for any collusion with a crew member.

Having said that, I did email Prof. Chris French about the test and he did say (I'm paraphrasing) that neither he nor Philip Escoffey, the other skeptic involved in the programme, detected any cheating going on; although I do not know whether they were actively trying to detect it.

Prof. French did inform me that he had invited Diane Lazarus to undergo formal testing. At first she refused but later showed a possible interest.

I do not know whether further invitations were issued, but no further testing has taken place.

This is the background to Diane Lazarus's claim to fame and is what Interesting Ian is alluding to: a result that was obtained by a TV show!

[Azrael 5]

At first she refused! Brilliant.
Nothing like conforming to type.She can find a body on a beach but not the contents of a cardboard box!
Come Thursday Im going to attempt to get through to the radio show she is on
Apologies for the QC mistake Mojo,saw the word court and QC and fitted the rest to suit! ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Having said that, I did email Prof. Chris French about the test and he did say (I'm paraphrasing) that neither he nor Philip Escoffey, the other skeptic involved in the programme, detected any cheating going on; although I do not know whether they were actively trying to detect it.



You would hope they were trying to ascertain if cheating was occurring. This Philip Escoffey is a highly skilled illusionist! Why else did they wheel him along if not to use his talents to detect any possible cheating?

[sat556]

You would hope they were trying to ascertain if cheating was occurring. This Philip Escoffey is a highly skilled illusionist! Why else did they wheel him along if not to use his talents to detect any possible cheating?

You saw this program if I recall correctly Ian. Wasn't Escoffrey the sceptic present when the mansion place owner practically TOLD one psychic that she should have been thinking of a plane? Or boat? Other way round? Your memory may be better than mine :D
So really, he didn't do a good job there, but could have stepped in and announced that test void? I doubt it. After all, for all the serious test hype, it really wasn't. It was catering to those who already believe.

[Big Les]

What a frustrating individual you are, Ian. I've never seen someone so consistently ignore the content of other's posts, particularly where they are challenged in some way, and especially where outright insults are offered by his challengers (in this case I believe, through frustration at a lack of a coherent, rational response). I also never seen a person online with such an unshakeable sense of his own self-importance and righteousness, apparently based on nothing at all (experience, qualifications, reputation, or even just some checkable references or real evidence).

I'm no psychologist, but it seems to me that Interesting Ian exhibits signs of one of the classic personality disorders, perhaps Borderline or Narcissistic. Evidence is circumstantial and of course virtual in nature...

Anyway, that said, I'll bite; how are we to distinguish between "weak" psychic power and results no better or slightly better than pure chance?

[Interesting Ian]

You saw this program if I recall correctly Ian. Wasn't Escoffrey the sceptic present when the mansion place owner practically TOLD one psychic that she should have been thinking of a plane? Or boat? Other way round?



It's a TV programme isn't it. It's not properly conducted parapsychological research. A lot of the stuff was entirely unimpressive. But a significant minority of it was extremely impressive and would not be able to have been achieved without cheating.

Did cheating occur? I have no idea. But having 2 well known skeptics present who presumably are well aware of the cheating methods that could be employed, but who consider that no cheating was taking place, makes the cheating hypothesis not as plausible as it otherwise would be.

But I don't know. Perhaps cheating was taking place in all the programmes -- at least where the alleged psychics put in impressive performances.

I see no particular reason to simply assume cheating must have taken place though. I understand why people might make such an assumption if they have a certain conception of reality whereby they hold that consciousness is simply a by-product of the brain (if not literally the physical processes in the brain themselves) and that conscious processes simply follow physical processes in the brain. But I have proved elsewhere that such a notion is absurd.

So unlike people on here I don't simply assume cheating must have taken place, although I certainly don't discount the possibility.

[Interesting Ian]

I also never seen a person online with such an unshakeable sense of his own self-importance



We are all important. We are all spiritual beings.


Anyway, that said, I'll bite; how are we to distinguish between "weak" psychic power and results no better or slightly better than pure chance?

When anomalous abilities are present we certainly know about them. But since it is unpredictable as to the precise conditions when they manifest, than the average performance will often not appear to be impressive.

[Mojo]

When anomalous abilities are present we certainly know about them. Such as?

[Deetee]

When anomalous abilities are present we certainly know about them. But since it is unpredictable as to the precise conditions when they manifest, than the average performance will often not appear to be impressive.

We know with 100% predictability when anomalous abilities will not manifest themselves.......under controlled conditions.

[Dr B]

A lot of the stuff was entirely unimpressive. But a significant minority of it was extremely impressive and would not be able to have been achieved without cheating.

Ian. Are you quite sure about the use of the term 'significant' here. I saw no statistical analyses at all so I think your comment is unfounded. To be significant in the true scientific sense of the word - i would need to see some numbers. I think what you really mean is, to you, it was 'striking'. However, as you rightly note, it was a TV show - yet you seem convinced by it. Are you really convinced by the demonstrations or do you just like the message it sends?

As others have stated here, on every episode the so-called psychics performed at the same level as the controls. Indeed, on occasion they performed worse than the controls! Could you explain that? What do you think that means? There is no evidence for the performance you are talking about - and that is an objective fact. Of course, laboratory testing is the way forward - but the way the TV show was set up simply meant that the winner was the one consistently performing at chance and decided on by a judging panel (i.e., not mathematically or statistically). You are aware of these shortcomings I take it? :D

[chillzero]

http://www.archive.org/about/faqs.php#The_Wayback_Machine

Why are there no recent archives in the Wayback Machine?

We do not add pages less than 6 months after they are collected, because of the time delayed donation from Alexa. Updates can take up to 12 months in some cases.

There is no access to files before they appear in the Wayback Machine.


That's why I can't get the last version. I can clarify this in another 6 months or so.
:)

[Dr B]

I would add, that if all of us went on that programme (i.e., skeptics) one of us would also win - with similar chance performance. Winning was based merely on not being the most unimpressive - not on being impressive compared to chance.

Indeed, I would have liked to have seen individual control group member performance. I wonder what the spread of performance was across tasks, I bet it matched the self-claimed psychics...however, thats just a hunch (but one based on prior research, tests, and knolwedge). :eek:

[Interesting Ian]

Ian. Are you quite sure about the use of the term 'significant' here. I saw no statistical analyses at all so I think your comment is unfounded. To be significant in the true scientific sense of the word - i would need to see some numbers.



I'm not using it in the scientific sense. I'm using it in the normal sense. In the good majority of tests at least one of the alleged psychics achieved results which would be unreasonable to attribute to chance.



I think what you really mean is, to you, it was 'striking'.



If I had meant "striking" I would have said it.


However, as you rightly note, it was a TV show - yet you seem convinced by it.


It's a TV programme and I do not know what is really going on. It would be unwise to start believing in ESP merely because of one series of programmes. I assure you that I didn't. I've always believed in psi ever since my earliest recollections.

Although some of the testing was far from satisfactory it seemed on the face of it that some of these people some of the time were giving information that could not be attributed to chance. The fact that skeptics were involved, one of whom is a very skilled illusionist, and they could detect no cheating, suggests that in the absence of any further information it would seem reasonable to take these results at face value.



Are you really convinced by the demonstrations or do you just like the message it sends?


"Convinced"?? I'm absolutely certain that psi exists, but it has little to do with these series of programmes. They just confirm what I already know, and even if it were subsequently revealed that they were all cheating, that wouldn't make any difference to what I already know.



As others have stated here, on every episode the so-called psychics performed at the same level as the controls. Indeed, on occasion they performed worse than the controls! Could you explain that?



Indeed I can. Controls were only used in the minority of cases where none of the alleged psychics did any better than would be expected by chance. So it is scarcely surprising the controls might do better. Also it is worth mentioning that these tests where controls were used and where psychics failed to impress, were precisely those tests where I would not have expected any anomalous abilities to manifest.



the way the TV show was set up simply meant that the winner was the one consistently performing at chance and decided on by a judging panel (i.e., not mathematically or statistically). You are aware of these shortcomings I take it? :D

You really have no idea what you are talking about and clearly did not see these programmes.

[Azrael 5]

Convinced"?? I'm absolutely certain that psi exists,

This may be a dumb question or indeed already answered on this board sometime,but Ian what evidence leads you to your conclusion?

[westphalia]

The trouble with skeptics is that they expect far far to much. Psychic abilities generally tend to be weak. I think it's about time skeptics made some attempt to get their heads around this fact. Given that they are weak, then the anomalous abilities demonstrated by these individuals were incredibly impressive (assuming no cheating was going on). I for one was extremely surprised and impressed.

That is funny as hell. I'm keeping it.

[Azrael 5]

Reply email from Radio Wave Programme controller.A nice bloke and sceptic!!

Dear John,

Thank you for taking the trouble to write in.

There are two issues here. Firstly I'm concerned that Chris Blumer hasn't responded to you, and I have asked him today via email if he can tell me the reason for not responding to you. As far as I am concerned, if somebody takes the trouble to write in, even with a criticism, they deserve a reply. I will let you know what he says. Incidentally I have asked him not to disclose the contents of this email to Diane at this stage. But if she was that good, she'd already know the contents right?

So to the issue. What I would like to do is put the contents of your email to her, with your permission? I have my own opinions but they shouldn't influence an entertainment feature that does go out after 11pm at night.

Let me know your thoughts


Best regards

Steve (fellow sceptic)

Steve Barnes
Programme Controller
The Wave & Swansea Sound

I'll let you all know developments. :)

[Dr B]

I'm not using it in the scientific sense. I'm using it in the normal sense. ..

I think not. I have read your posts here with great interest and when ever anyone asks you a reasonable question you play semantics - sorry but it will not do. Shame really. Unfortunately it does not qualify as being a clever debate / argument strategy.

What do you mean by normal sense? I have no idea what you are talking about. I here, and others, are talking about science and evidence and reason, and logic. We are trying to grapple with a subject that is difficult - not made easier by fudging with your language. The context of your comments were 'a significant minority' - this was, is, and remains unfounded in a scientific sense (or any other that I can see). So, you are wrong again there. How does a normal sense mean anything anway - you clearly have not answered this at all.

In the good majority of tests at least one of the alleged psychics achieved results which would be unreasonable to attribute to chance..

Where? You need to be specific - I cannot see what you mean. There was one pure hit in the woods - but thats one trial!!!!! and would be expected by probability.

If I had meant "striking" I would have said it..

I was trying to be polite - as i have shown why your language use is clearly wrong already - maybe you would like to deal with the above points.

"it seemed on the face of it that some of these people some of the time were giving information that could not be attributed to chance.".

No it does not - I think its time you actually provided some evidence for your ramblings....or they kind of remain, well ramblings really.

"The fact that skeptics were involved, one of whom is a very skilled illusionist, and they could detect no cheating, suggests that in the absence of any further information it would seem reasonable to take these results at face value.".

AAAHHHH i can see what you are getting wrong now. The skeptics were not involved in any way, in designing the studies (as far as I could see). You can tell this by examining their comments where they clearly explain why some of the experiments were flawed - they obviously had big issues with them. They were there purely to provide comment. I think that explains some of your confusion (at least on that matter).

I dont think they were cheating - because they were so bad. if they were cheating then they are not very good at it. I just think they are mistaken about their powers......as the lack of performance above controls clearly shows....(you avoid discussing this - why?)

Indeed I can. Controls were only used in the minority of cases where none of the alleged psychics did any better than would be expected by chance. So it is scarcely surprising the controls might do better. Also it is worth mentioning that these tests where controls were used and where psychics failed to impress, were precisely those tests where I would not have expected any anomalous abilities to manifest. .

You failed - you need to be more specific - controls were used on all the major tests as far as i could see - looks like you are cherry picking here. Besides, if controls were not used in certain tasks - how do you know how good the performance was?


You really have no idea what you are talking about and clearly did not see these programmes..

As all of the above shows - wrong again. Sorry but i did see them, and studied them well - it is your memory letting you down and your argument crashing to the ground. You are now going to have to be specific and produce the 'evidence' for the significant effects you can obviously see - stop avoiding this and get on with the job of rational debate....assuming of course, you are capable of it.

Trust me Ian - I do know what I am talking about, because I know you are wrong. I know the game you are playing - but you are just not clever enough to pull it off. Evidence and specific evidence please.

[tkingdoll]

Azrael, excellent result! Invite Steve Barnes to the forum, he sounds like a cool chap!

[Yahzi]

Psychic abilities generally tend to be weak.
So does the weak nuclear force. But that doesn't stop it from controlling the fate of the entire universe.

It's not their weakness that is the problem - people routinely build machines that can detect the absence of a single atom, or count photons one at a time.

It is their shyness; their automatic invisibility whenever skeptics are around, or cheating is controlled for.


Edit: I see that both of my points were already made, practically word for word. Dang but you guys are sharp. :D

[Interesting Ian]

So does the weak nuclear force. But that doesn't stop it from controlling the fate of the entire universe.

It's not their weakness that is the problem - people routinely build machines that can detect the absence of a single atom, or count photons one at a time.

It is their shyness; their automatic invisibility whenever skeptics are around, or cheating is controlled for.


Edit: I see that both of my points were already made, practically word for word. Dang but you guys are sharp. :D

Ah Yahzi! You don't have me on ignore :)

For that I thank you :)

[Jimbo07]

Edit: I see that both of my points were already made, practically word for word. Dang but you guys are sharp. :D

Yeah, but neither have been responded to.

i) Natural effects can be tiny, but still be measurable. Why aren't weak "anomalous abilities" measurable?

ii) If they were, why aren't they measurable under the same conditions as everything else?

I think the 1st argument subsumes the second. Regardless, Ian is not alone in defense of these things, so it is still worth discussing.

[Azrael 5]

Azrael, excellent result! Invite Steve Barnes to the forum, he sounds like a cool chap!

In my reply to him,I have linked this topic as well as the million dollar challenge,so maybe he may register.I will invite him next email though.

[Interesting Ian]

Yeah, but neither have been responded to.

i) Natural effects can be tiny, but still be measurable. Why aren't weak "anomalous abilities" measurable?



They are aren't they. This is why the odds of getting the results in parapsychological research are trillions to one against (depending on how much research is considered). But that's not important since for the purposes of science the results have to be repeatable on demand.



ii) If they were, why aren't they measurable under the same conditions as everything else?



Everything else being physical entities of one type or another. Because human beings are conscious basically {shrugs}. You ain't ever going to get the same consistent results in the "soft" sciences as compared to the "hard" sciences. It's the reason why physics is such a successful science where as economics isn't. We are not machines. We do not operate according to physical laws. All sorts of subtle psychological factors come into play. I'm a very good singer, but not so when loads of people are listening to me, or I do not feel in the appropriate emotional state of mind.

Human beings are not electrons.

[Mojo]

They are aren't they. This is why the odds of getting the results in parapsychological research are trillions to one against (depending on how much research is considered). What research? What results?

[Azrael 5]

From Steve's email,the company line at the bottom
This e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose the information in any way and notify me immediately. The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of UTV Radio unless specifically stated.


I didnt have permission to use his email which I quoted,althought he hasnt asked me to remove it merely stated his dissapointment.
If Admin or anyone thinks it should be deleted do so.I never read small print usually. :D

[Dr B]

With the rising belief in this psychic nonsense and people who clearly think there was psychic ability demonstrated on this poor programme (with no evidence I might add) - are we entering a new dark age?

[Rex Everything]

It took me a while to decide whether or not to post in this thread but after the way some people on this site have spoken about 2 friends of mine, I couldn’t contain it any longer. I think I’m rather unique on this site as I personally know both Chris Blumer AND Diane Lazarus. Indeed I used to work on Blumer’s show, including the Thursday night ‘Psychic Experience’ – so I can speak with authority on this matter.

First of all I think it’s out of order that his email (and that of his boss, Steve Barnes, more on him later) was reproduced here without his knowledge. He didn’t have to reply to the original request yet he’s been systematically taken apart by users of this site. And I do not agree that a disclaimer at the foot of their emails should only be acted on ‘if the admins say so’ – the disclaimer says the email contents is confidential and that should be respected 100%.

Let me explain a few things about Chris.

He is a radio presenter. Not just any old presenter, he has more than 10 years experience of broadcasting (as well as an HND in Radio Broadcasting), having worked all around the country including presenting numerous ‘Breakfast Shows’ (for those not in the know, this is the show you listen to in morning on the way to work, a notoriously difficult show to present). He has a natural ability to see what “works” and what doesn’t. I worked alongside him for 18 months and watched his listening audience figures rise and rise. To the question “What has listening figures got to do with anything?”, I can tell you listening figures mean EVERYTHING when you’re a radio broadcaster. Put quite simply, if the quarterly RAJAR ratings for Chris’ show were not up to scratch, he’s be sacked. Simple as that. What he has done by having Diana on his show is give people what they want. If the individual does not believe in the paranormal (which of course is their right) then simply do not listen to the show and leave those who choose to believe to listen in and enjoy the show. As for needing ‘evidence’, do you ask for this when your local radio station or newspaper brings you the newest ‘scoop’ on a celebrity? If you decide that anything for example the News of the World prints is going to be lies, what do you do? Do you email or phone them demanding that they stop unless they show evidence? Most people on this site appear to outside the broadcasting range of the Wave so I really don’t know what the problem is. If you think Diane’s abilities are flawed (as is your right) then how about looking at it like this: there are some people in hopeless situations phoning the show. To them, Diane gives ‘hope’. It may be false hope, but it’s still ‘hope’.

Do you people write to the Sun, Mirror, NotW etc asking them to either produce evidence to back up their astrologists' column or stop printing them?

Chris occasionally has Pro Wrestlers on his show to promote upcoming ‘fights’ and ‘shows’ – do you want to complaint about them being ‘fakes’? We all know wrestling is not a legitimate ‘sport’ however people realise it for what it is – entertainment. As with Diane’s involvement on the show, if you don’t like or agree with it – leave it for the people who do.

About Diane. I’ve known her for about 2 years, I've been to her house, I know her husband too. As a born-again Christian (who has slipped occasionally but I’m only human – and that’s a different matter altogether) I have insisted she does NOT give me a psychic reading or tell me anything from ‘beyond the grave’ or whatever. However she has occasionally let slip a few things about me which are deeply personal, very specific and she could not possibly have known. Anyone (such as Chris or Diane) will know I am a fiercely private person and so not give things away about my life or family yet she was able to tell me a few things which literally no-one could have known about.

Let me make it clear I am NOT saying I believe Diane is always right. In fact I have witness occasions when she has been wrong or mistaken. I also want to make it clear I do not believe that the people/spirits Diane ‘contacts’ are not the people that the listener/client believe them to be. My own view is that they are all evil spirits who are all around us and watch us – but that itself is another matter.

Psychic powers – what are they? I don’t know. Does Diane have them? I don’t know. She has some kind of genuine ability to ‘read’ things about people and their past, families etc but it’s by no means infallible as like I said above, she has got thing wrong in the past. However she HAS got a lot of things right. As a former Behavioural Sciences student, I’m aware of the power of suggestion. I have seen her give names and information to people which she did not ‘fish’ for, neither was the information offered by the client only for Diane to ‘work’ on it. Whatever 'power' (for lack of a better word) she has, I believe it is something which science cannot yet measure or comprehend. I say 'yet' as I believe there is much about the universe and cosmos which we are only in the infancy of understanding.

I also know Steve Barnes (for those not in the know, he is the Programme Controller for The Wave and its sister station Swansea Sound – in effect he is responsible for whatever you hear on either outlets) although I have never been able to say I know him on the same level as Chris and Diane. He is my former boss so I know him more in a professional capacity. I think his reply was completely unprofessional for man of his position. His assertion that he is disappointed that Chris did not reply to you should have set alarms ringing – of course Chris replied to you! As he is the presenter’s boss he should have been more objective and neutral in his reply, especially when it involves one of his presenters who consistently producing impressive listening figures for his radio station, unfortunately this incident is the sort of thing which just confirms my opinion of Steve which is borne out of my own experiences of him. I believe he regularly fails with his levels of professionalism and that email reinforces this belief however he has been Programme Controller for a number of years so he must being doing something right.

I’m not sure if I will return to this site once I have posted the above as I have seen the militant attitude of some users towards people who do not share their rabid anti-paranormal mentality and I’m not prepared to stick around and be insulted by those who wish to impose their beliefs on me. My motivation for coming here was to put the record straight and stick up for 2 personal friend of mine, one of whom is not in a position to argue his case and the other who may well post here herself one day, however I wouldn’t blame her if she didn’t given the level of anger and insults which I believe would be aimed at her.

[Interesting Ian]

I have seen the militant attitude of some users towards people who do not share their rabid anti-paranormal mentality

I first came to this site because I was curious as to why people rejected all paranormal phenomena despite all the evidence. I was expecting some rational reasons. Was I disappointed! Their hysterical virulent hostility to any possibility of any paranormal phenomena is both perplexing, yet at the same time fascinating.

[phaedra]

You come here through loyalty to friends and that's an admirable quality, however you seem to condone their actions in misleading people.The following comments are concerned with Diane Lazarus only.

Regarding psychic powers - if they evident enough to support a business (as they are in Diane's case) and to warrant her involvement in the search for missing Belfast man Martin Kelly, then they are evident enough to be tested and their veracity established. Yet somehow this never comes to pass despite an offer from Dr Chris French. Other than her involvement in the badly flawed Britain's Psychic Challenge her psychic abilities remain unproven in a rigorously controlled environment - the only arena that matters.

If you think Diane’s abilities are flawed (as is your right) then how about looking at it like this: there are some people in hopeless situations honing the show. To them, Diane gives ‘hope’. It may be false hope, but it’s still ‘hope’.

You seem to think any kind of hope is OK even if its false. Presumably it's also OK to create that impression of false hope in her role as psychic detective as she attempts to locate missing persons for distraught family members. If you do nothing else on this forum before you go please read KellyJ's thread here entitled 'Psychics and Missing People'. You will see that same false hope can destroy lives in certain circumstances. Is it still OK to do that? Is it still OK to create the impression that she helps the police in investigations - however inaccurate?

I'm sure everyone here would applaud any psychic secure enough in their convictions to willingly submit to an appropriate testing regime. Some people are very good at unwittingly reading verbal and non verbal clues. Isn't Diane the least bit curious where her 'ability' comes from? In the same position I would be.

I have seen the militant attitude of some users towards people who do not share their rabid anti-paranormal mentality and I’m not prepared to stick around and be insulted by those who wish to impose their beliefs on me.
There's no need to cut and run. Skepticism is about establishing the truth - in other words getting to the heart of the matter. There's no point in your running away in an effort to keep cherished beliefs intact even if they are without foundation. Isn't it better to ask the hard questions and search for the facts first before drawing your conclusions. Why do you think it's so wrong to require hard evidence before believing something to be true?

I'm sure Diane is welcome to come on here and clarify her position but better still her agreement to participate in testing from JREF, ASKE or Chris French in the UK would be met with the utmost respect and, of course, the greatest of interest.

[Rex Everything]

You come here through loyalty to friends and that's an admirable quality, however you seem to condone their actions in misleading people.

I occasionally take part in Professional Wrestling. Would you berrate me for 'misleading' people too?

Regarding psychic powers - if they evident enough to support a business (as they are in Diane's case) and to warrant her involvement in the search for missing Belfast man Martin Kelly, then they are evident enough to be tested and their veracity established.

In your opinion.

Yet somehow this never comes to pass despite an offer from Dr Chris French. Other than her involvement in the badly flawed Britain's Psychic Challenge her psychic abilities remain unproven in a rigorously controlled environment - the only arena that matters.

I don't believe Diane has to prove them just to silence her critics. As a former radio presenter I'm sure I had listeners who did not like my style of presenting however it is not them I took my direction from.

You seem to think any kind of hope is OK even if its false. Presumably it's also OK to create that impression of false hope in her role as psychic detective as she attempts to locate missing persons for distraught family members. If you do nothing else on this forum before you go please read KellyJ's thread here entitled 'Psychics and Missing People'. You will see that same false hope can destroy lives in certain circumstances. Is it still OK to do that? Is it still OK to create the impression that she helps the police in investigations - however inaccurate?

I did not say any kind of hope is ok. What I said was some people who call the show are in situations where they have exhausted ALL other avenues and are left with no other options. In this case giving them a glimmer of hope can IMO be a good thing.

I'm sure everyone here would applaud any psychic secure enough in their convictions to willingly submit to an appropriate testing regime. Some people are very good at unwittingly reading verbal and non verbal clues. Isn't Diane the least bit curious where her 'ability' comes from? In the same position I would be.

I believe she mentions the source on her website - if it doesn't then it used to. Again, I'm sure Diane is not bothered by her critics.

There's no need to cut and run. Skepticism is about establishing the truth - in other words getting to the heart of the matter. There's no point in your running away in an effort to keep cherished beliefs intact even if they are without foundation. Isn't it better to ask the hard questions and search for the facts first before drawing your conclusions. Why do you think it's so wrong to require hard evidence before believing something to be true?

In answer to your final line, I am a born again Christian so I don't have a problem with people not requiring hard evidence in order to believe something.

I am not 'cutting and running', my point here is to stick up for 2 personal friends who have been IMO unfairly attacked on this site. I do not share the rabid anti-paranormal feeling which many have here and from reading this and other threads on this site, people such as myself usually come in for a very rough time and I am not the sort of person who argues on an internet forum.

I'm sure Diane is welcome to come on here and clarify her position but better still her agreement to participate in testing from JREF, ASKE or Chris French in the UK would be met with the utmost respect and, of course, the greatest of interest.

If she DID come on here, can you imagine the abuse she would recieve? And I have the utmost respect for Diane for not wanting to undergo any scientific testing as I do not believe her critics bother her in any way.

[John Jackson]

Lazarus has printed lies on her website - the response from the police shows that.

She prints those lies to support her claim to be able to receive and pass on messages from dead people and to be able to psychically glean information in murder and missing persons cases.

She feels entitled to go to a family of a missing person and tell them that he is dead, yet has never proved her ability in any way whatsoever. In fact from what we have seen of her she clearly does not have this claimed ability.

In light of the fact that she's prepared to take money from the grieving on order to pass on her 'information' don't you think that we are doing is what reponsible, concerned (for others' emotional walfare) people should do Rex?

This woman is a charlatan that could cause a lot of harm by giving her phony messages and information.

Radio shows, or television programmes, that promote this deception for 'entertainment' and the people behind them are beneath contempt.

[Azrael 5]

With utmost respect to Rex(whom I have contact with outside of the forum on an unrelated matter)people are easily fooled.I would say being a religious person leans you to believe her anyway.
On a basic level on TV she achieved some good results but a lot of bad results-which if she is psychic is odd.
Details here: http://www.tonyyouens.com/BritainsPsychicChallenge.htm#p1

It seems Steve Barnes is no longer communicating with me-after I published his email in good intention-so I don't know wether he has put my comments to Diane Lazarus as he said he would.I would very much like to have a meeting with her and discuss what these psychic abilities are and see them disappear co-incidentally that day!!
The "Ive seen her say do things or say things" line always puzzles me.When a believer sees a magician levitate or divine an unseen playing card,do they believe it to be real? Usually no.Because they are conditioned to believe its a trick from the outset.Only difference is psychics etc don't offer this conditioning,therefore it must be real.

It astounds me why all these believers/supporters cannot get there head around teh fact that no Skeptic award has ever been claimed.A million dollars just waiting...
Diane Lazarus proclaims to a theatre of 1,000 people in Wales and (arguably)demonstrates psychic ability,takes their hard earned cash without hesitation,so why doesn't she step up and be tested and make herself incredibly rich and famous.Help mankind along the way.

[Rex Everything]

Lazarus has printed lies on her website - the response from the police shows that.

Well go to her about that.

She prints those lies to support her claim to be able to receive and pass on messages from dead people and to be able to psychically glean information in murder and missing persons cases.

People go to her and keep coming back for more.

She feels entitled to go to a family of a missing person and tell them that he is dead, yet has never proved her ability in any way whatsoever. In fact from what we have seen of her she clearly does not have this claimed ability.

With respect, they go to her.

In light of the fact that she's prepared to take money from the grieving on order to pass on her 'information' don't you think that we are doing is what reponsible, concerned (for others' emotional walfare) people should do Rex?

If someone is acting fraudulently and has been proven to be doing so in court then yes of course you are acting responsibly.

This woman is a charlatan that could cause a lot of harm by giving her phony messages and information.

I'm not aware of any 'harm' caused by Diane to date.

Radio shows, or television programmes, that promote this deception for 'entertainment' and the people behind them are beneath contempt.

In your opinion of course.

[UGBRCE]

Lazarus has printed lies on her website - the response from the police shows that.

She prints those lies to support her claim to be able to receive and pass on messages from dead people and to be able to psychically glean information in murder and missing persons cases.

She feels entitled to go to a family of a missing person and tell them that he is dead, yet has never proved her ability in any way whatsoever. In fact from what we have seen of her she clearly does not have this claimed ability.

In light of the fact that she's prepared to take money from the grieving on order to pass on her 'information' don't you think that we are doing is what reponsible, concerned (for others' emotional walfare) people should do Rex?

This woman is a charlatan that could cause a lot of harm by giving her phony messages and information.

Radio shows, or television programmes, that promote this deception for 'entertainment' and the people behind them are beneath contempt.

You talk about Diane and her so called lies but you obviously have not done your home work.
If you watched Diane on Kilroy you will see that she helped to fing body of Mark Green and did not take any payment from the parents, she give up her own time to help. Mrs Grenn has stated that she could not have done it with out Diane and found it comforting that her son was helping.

[Gr8wight]

Ian, you seem to always succinctly put your finger right on the crux of the problem.

I'm a very good singer, but not so when loads of people are listening to me...

...and psychics are very accurate, as long as nobody is checking up on them...

...and I have a nine inch willy, as long as there's no one with a ruler in the room...

[Rex Everything]

With utmost respect to Rex(whom I have contact with outside of the forum on an unrelated matter)people are easily fooled.I would say being a religious person leans you to believe her anyway.


I don't consider myself to be religious but in any case, I am firmly against any kind of clarvoyance, witchcraft or 'psychic abilities'.

If Diane is not bothered by her critics then I don't see any need for her to be tested.

If anyone is interested I will be on Chris' show tonight, you can listen online from their website (if the streaming is working) - Derek Anaconda or whatever the guy's name is will be on the show.

[UGBRCE]

Diane Lazarus proclaims to a theatre of 1,000 people in Wales and (arguably)demonstrates psychic ability,takes their hard earned cash without hesitation,so why doesn't she step up and be tested and make herself incredibly rich and famous.Help mankind along the way.

She has stepped up, the whole point of this forum is that Diane did step up and be tested but 3 sceptics and the views of the channel5 series Britains Psychic Challenge.

[Azrael 5]

Just to point out the only person being "attacked" is Diane Lazarus,the two radio presenters mentioned were only quoted,nothing more.:)

[Azrael 5]

She has stepped up, the whole point of this forum is that Diane did step up and be tested but 3 sceptics and the views of the channel5 series Britains Psychic Challenge.

That was a TV show,not a scientific test,controlled with strict protocols with an agreed test result stated from the outset.If you care to read the link to TonyYouens site above it clearly outlines her failures and slack controls.:rolleyes:

[Rex Everything]

Just to point out the only person being "attacked" is Diane Lazarus,the two radio presenters mentioned were only quoted,nothing more.:)

And I was pointing out how nobody on this site (other than myself) appears to know how radio presenting works, which is backed up with lines such as "What has listening figures got to do with anything?"

[Azrael 5]

*snip*
If Diane is not bothered by her critics then I don't see any need for her to be tested.


She is taking money for services which she claims are genuine,as there is no evidence to support this,then it's fraud surely?
Would you let a self proclaimed mechanic loose on your car just on his say so?
Someone who claims to be a childminder alone with your children unchallenged?

[Rex Everything]

She is taking money for services which she claims are genuine,as there is no evidence to support this,then it's fraud surely?

There may be no evidence to support it but there is no evidence to disprove her 'abilities'. The only 'evidence' in that favour would be she has not agreed to scientific testing. This may make her methods questionable, but not yet 'fraud'.

[John Jackson]

Well go to her about that.

I believe that she has been contacted on more than one occasion - she doesn't respond.

People go to her and keep coming back for more.

That doesn't make her ability real though does it?

With respect, they go to her.

Why do you think that is?

It may be because the media uncritically promote her ability as real when all they are after is ratings and advertising revenue. Truth obviously has no place in such matters.

You may be an apologist for this deception, but we'll show what's true.

[UGBRCE]

[She is taking money for services which she claims are genuine,as there is no evidence to support this,then it's fraud surely?
Would you let a self proclaimed mechanic loose on your car just on his say so?
Someone who claims to be a childminder alone with your children unchallenged?

But there is no evidence that she is taking money so how is there evidence that it is fraud???????????????????????
Just because there is no evidence does not mean it is not true.....:jaw-dropp

[John Jackson]

You talk about Diane and her so called lies but you obviously have not done your home work.
If you watched Diane on Kilroy you will see that she helped to fing body of Mark Green and did not take any payment from the parents, she give up her own time to help. Mrs Grenn has stated that she could not have done it with out Diane and found it comforting that her son was helping.

An appearance on Kilroy? :rolleyes:

Have the police involved in this case stated that it was Diane who solved it?

If so, please provide a reference.

[Rex Everything]

I believe that she has been contacted on more than one occasion - she doesn't respond.

So drop it then? Don't keep on about it as it's getting you nowhere?

That doesn't make her ability real though does it?

I'm not saying it is - I was just pointing out an inaccuracy

Why do you think that is?

because these people have not found her to be a fraud?

It may be because the media uncritically promote her ability as real when all they are after is ratings and advertising revenue. Truth obviously has no place in such matters.

As long as strict broadcasting laws are kept, that's exactly how commercial radio works.

You may be an apologist for this deception, but we'll show what's true.

Not an apologist, just pointing out another side to all this.

[John Jackson]

Rex,

You are an apologist. You're making completely fallacious arguments to defend a friend in her deception.

As such, you are as bad as she is.

People need to be educated as to what is really going on with this 'talking to the dead' nonsense.

People place an enormous amount of trust in these people, and like it or not, that gives them the power to do great harm.

This is not a game like wrestling - it's messing with people's lives. As a christian, I'm surprised that you can entertain that idea, never mind support it.

[Rex Everything]

Rex,

You are an apologist. You're making completely fallacious arguments to defend a friend in her deception.

As such, you are as bad as she is.


And that is the post which makes up my mind to not return to this site. Anyone sticking up for Diane is going to be considered "as bad as she is" and is no way going to get a fair 'hearing' on this site. Does it surprise you when she does not respond to invitations to come on here.

Goodnight everyone, it was entertaining for a few minutes. I shall be contacting the admins of this site to delete my membership. I came here to stick up for 2 friends, I can now see what I'm up against.

[John Jackson]

Bye Rex.

[vbloke]

But there is no evidence that she is taking money so how is there evidence that it is fraud???????????????????????
Just because there is no evidence does not mean it is not true.....:jaw-dropp
If I came to work on your house and I had no training in building maintenance, yet I said I was a builder, took your money and did a job that appeared to be OK but the first time you turn a light switch on, a wall collapsed, you'd sue me.

Diane says she has worked with police (lie), solved murder cases (lie) to further her career in order that she can make more money.

To lie in order to gain monetary reward is fraud. What part of this don't you understand?

[UGBRCE]

An appearance on Kilroy? :rolleyes:

Have the police involved in this case stated that it was Diane who solved it?

If so, please provide a reference.


I watched the Kilroy she live, when Mark Green's parents personally stated that Diane Lazarus described his death but the parents at that stage thought he was just missing. It is a big chance for Diane to take, but she obviously believed in her ability. I have been following Diane since the programme which was over 4 years ago, I can say that you only know the tip of the stories. you really shouldnt start an arguement if you dont know half the facts!!!

PSYCHIC RESEARCHER.:cool:

[John Jackson]

Which police force was involved in the Mark Green case?

[vbloke]

Rex, you've known Diane for 2 or so years and you're "amazed" that she knew a few personal details about you?

You'd have to be a super-secret recluse in order for someone not to glean SOME personal information about you.

It does not matter if people go and see Diane of their own free will, she has lied to get them to believe she has these abilities.

[John Jackson]

The Mark Green case: http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,1193742,00.html was handled by the West Midlands Police.

No mention in the article of Diane Lazarus solving it. Surprisingly it seems to have been the police themselves who solved it! :eek:

UK police forces have responded to claims that psychics 'help' them.

Look here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=police_and_psychics.php

Notice the rather large entry by the West Midlands Police. ;)

[UGBRCE]

Which police force was involved in the Mark Green case?


Check out Dianes website and you will see two letters from the police that were involved in the cases, sure if it was fake she would not state names. If you send her an enquiry I am sure she will email you the letters on headed paper, she has sent me a