StopSylviaBrowne - Montel: Weyman Robbins Reading

[RSLancastr]

New article up today:

http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/montel_weymanrobbins.shtml
Montel: Weyman Robbins Reading
A woman asks Sylvia Browne for answers about the death of her 12-year-old son.

Based on research documented in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88350).

Thanks again Eeney!

[headscratcher4]

yet another great job! The weight of your evidence keeps building...hopefully some believers will begin seeing SB for the fraud she is.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

You're welcome!

I'm confused about the bandana. Did the uncle put it there to try to disguise the murder as a choking game accident? And what happened to it later?

I think you could have picked her predictions apart even further. Such as that she only even guessed it was the choking game after Montel got all the circumstances of the murder and a description of how the boy was found out of Misty.

[headscratcher4]

Seems to me, based on what Robert has there...that the "choking game" is incidental and irrelevant...probably, Montell saw a nice, sensational angle by bringing it in and SB went with it. Not really an epidemic in our schools, so far as I can see or have read. SB often intimates at some sort of senational foul play...

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Too bad we don't have video for this. Or any other information about the case cause I have a few more questions about it. It's pretty odd how there are no newspaper accounts but, then again, if even the police on the case didn't care the boy was killed...

[JoeTheJuggler]

The ultimate in hedging one's bet:
This was foul play. This was other kids. They were playing this stupid game.

She's covered if it's foul play and she's covered if it was just an accident resulting from a stupid game. Those are two mutually exclusive scenarios.

I'm reminded of Jim's hair-ball reading in Huckleberry Finn where he covers all possibilities, and the only hard prediction (that he'll die by hanging) is one that by the time it's verifiable, the sitter will be in no position to care about:
Yo' ole father doan' know yit what he's a-gwyne to do. Sometimes he spec he'll go 'way, en den agin he spec he'll stay. De bes' way is to res' easy en let de ole man take his own way. Dey's two angels hoverin' roun' 'bout him. One uv 'em is white en shiny, en t'other one is black. De white one gits him to go right a little while, den de black one sail in en bust it all up. A body can't tell yit which one gwyne to fetch him at de las'.
But you is all right. You gwyne to have considable trouble in yo' life, en con- sidable joy. Sometimes you gwyne to git hurt, en sometimes you gwyne to git sick; but every time you's gwyne to git well agin. Dey's two gals flyin' 'bout you in yo' life. One uv 'em's light en t'other one is dark. One is rich en t'other is po'. You's gwyne to marry de po' one fust en de rich one by en by. You wants to keep 'way fum de water as much as you kin, en don't run no resk, 'kase it's down in de bills dat you's gwyne to git hung.

Nice article, as always!

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Yeah, I noticed that. Misty asks her if there was foul play and Sylvia says "Yes and no. It was and it wasn't."

I'm glad she did, though. Think how disasterous it could be if a psychic says it wasn't murder when it was. Enspecially in a situation like this, when the police arrived at the wrong conclusion and the family is running around on their own, convinced it was foul play.

The police ruled it an accident and closed the books on it and if Misty hadn't pressed on on her own, the guy would never have been caught. So thank God Sylvia told her it was a murder.And wasn't.

[Magic 9-Ball]

Another great article, Robert. Thanks very much for your efforts.

I’ve only seen the Montel Show a couple times. Do they ever have follow-up shows and review Sylvia’s predictions? I would think likely not, as they probably wouldn’t have much to talk about.

[pgwenthold]

I have what is probably a dumb question, but, as far as I can tell, you could pretty much take any one of Sylvia's Montel readings and it would be wrong. The only hold-up, I guess, is that you have to be able to find information about the actual case.

That would be a really funny thing to do. Look back in the records and pick a Sylvia reading at random and find it to be wrong. OTOH, that could be just what EEM is doing...

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Not quite. I specifically search for missing person's and homicide cases in the transcripts available on Lexis Nexis and, with the scraps of information provided in the readings (partial names, sometimes full names, approximate dates, states, cities, the name of a college or school, mentions of other players in the case), I try to follow up on all of them.

It's not random at all. In fact, it takes a lot of work and alot of sorting through many possible matches. It often takes me five to ten searches to dig up a full name. That's what most of my job consists of- just trying to put together the full name of the victim (the state he/she lived in and month and year of the crime are also helpful). After that, searching newspaper accounts is 1-2-3.

You understand, don't you? I mean, try searching Lexis Nexis for, say, "Angela" who was "murdered" or "Michael" who "disappeared". I'm literally searching through the haystack for a needle. Like in an autopsy, you have to know specifically what you're looking for in order to find it.

The vast majority of those that can be tracked down are as yet unsolved cases. Which is why they came to Sylvia Browne in the first place and why she can say anything she wants to about them- because most of these cases are at an absolute dead end and are never going to be solved.

This thread has a list of them: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85304

It's very rare that I find something good enough for Robert's site. Almost all of the cases that I find are those that it's impossible to find any more material about them, cases that are dead in the water and unsolved where Sylvia will never be proved demonstrably wrong and cases that are, for one reason or another, unverifiable.

Such as one where Sylvia told a family their son didn't commit suicide but was murdered. Due to the circumstances (the police ruled it a suicide, didn't open a murder investigation, the only evidence pointing to foul play is that his sister thought she saw someone strange in the building minutes before he was found dead, it happened long ago) it might never be possible to know whether that was the cae or not.

Some are incredibly sad. Such as that of a teenage girl gone missing who was most likely kidnapped by her father's friend. Sadly, the only suspect in the investigation committed suicide shortly after she disappeared, destroying the only lead investigators had.

Or the parents of a baby girl who's paranoid schizophrenic grandmother kidnapped her and took her to a local river after which she was arrested without the child. The parents suspect she passed the kid to someone else in a kidnapping ring because the river was searched and no body was ever found and the grandmother has never confessed to murder but it seems to me she drowned the baby and that's that. After all, a body so small could easily have never been found.

Something like that, it's impossible to know how right or wrong SB was and might never be and is therefore completely useless to us. So you see, I follow up on one dead end, as far as the site is concerned, after another and hit the jackpot roughly 1 in 35 cases but there's no other way to do this kind of research.

[RSLancastr]

yet another great job! The weight of your evidence keeps building...hopefully some believers will begin seeing SB for the fraud she is.That is already happening, HS.

Nearly every day I receive email from one or more people who believed in Browne's nonsense, but after reading the site, do not believe in it any more.

And I think it is safe to assume that for each of these people there are a number of others who also came to that conclusion, but who didn't write.

I think that many (if not most) of these people would have come to that conclusion even without the SSB site's help, but the site definitely helped them get there faster.

Either way, the site is helping people. Just how many, we will never know.

I'm confused about the bandana. Did the uncle put it there to try to disguise the murder as a choking game accident? And what happened to it later?No idea. No idea why the murderer would have put it on his ankle, either.

She's covered if it's foul play and she's covered if it was just an accident resulting from a stupid game. Those are two mutually exclusive scenarios.Yes, I had meant to point that out. Thanks for reminding me, I migh add it in this evening.

Nice article, as always!Thanks, Joe!

Another great article, Robert. Thanks very much for your efforts.Thanks, M9B!

I’ve only seen the Montel Show a couple times. Do they ever have follow-up shows and review Sylvia’s predictions? I would think likely not, as they probably wouldn’t have much to talk about.I have heard that they had a "follow-up show" or two some years back, but I am not aware of any recently. I have seen two instances of someone from a previous show coming back on to confirm something (the two sisters with the lupus/tipped uterus reading was one), but not an entire show devoted to it.

I have what is probably a dumb question, but, as far as I can tell, you could pretty much take any one of Sylvia's Montel readings and it would be wrong. The only hold-up, I guess, is that you have to be able to find information about the actual case.

In order to prove or disprove one of her readings/predictions on the show:

1. You have to be able to be relatively certain it was given fairly. This means you would have to exclude any reading/prediction which might have been given to a stooge, or given about a situation to which Browne had prior knowledge. This eliminates almost every reading she gives on the show. About the only things this leaves are (some of) her annual predictions, and the missing person homicide readings she gives on the show.

2. You have to be able to determine whether or not her prediction/reading was accurate. So, of those readings not eliminated by rule #1, we are left with those of her annual predictions which are testable, and those missing person and homicide cases which were later solved.

It is that last grounp that QG and EMM have been focusing on, and EMM gave a pretty good description of how tough it is to find cases which can be identified given the info in the show, and for which have a resolution available to a public search.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Speaking of follow-ups, there is another one I can think of. This military man, Terry Webb, went missing in Pennsylvania and his daughters appeared on the show and got the usual nonsense from Browne.

Someone was arrested and found guilty in his murder and the body was found and prior to his trial, his daughters inexplicably appeared on Montel to thank Sylvia. They shoehorned what she told them and asked her about the guy charged and how the trial would go and so on.

Incredible, how people can give SB credit for anything and I mean anything. Even when she's proven demonstrably wrong in something any sane person would consider a disaster.

[Safe-Keeper]

Good job, both of you.

Just one little suggestion on the accuracy rate of your articles. Should it not be, to use this one as an example, 18-x%, rather than just 18%, where the 'x' refers to the percentage if the Unknown factors are indeed true, which they technically could be? After all, if she's wrong about the 'unknowns', which technically she could be, the percentage is higher than 18%. It doesn't matter much, seeing, as you say, apparently every article that measures her accuracy finds an accuracy percentage far lower than her stated 85%, but I think it'd be a more honest way of representing the statistics.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Thanks, Safe Keeper!

Actually, I was wondering whether it would be possible to find out the whole story by accessing the trial records. Aren't they open to the public?

Where did the murder take place? I know Weyman lived in both Arizona and Ohio...

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm curious who initiated the the follow-up. I'm also curious just how instrumental Sylvia was in Ms. Robbins' decision to hire a private investigator since it seems as if Sylvia just confirms what the police (wrongly) ruled, although adding other children involved.

What Ms. Robbins has gone through and continues to endure is horribly tragic.

(also, you have a small typo in www.weymanrobbins.com at the bottom, though the link does work)

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I seem to remember reading on one of the tributes that she actually hired the investigator before she appeared on the show. I'd certainly think so because he managed to solve the case before the episode aired.

Actually, let's give a big hand to the PI- he's the one who brought the killer to justice, not this con artist. :mad:

[RSLancastr]

Good job, both of you.Thanks, S-K!

Just one little suggestion on the accuracy rate of your articles.I understand your point, but I've chosen to show the percentage we KNOW to be correct. Perhaps I should make that clearer.

Where did the murder take place? I know Weyman lived in both Arizona and Ohio...Maricopa, Arizona.

(also, you have a small typo in www.weymanrobbins.com at the bottom, though the link does work)Thanks, Kilgore. I will try to remember to fix it this evening.

[Kilgore Trout]

I seem to remember reading on one of the tributes that she actually hired the investigator before she appeared on the show. I'd certainly think so because he managed to solve the case before the episode aired.

Actually, let's give a big hand to the PI- he's the one who brought the killer to justice, not this con artist. :mad:

From the follow-up it she said that Sylvia gave her reason to go on, implying (to me anyway) that that's the reason she hired a PI. I mean, it even if she hadn't gone on Montel, the PI wouldn't have left her at a loose end. But yes, you're right, the timing would be odd and he'd have had to have worked VERY fast (unless there was a long time between the time the show was taped and when the show was aired).

[Normal Dude]

Kudos to the PI! He's the one who should be getting thanked, not Sylvia.

[GT/CS]

Robert, I'm sure you agonized over your decision on the killer's name but I think that if you don't give SB (does that stand for Super [Rule 8]?) at least a half point for the Daniel/Danny connection you may give your critics an easy opportunity to say that you are totally biased. you don't look at the results, blah, blah, blah.

Just a thought.

[Stitch]

RSL - I think you're doing a great job with this, just a small suggestion for the site. In each analysis you do, you list the statements and assess Right, Wrong or Unknown and summarise what that is as a percentage. Any change of showing a running total based on all your reports on the home page, something like:
18% accurate over 75 readings and 235 statements

I personally think that will hit home somewhat from the outset and maybe get people thinking before they even start going through all articles.

[Safe-Keeper]

I'd like to see Stitch's idea implemented on the front page. Would be nice to have. I also agree with GT's statement that you should make a note that Danny and Daniel are very similar names.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I actually don't think it's a good idea. Cold-reading isn't a matter of math or a science. You just can't measure it like that.

Take Weyman Robbin's case. I, personally, would break it down to a perfect zero, bordering on a negative number. "Danny" doesn't count for even half a point because she said he was a child who helped Weyman play the choking game.

[RSLancastr]

Kudos to the PI! He's the one who should be getting thanked, not Sylvia.Agreed.

Robert, I'm sure you agonized over your decision on the killer's name but I think that if you don't give SB (does that stand for Super [Rule 8]?) at least a half point for the Daniel/Danny connection you may give your critics an easy opportunity to say that you are totally biased. you don't look at the results, blah, blah, blah.Thanks for the thought.

Actually, someone asked me the same question via email. Here is my response to them:

I had considered that, but if you notice, all of the statements I scored were just that: direct quotes of statements she made during the reading. Her statement where she used the name Danny is this:

"One of the kids is named Danny."

That is an inaccurate statement. If I wanted to break down her statements and interpret them ("One of the killers was named Danny" would be such an interpretation), I could break down others and lower her score even further. For example, her statement "Well, they're right in the s--they're right in your neighborhood, in the area, in the school, every--you know. I mean, they're..." could have been broken down into three statements ("They're right in your neighborhood." "They're in the area." "They're in the school"), scoring all three as Wrong. I thought it fairer to judge the entire statement as a whole, as I did with "One of the kids is named Danny."

It's not an exact science, and I don't think I could ever please everybody, but I try to be fair, and I think I was in this case.


I personally think that will hit home somewhat from the outset and maybe get people thinking before they even start going through all articles.It is something I have considered for when I have the page up linking all of the readings. I will definitely have a Right/Wrong/Unknown column on that page, but percentage overall? It's hazy enough ranking these things one at a time. An overall rating? Hard to do. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Hey, did anyone else have an immediate red flag raised upon reading the uncle's alibi? I guess you could say it's confirmation bias at work but, I swear, the second I read that, I went "Huh?".

He was babysitting him and he didn't know where he was for almost two hours? Are you kidding me? What was his Plan B excuse, he was fishing with two bags of cement on Christmas Eve?

At best, he must have been brain dead or criminally negligent.

[RSLancastr]

He was babysitting him and he didn't know where he was for almost two hours? Are you kidding me?

Well, there are lots of incompetent babysitters who are not murderers. And the boy was 12 years old.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

True, he wasn't a child but I just can't imagine anyone trusted with taking care of me when I was 12 (such as my aunt, who often did babysit us) doing that.

Unless things work differently in Mariscopa, Arizona, would anyone here let a charge wander off without knowing where he was?

[Hawk one]

Depends on the place and community, really.

In the big cities, not a chance. Where I grew up, sure thing. I certainly was left on my own many times even before I was 12. Because the worst crimes that ever happened there was the kind that a rascal like myself would join in. Such as shoplifting a chocolate.

[misty419]

This in regards to My son Weyman Arizona Robbins, There were articles in the paper. On april 1,2003 there was a front page article regarding the arrest of my brother. it is located in the casa grande newspaper(The casa grande dispatch) there is also a article regarding the sentencing of my brother.
Yes sylvia Browne was wrong, she gave me the inspiration to go on with this case because she did tell me there was foul play, that is also what I believed in my heart, I was to scared to ask if my brother had anything to do with it but boy did I want to , the show was tape febuary 12, 2003 and did not air till may 2003, you have to understand that under the circumstances I was willing to do what ever to find out the truth about my sons death. I did not walk away from that show feeling as though I knew so when I returned home on friday I got on the phone and started calling P.I's and made an appointment to meet with one that monday, I also chose one that did not live or work in my county for I did not trust anyone in that area anymore , mainly law enforcement. This has been the most painful heartbreaking ordeal I have ever been through and the truth is , its not over,,, I will live the rest of my life with the pain of loosing my sweet weyman, and devestated over the fact that my own brother did this to my weyman, my children , and myself and devestated that no seems to care and believe that he did not do this even though he confessed, he was the one that even asked for a Plea, if this were me you can bet you sweet a** that I would never confess to anything I did not do, let alone sign a plea.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Mrs. Robbins, I'm very sorry and very grateful that you've come forward to tell us more about Sylvia Browne.

If it's not too personal, I'd like to ask you about that second segment. Did you first contact The Montel Williams Show to tell them Daniel was arrested or did they follow up on you? What exactly made you give Sylvia Browne credit if you now know she was totally wrong?

[misty419]

First of all my Brothers Name is Martin, second I contacted them to let them know what had happened, my intentions in the follow up was to thank my private investigators BoB Arthur and Joyce Black ( global investigations) but they deleted that part, the part you heard was me reading from a script that was handed to me in the last 30 minutes of taping, I was very hurt and upset by this and thought it to be unfair and unjust, my investigators were the only ones that truely listened to me and in the investigation the only ones that helped me and stuck by me to the end. they have become good friends of mine, it just breaks my heart how some people use other peoples heartace and grief to make a show for themselfs, sylvia Browne and Montel both had a hand in that. even the show was edited.

[SezMe]

misty419, I'm really sorry you have had to endure so much pain. I wish you well.

misty419's post raises a whole different dimension of the Montel/SB shows that might be worth exploring, RSL. Apparently, what you see is NOT what is real. misty419 had to read from a script. Important parts were left on the cutting room floor. Etc.

I don't know how one would pursue this any further without, say, a mole inside the Williams production staff, but it seems to me to relevant to the overall credibility of SB.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Oh, I was positive his first name was Daniel from the second segment. That's very misleading what they made you read. So she got nothing right, nothing.

I'm absolutely disgusted and appalled. That's unforgivable. How do those people sleep at night? Whenever I think I can't possibly like Sylvia and Montel less.

If you don't mind me asking, can you shed some light on some of the statements analyzed in Robert Lancaster's article? The ones he counted as "Unknown"?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

misty419, I'm really sorry you have had to endure so much pain. I wish you well.

misty419's post raises a whole different dimension of the Montel/SB shows that might be worth exploring, RSL. Apparently, what you see is NOT what is real. misty419 had to read from a script. Important parts were left on the cutting room floor. Etc.

I don't know how one would pursue this any further without, say, a mole inside the Williams production staff, but it seems to me to relevant to the overall credibility of SB.

That's right. I've been on a Sylvia Browne episode myself so I know they also go on for a long time; they leave themselves plenty of room for editing, for a show that's an hour minus all the daytime, basic TV commercials.

What I'd like to know is, how do they select the homicide/missing persons families anyway? I know they ambulance chased Ryan Katcher's mother; do they do that for every guest?

[misty419]

Not a problem, when sylvia says my son was there the whole time she was wrong, Martin said that he hid my sons body outside in the wash and when it was dark he then went outside and made it look like a suicide, Besides I was standing out there when the light was shone on the spot he was later found in and he was not there, when he was found he was wearing a white shirt and when you got to the corner of the front of the house you could see him plane as day. second she said that the police had the red bandana, that again is untrue, the police without a doubt do not have the bandana, I believe my brother burned it , he was seen for several days burning things. hopes this helps

[misty419]

I was selected because I happened to be watching the show and seen at the end that if you needed answers to something strange that happened to you to call, I called and left a detailed message, I was then contacted the next day and then the following week was sent to new york, we started the show at 11:00 am and did not leave the studio until 7:00 Pm that night

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Yes, that's very helpful, thanks alot again for sharing.

So I assume that since your brother struck a deal, he was found guilty and is now in prison?

[RSLancastr]

Misty, I am very sorry for your loss.

I'm Robert Lancaster, the person behind the Stop Sylvia Browne web site, where I have an article about your experience with Sylvia Browne (the link is in the first post in this thread).

I would like to add your thoughts about the Montel experience to the article.

Would you be interested in having your side of the story added to the article? If so, I would be interested in doing so.

[misty419]

Yes !!! I would greatly like to tell my side of the story, everyone has a right to know the truth, I am surprised on how many people have really showed and intrest in this, most important I would like to remind everyone that this is about weyman, a 12 year old little boy whom lost his life in an awful way. just let me know what you would like from me in detail.

[Oubliette]

Sorry for your loss, Misty.

It is a good thing that you can be of help to open the eyes of the people being fooled and hurt by things like these. :)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Hi misty. Thanks for sharing on this forum. You have my condolences for the nightmare you have been through.

They made you read a script on the Montel show?! Wow. As cynical as I am, I'm still shocked that they go THAT far.


Yes sylvia Browne was wrong, she gave me the inspiration to go on with this case because she did tell me there was foul play, that is also what I believed in my heart, I was to scared to ask if my brother had anything to do with it but boy did I want to

I think you give Sylvia too much credit, and you discount your own bravery and determination in pushing the investigation forward.

Sylvia is pretty skilled at sizing up people and their motivations, so the fact that you asked about foul play is a strong inducement for her to say that it was foul play. (If you had no suspicions of foul play, you certainly would not have asked about it.)

However, in the same breath she said it was foul play, she also said it was the result of a stupid game (i.e. an accident and NOT foul play). These are two contradictory and incompatible statements (logically inconsistent) that she pretends somehow go together.

This would be like me predicting that the next U.S. president will be Hillary Clinton, and that the next U.S. president will be someone other than Hillary Clinton. Since I can't be wrong, it would be false for me to claim a "hit" after the election. All I have to do is quote the part where I predicted the right thing, and ignore the other part.

[RSLancastr]

Yes !!! I would greatly like to tell my side of the story, everyone has a right to know the truth, I am surprised on how many people have really showed and intrest in this, most important I would like to remind everyone that this is about weyman, a 12 year old little boy whom lost his life in an awful way. just let me know what you would like from me in detail.
I would like you to describe, in your own words, your experience on the Montel show.

Put into it whatever you think is important for people to know about the case.

Here are some suggestions for things you might want to write about...

I think the most important part of that would be to describe when you went back to record the "thank you message to Sylvia. Here is what you said:

"Well, Montel, since the show with you and Sylvia, my brother was arrested in the murder of my son, Weyman Robbins. He was charged with second-degree murder. He confessed to it.

Sylvia said that someone named Danny was involved in Weyman's murder. My brother's name was Daniel.

Sylvia also said there were three names that came to her mind. My brother was given three names at birth, Daniel, Shawn and eventually Martin."

How much of that was your own words, and how much was scripted for you? How much of it is true? (Is your brother named Danny? What did you mean by him having three names at birth?)

What did you want to say (thanking the PIs, etc) which was edited out, or which they wouldn't or didn't film?

If you could comment in the email on the two oints which you talked about above: Was Weyman in the back yard when the police shined their light back there? Do you think that the police took the bandana? If not, why not?

It would be good for others to know how you felt you were treated on the show - by Sylvia, Montel and his staff.

Would you recommend others consulting Sylvia Browne about homicide and missing person cases? Why or why not?

Don't worry about convering this all if it is too much.

Take your time, write it however you feel comfortable. And if you change your mind and decide not to, that is fine. I appreciate your even considering doing so. It may help others in similar tragic situations.

If/when the email is done, don't post it here, instead send it to webmaster@StopSylviaBrowne.com.

Again, thanks. And again, my condolences on your loss.

[headscratcher4]

Dear Misty: my deep condolences to you ... you have endured a horrible experience. I hope you may find some peace.

[Minarvia]

Misty, I am so sorry for your loss. Thank you so much for coming here and sharing.

[SeekingTruth]

Misty,
I'm sure it wasn't easy for you having to relive such an awful experience. And those of us who are working with Robert to expose Sylvia Browne for what she does and how she hurts people are grateful to you for having the strength to come forward and talk to him. It's people like yourself who will see that this woman is stopped - and you have my thanks and my condolences.

The taping goes on for 1 1/2 to 2 hours for a 1 hour show - actually, about 40 minutes when you allow for commercials....therefore, they have lots of editing room. And just when I think she and Montel couldn't possibly sink any lower, Misty tells us that she had to read from a script. I'd like to say UNBELIEVABLE...but knowing that crew as I've come to, it isn't at all unbelievable.

ST

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

It's not unbelievable to me but shocking nevertheless that they'd sink so low.

They allow themselves alot of editing room and tape multiple segments separated by commercial breaks, allowing them to disgard entire segments. Then again, when they pause for commercial break, they let it go on for a pretty long time for audience questions before they start taping again.

[rjh01]

Hay hold it right there. Several people have attended her shows. It should be obvious to the audience that a person is reading from something. How come no-one has mentioned this before? It should be obvious even on TV that a person is reading if you look at their eyes and listen to how they say something.

[RSLancastr]

Hay hold it right there. Several people have attended her shows. It should be obvious to the audience that a person is reading from something. How come no-one has mentioned this before? It should be obvious even on TV that a person is reading if you look at their eyes and listen to how they say something.This segment was apparently not filmed as part of the episode.

As to it being obvious someone is reading, maybe it was. We haven't seen the video, we have only read a transcript.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This segment was apparently not filmed as part of the episode.

As to it being obvious someone is reading, maybe it was. We haven't seen the video, we have only read a transcript.

We have heard from several show participants that they are coached before the show not to dispute anything Sylvia says.

(These are guests on the show, not necessarily the general audience, but EMM has given a rundown on how the audience is coached.)