Psychic Detectives on Television

[Clancie]

Thursday through Sunday

COURT TV: Psychic Detectives
60 min.

"The role psychics play in solving crimes is illustrated by focusing on four cases in which seers have provided important information to the police. One spotlighted case involves a missing Penn State student; psychic Carla Baron is helping with the investigation.

The other cases are a 1980 murder; a 1999 double homicide; and the abduction-murder of an 8-year-old girl. All three found the police turning to psychic Kay Rhea for help.

Lending insight into the police-psychic process: John Edward; and parapsychologist Stephen Schwartz.

[neofight]

Hi, Clancie. Well, this is a subject that always generates a lot of interest. I'll be away when most of these shows air, but I think I'll program my VCR.

I see I missed JE on Court TV with Catherine Crier today at 5:00 pm. Perhaps you can still catch it, Clancie and RC.

And Thursday in the wee hours of the morning here, (1:35 am) on LAST CALL with Carson Daly. I actually got an e-mail invitation to call for tickets, but I couldn't get there. Instig8R said she couldn't make it either, but I forwarded the e-mail to Jeff Cory and he called and was waiting for a call back. I hope he gets on. I'd love for him to get a great reading, wouldn't you? ;)

Thanks for the info, Clancie. :) .....neo

[CFLarsen]

Yeah, yeah...Stephan Schwartz is quite famous in woowoo-circles:

Solely directed by remote viewing, Schwartz led many research expeditions to locate many spectacular finds: Mark Antony's palace in Alexandria, the Ptolemaic Palace Complex of Cleopatra, and the remains of the Lighthouse of Pharos, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.
The Field (http://www.wddty.co.uk/thefield/deeper_conference_speakers.asp)

Let's take a closer look at just one of these claims, shall we?

The Lighthouse of Pharos
In 1994, an Egyptian film-maker noticed hieroglyphic-covered shapes in the sea near Fort Qaitbey. It seemed that, thanks to earthquakes, tidal waves and erosion, the shoreline of Alexandria had been pushed back by up to 100 yards. Much of the ancient city lay beneath the waves.

Soon, archeologists from France were raising boatloads of artefacts from the splendid, though prodigiously polluted, Eastern Harbour. The site off Fort Qaitbey turned out to contain the ruins of the Pharos, along with hundreds of marble columns and fragments of giant statues made of pink Aswan granite. The most famous image of Alexandria was now a marine archeologist face to face with an underwater sphinx — Indiana Jones with a waterproof note pad.
Source: TimesOnline (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,71-336660,00.html)

Schwartz did not "locate" the Lighthouse of Pharos. I haven't looked into the other two claims (it's early morning here), but I don't need to be a Remote Viewer to know what I will "locate".

Read Schwartz' own account:

Archeology & R.V. Eastern Harbour, Alexandria, Egypt
A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF THE EASTERN HARBOR,ALEXANDRIA, EGYPT INCLUDING A COMPARISON OF SIDE SCAN SONAR AND REMOTE VIEWING
Stephan A. Schwartz - The Mobius Group
Link (http://www.inter-dimensions.com/en-us/dept_68.html)

Some "expert"....:rolleyes:

[Garrette]

Interesting they don't give details in the blurb.

A quick internet search about the Penn State student and Carla Baron indicates:

-The student is Cindy Song who went missing in November 2001.

-The Paranormal Research Society at Penn State contacted Carla Baron to help the police; Baron began phone conversations in, I think, May 2002.

-The founder and director of PRS (Ryan Buell) is quoted as saying "Our job is to - naturally - document the investigation concerning Carla's involvement."

-The last online reference to the actual investigation is dated August 2002. The detective (Brian Sprinkle, Ferguson Township) is apparently an ardent believer in psychics. But the best he can say is (paraphrased as I forgot to copy it and don't want to search again): "Carla Baron has given us a lot of information; unfortunately, it hasn't helped us further the case. It will probably take months and maybe years."

-As of right now, the case is STILL unsolved, 15 months after Baron began "helping." Very impressive addition to the psychic resume, eh?

There are more indicators about the BS this psychic is foisting on the police, if you dig just a little.

I have e-mailed the PRS requesting a copy of their documentation. We will see if they respond.

-----

About Kay Rhea and the other cases, far less information is available. I have e-mailed the Fresno PD for information.

What is available is intriguing. First, Rhea allegedly worked with a Detective Tim McFadden, and has done so for many years.

Second, no Tim McFadden shows up in any searches I could work in relation to Fresno.

Third, a Mark McFadden on the Fresno PD did show up.

---

twill be interesting to see if I get responses.

These things, like so many others, tend to crumble when scrutinized.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Garrette
Interesting they don't give details in the blurb.

As one would expect... :)

Originally posted by Garrette
These things, like so many others, tend to crumble when scrutinized.

These things, like so many others, tend to not be scrutinized by believers. As one would expect... :)

Seriously, what we've seen here pretty much defines the difference between skeptical thinking and believer-thinking. We have two believers, who merely register what happens - and then sit back, going "Ooh!" and "Ahh!".

Then, we have two skeptics, who begin investigating immediately, coming up with some hard data.

Fascinating difference, isn't it?

[Garrette]

Ayup.

[Leroy]

Posted by CFLarsen - Seriously, what we've seen here pretty much defines the difference between skeptical thinking and believer-thinking. We have two believers, who merely register what happens - and then sit back, going "Ooh!" and "Ahh!".


Perhaps you could spare us your personal insults and instead try focusing on the issues.

I read the two believers posts, and nothing in them indicated to me that they were in "Ooh, or Ahh. I find your statement misleading and insulting toward believers - and that kind of thing gives other skeptics, such as myself, a bad image.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Leroy
I find your statement misleading and insulting toward believers
It's insulting, true. But it's not misleading.

Have you ever considered that skeptics like you give the rest of us a bad name? It's long past time we indulged these people, with their cries of open-mindedness which always turn out to be smoke-screens until they can retreat and find someone more guillible.

[dingler44]

Originally posted by Clancie
Thursday through Sunday

COURT TV: Psychic Detectives
60 min.


Thanks for the tip.

[Leroy]

Posted by CFLarsen - Seriously, what we've seen here pretty much defines the difference between skeptical thinking and believer-thinking. We have two believers, who merely register what happens - and then sit back, going "Ooh!" and "Ahh!".

Originally posted by Leroy - I find your statement misleading and insulting toward believers

Posted by Yahzi - It's insulting, true. But it's not misleading.

It's misleading, Nowhere in the post from the two believers, do they Ohh, or Ahh over the topic, therefore, CFLarsens post is misleading.

Have you ever considered that skeptics like you give the rest of us a bad name?

If you mean the rest of you as in skeptics like CFLarsen, and BillHoyt, and Thai, than I certainly hope so.

It's long past time we indulged these people, with their cries of open-mindedness which always turn out to be smoke-screens until they can retreat and find someone more guillible.

[ALWAYS]? [THESE PEOPLE]? I have met many a believer who cried open minded but were not, just as I have met many a skeptic who cried open minded who were not.

I have met just a many believers who were open minded, some who even changed their mind about their beliefs after many discussions with me. I have many skeptics who were sincerely open minded.

Unlike you I don't label all believers as being alike. I have no prejudices against believers, can you say the same?

[Clancie]

You're welcome, Dingler 44.

(I'm glad to see that at least you and Leroy understood the point of this thread).

[neofight]

Originally posted by Leroy



Perhaps you could spare us your personal insults and instead try focusing on the issues.

I read the two believers posts, and nothing in them indicated to me that they were in "Ooh, or Ahh. I find your statement misleading and insulting toward believers - and that kind of thing gives other skeptics, such as myself, a bad image.

Thank you, Leroy! I really do appreciate your walking around after Claus and cleaning up his inaccuracies. That saves Clancie and I the trouble of doing it ourselves. ;) ......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Yahzi

It's insulting, true. But it's not misleading.

Have you ever considered that skeptics like you give the rest of us a bad name? It's long past time we indulged these people, with their cries of open-mindedness which always turn out to be smoke-screens until they can retreat and find someone more guillible.

Yahzi, you, Claus and other "skeptics" like you, have only yourselves to blame for any bad name that you may have. For you to get on Leroy's case for correcting a misstatement made by Claus, is neither very skeptical of you, nor very admirable. :rolleyes: ......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Yahzi, you, Claus and other "skeptics" like you, have only yourselves to blame for any bad name that you may have. For you to get on Leroy's case for correcting a misstatement made by Claus, is neither very skeptical of you, nor very admirable. :rolleyes: ......neo

Problem is, those "misstatements" you keep claiming exist....don't. You can repeat that they do, again and again, but that doesn't make you right.

[Cleopatra]

Can anybody point to me a site about the "psychic detectives" ?

psychic + detective is a fallacious expression of course but anyway.

I searched some sources of Interpol and I didn't come up with anything regarding those cases.

Do we have any statistics? How many cases those detectives have help to be solved.

I am interested in seeing what the cases that those detectives have provided evidence for have in common.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Can anybody point to me a site about the "psychic detectives" ?

psychic + detective is a fallacious expression of course but anyway.

I searched some sources of Interpol and I didn't come up with anything regarding those cases.

Do we have any statistics? How many cases those detectives have help to be solved.

I am interested in seeing what the cases that those detectives have provided evidence for have in common.

In all the numerous threads devoted to this topic I don't recall anyone claiming that any case has actually been solved by a psychic. Not even the most strident believers have yet identified such a case. Check out the 'Police and Pychics' threads for detailed discussion.

I think it's fair to say that the last case which resulted in a conviction based on paranormal evidence was the Salem Which Trial.:)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RonSceptic
I think it's fair to say that the last case which resulted in a conviction based on paranormal evidence was the Salem Which Trial.:)
Which...one was that? :D

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Which...one was that? :D

ARRRGG! What a blunder.

OK, it's a fair cop!:)

[Garrette]

Here is the reply, in its entirety, from Herman Silva of the Fresno Police Department:

Sgt. Tim Mcfadden was employed here for over thirty years, and retired several years ago. As far as the issue of using psychics for police investigations, there is not a policy that requires or prohibits their assistance. I don't believe that we would pay for this assistance, but I'm not certain. Also, I'm not aware of any noteworthy cases where a pyschic's assistance was the determining factor or impetus needed to solve a case. As with most law enforcement agencies, I believe you will find differing opinions within our organization on the effectiveness and legitimacy of pychics.

So Tim McFadden did work there, but he was a Sergeant, not a Detective, which is what the websites I found called him. There is a difference, but I think that's attributable to simple and common sloppy reporting.

Note that I have not received a response from the PRS at Penn State which is the organization that brought Carla Baron into the first case (still unsolved) and promised to document her involvement.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by RonSceptic


In all the numerous threads devoted to this topic I don't recall anyone claiming that any case has actually been solved by a psychic. Not even the most strident believers have yet identified such a case. Check out the 'Police and Pychics' threads for detailed discussion.

I think it's fair to say that the last case which resulted in a conviction based on paranormal evidence was the Salem Which Trial.:)

My point was that in legal terms "important information" is called only the clues that lead either to suspects or to proofs. "Psychic detectives" cannot suggest that they have provided the Police with important info since no case has ever been solved based on info provided by them.

Everytime I hear that a psychic detective has provided " important information" I will ask which is the case that he has helped to be resolved :)

Words do matter in Law.

[Yahweh]

I'm glad the Judicial System keeps a level head (contrary to popular belief :D). I am certain forever, no man is ever convicted of a crime because a lawyer brings in their witness, Psychic Steve, who says he saw the guy commit the crime with aid of tarot cards and remote viewing.

[Cleopatra]

Of course none was ever convicted because of "Psychic Steve" but people have not been convicted because of doubts that "psychic Steve" has created to the Jury.

[dingler44]

and it was a sad, sad night for journalism.... f*cking pathetic actually. Even JE was there to support it... I have to wonder if he knew the context he would be portrayed in.... the show made it appear that JE was endorsing fuc*ing idiots.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Of course none was ever convicted because of "Psychic Steve" but people have not been convicted because of doubts that "psychic Steve" has created to the Jury.

Really? Psychics giving persuasive evidence in court? Can you provide some examples for us?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Of course none was ever convicted because of "Psychic Steve" but people have not been convicted because of doubts that "psychic Steve" has created to the Jury.
As far as people who have not been convicted, I'm reminded of this quote:

"That it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer, is a maxim that has been long and generally approved."
- Benjamin Franklin

And this one:

"It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer."
- Sir William Blackstone

In actuality, I was trying to figure out a way I could phrase "I deliberately neglected to mention people who have not been convicted" in my last post but I couldnt make it fit concisely with the rest of the post. Oh, and I deliberately chose Psychic Steve because I think he has an interestingly designed website (http://www.psychicsteven.com/).

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by RonSceptic


Really? Psychics giving persuasive evidence in court? Can you provide some examples for us?

Where did I say that psychics give persuasive evidence to courts?I am suggesting exactly the contrary. They can create doubts to Juries and it's not uncommon that someone is dismissed just because the Jury doubts that he is guilty. Sometimes we manage to show that a psychic is not in the position to show anything but one vote in the jury can be enough to change the outcome of a trial.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Yahweh
[B]
As far as people who have not been convicted, I'm reminded of this quote:


None can disagree with that Yahweh but I cannot accept doubts that are built on testimonies of people that when they do not want to mislead the jury on purpose they fantasize things. Can you base a decision or your doubts on a testimony of a psychic? This is what I am arguing.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Where did I say that psychics give persuasive evidence to courts?I am suggesting exactly the contrary. They can create doubts to Juries and it's not uncommon that someone is dismissed just because the Jury doubts that he is guilty. Sometimes we manage to show that a psychic is not in the position to show anything but one vote in the jury can be enough to change the outcome of a trial.

You said "people have not been convicted because of doubts that "psychic Steve" has created to the Jury."

Do you have any evidence for this statement or is it simply an unsupported opinion?

For a psychic to have any influnce on a jury his evidence must have been presented to them in court. I'd be interested to see if any psychic ever gets past the courtroom door. I shudder to think what a good attourney would do to a psychic in the dock. Would be fun to watch though.

[Cleopatra]

Unsupported opinion?

This is my job! I practice criminal Law in Greece and I have seen many psychics testifying. According to Greek legislation in murder cases any testimony that can shed light to a case is acceptable.

I hope that you don't believe that members of jury put aside their prejudices and judge only based on evidences or they ignore a testimony that is not based on evidence. I wish it was like that but it's not.

Most of the times it's not difficult to prove that the psychic is not in the position to know anything about the case but "that little lady in blue" ( sorry for the stereotype) that happens to be a member of the jury can make a difference with her vote if she believes in such things.

That's why after every trial that psychics have testified we sue them for purjury.

Also, in case you missed it in other threads that I have mentioned it. Mediums in Greece are recognized as professionals. They have licence to excercise their profession and they pay taxes.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


That's why after every trial that psychics have testified we sue them for purjury.



With what chance of success ?

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Unsupported opinion?

This is my job! I practice criminal Law in Greece and I have seen many psychics testifying. According to Greek legislation in murder cases any testimony that can shed light to a case is acceptable.

I hope that you don't believe that members of jury put aside their prejudices and judge only based on evidences or they ignore a testimony that is not based on evidence. I wish it was like that but it's not.

Most of the times it's not difficult to prove that the psychic is not in the position to know anything about the case but "that little lady in blue" ( sorry for the stereotype) that happens to be a member of the jury can make a difference with her vote if she believes in such things.

That's why after every trial that psychics have testified we sue them for purjury.

Also, in case you missed it in other threads that I have mentioned it. Mediums in Greece are recognized as professionals. They have licence to excercise their profession and they pay taxes.

Wow! I didn't know that. I am really amazed that these people are allowed to give evidence in court. I don't think that happens here in the UK. I imagine they must be given a pretty hard time by the defence counsel.

I am very pleased to hear that these creeps get sued afterwards. Have there been any succesful conviction for perjury?

And I hope my last post did not cause offence. I didn't realise what your background was.

[Cleopatra]

No no Ron it's ok!! You are not obliged to know and I should have clarified this from start but you mentioned that other thread that I have participated in as well and I took for granted that you knew:)

Anyway.

So far we have managed to take out of business 6 of them out of 134 lawsuits.

I KNOW this doesn't seem impressive but have in mind that since our association has started this practice-- to sue psychics-- they are less willing to come and testify in murder cases because they know that regardless of the outcome of the trial we will put them in trouble.

I know that it sounds vindictive but believe me that those people cause a lot of harm and many problems. They destroy the trust between us and our clients and they waste the time of the Police.

I have mentioned before that when I started practicing Law I used to laugh at those things and I didn't give them much credit. I used to say : " Psychics! Ha! Who believes in those things, certainly juries will ignore them" . I was like that until I lost a case because I wasn't well prepared to confront a psychic in court and I am not the only one that has had such an experience.

Now in our association we try to find if there is any connection between cases psychics "offer" to help ( that's why I asked in a previous post) . Interestingly we have found that in 4/10 cases of murder that the relatives of the victims have pushed the Police to accept the help of a psychic turned out that the murderer was a member of the family...I find it extremely interesting.

[Flo]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

So far we have managed to take out of business 6 of them out of 134 lawsuits.

I KNOW this doesn't seem impressive but have in mind that since our association has started this practice-- to sue psychics-- they are less willing to come and testify in murder cases because they know that regardless of the outcome of the trial we will put them in trouble.

Well done ! :roll:

I wish the crooks that prey on bereaved families and waste precious police ressources in France and Switzerland (missing children cases, principally) would be sued and convicted too. I expect only 1 successful case would be enough to make quite a number of them reconsider their involvement in judicial matters ..

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
This is my job! I practice criminal Law in Greece and I have seen many psychics testifying. According to Greek legislation in murder cases any testimony that can shed light to a case is acceptable.
From what I know of American Law, we dont see psychics as a witness, they cannot and will not testify in court with "I saw them in a dream" or any of the crap they like to smear. First, obviously, because they can falsely influence a jury (hey, people really believe JE is talking to their dead grandma, people might actually fall for an "expert psychic"). Second because its a waste of time for the Judicial system to handle Purjury charges from psychics bearing false witness. Quick question, how do these psychics try to defend themselves against these purjury charges? (Of course, if they had any real powers they'd just win the JREF challenge, play the lottery, find missing persons, predict disastors, etc.... but theyre not so either they aren't psychics or they are disgusting selfish individuals...)

Other non-admissable forms of evidence in American Law include: Polygraph tests, claiming God spoke to you, staring contest, throwing darts at a dartboard, tarot cards, arm wrestling match, monkeys on a typewriter etc. etc. etc.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Flo


Well done ! :roll:

I wish the crooks that prey on bereaved families and waste precious police ressources in France and Switzerland (missing children cases, principally) would be sued and convicted too. I expect only 1 successful case would be enough to make quite a number of them reconsider their involvement in judicial matters ..

The reason that it's possible to do it here is because they are professionals and they have licences, so they cannot really suggest that they didn't know that they couldn't provide evidence... BUT people are strange. There are people that think that " the reason lawyers are after psychics is because they are afraid that they will lose their clientele..." Right!

Some others go as far as accussing us for witch hunting and this makes me really mad.

[Leroy]

Problem is, those "misstatements" you keep claiming exist....don't. You can repeat that they do, again and again, but that doesn't make you right.

:D They don't? Than what is this CFLarsen?

Posted by CFLarsen - We have two believers, who merely register what happens - and then sit back, going "Ooh!" and "Ahh!".

This is a misrepresentation of what Clancie and Neo did. Show me where these two in any way, shape, or form presented anything on this thread that resembled and OHH or AHH reaction.

You like to present these believers as gullible dishonest idiots, something that they are not. You try to misrepresent who they are on a continual basis. Wonder what you fear from them that causes you to find this necessary? How insecure do you have to be to go that far?

CFLarsen, I will be to you what you are to Clancie and the other believers, only I will be honest about it! ;)