A Question??

[Rodney]

Ah, so you do want to turn this into another almond thread. Not playing. You want to prove it, you do the leg work.

No leg work required, at least if you have watched some of the many TV shows on the subject of psychics used by police. Detectives that believe psychics have helped solve at least some crimes have been featured on a number of these shows. Now, I will concede that there are also many police officers who don't believe that psychics have helped the police solve crimes. But the answer to the question "Has there ever been a case where the police did claim psychic/medium had helped them solve a crime?" is clearly yes, if by "police" is meant individual officers. If by "police" is meant the entire department or the Chief of Police, then perhaps not. But it would be rather unusual for a police department or the Chief of Police to concede that a psychic did what they could not do.

 

[tsg]

But the answer to the question "Has there ever been a case where the police did claim psychic/medium had helped them solve a crime?" is clearly yes, if by "police" is meant individual officers.

For small values of "helped".

 

[Lynx2174]

Argument by TV series. That's a new one.

new? Argumentum Ad Television has been a staple of formal debate since the 1950s. It recently spawned the famous chewbacca defense as well.

IE. "I saw it on TV, it must be true!"

 

[tsg]

new? Argumentum Ad Television has been a staple of formal debate since the 1950s. It recently spawned the famous chewbacca defense as well.

IE. "I saw it on TV, it must be true!"

And its sub-fallacy "I read it on the Internet".

 

[Rodney]

And its sub-fallacy "I read it on the Internet".

Of course you shouldn't believe something simply because a TV show or Internet post claims it's true, but the point here is that a number of TV shows have featured police officers supporting psychics' claims. While that doesn't prove the claims are true, the original question was: "Has there ever been a case where the police did claim psychic/medium had helped them solve a crime?"

 

[tsg]

Of course you shouldn't believe something simply because a TV show or Internet post claims it's true, but the point here is that a number of TV shows have featured police officers supporting psychics' claims. While that doesn't prove the claims are true, the original question was: "Has there ever been a case where the police did claim psychic/medium had helped them solve a crime?"

Yes. And the larger discussion the question is asking is "does that mean anything?" Technically, literally, yes, I'm sure a police officer somewhere has claimed that a psychic helped solve a crime. That, in and of itself, isn't meaningful or helpful. Technically, literally, the answer to "do you know what time it is?" is "yes, I do". Perfectly correct, and not usefull at all to the person asking.

Whether that claim is supported by evidence; how much they helped; whether that help actually took the form of using psychic powers; whether the information they gave them was attainable by other, non-magical, means; how that particular officer arrived at that conclusion; and how specific and accurate the information given was is all germane to the discussion, especially considering the number of psychics who have claimed to help in police investigations.

So, in actual fact, the answer to "Has there ever been a case where the police did claim psychic/medium had helped them solve a crime?", is "Yes, but none that have any evidence of substance." The answer to the larger question, "have psychic abilities ever been useful in a police investigation?" is "not that we know of."

 

[Kelly]

The answer to the larger question, "have psychic abilities ever been useful in a police investigation?" is "not that we know of."

 

[Rodney]

So, in actual fact, the answer to "Has there ever been a case where the police did claim psychic/medium had helped them solve a crime?", is "Yes, but none that have any evidence of substance." The answer to the larger question, "have psychic abilities ever been useful in a police investigation?" is "not that we know of."

How many cases have you investigated? For example, have you investigated the Pennsylvania case that involved alleged psychic McGee, Detective Zechman, and District Attorney Eshleman?

 

[tsg]

How many cases have you investigated?

Zero. This isn't about me.

 

[Rodney]

Zero. This isn't about me.

So how do you know that "[t]he answer to the larger question, 'have psychic abilities ever been useful in a police investigation?' is 'not that we know of?'" Detective Zechman and a number of other detectives that I've seen on TV shows disagree. Therefore, it seems to me that there would have to be a thorough investigation of the facts of each such case to be sure. And, to be clear, "each such case" refers only to those instances where a police officer has come forward to support a psychic's claims, not to instances where a psychic claims to have assisted in a police investigation, but no police officer has come forward to support that claim.

 

[tsg]

So how do you know that "[t]he answer to the larger question, 'have psychic abilities ever been useful in a police investigation?' is 'not that we know of?'"

Because of the lack of supporting evidence.

Detective Zechman and a number of other detectives that I've seen on TV shows disagree.

As has been pointed out, a TV show isn't convincing evidence. A claim by a police officer, absent of any corroborating evidence, is merely an anecdote.

Therefore, it seems to me that there would have to be a thorough investigation of the facts of each such case to be sure.

I never claimed to be sure. It's possible, but very unlikely given that the evidence for psychic abilities is very scant indeed. But the onus of proof is on those making the claims. Until such time as they can support their claims, I am perfectly justified in saying their claims are unsupported.

 

[Rodney]

I never claimed to be sure. It's possible, but very unlikely given that the evidence for psychic abilities is very scant indeed. But the onus of proof is on those making the claims. Until such time as they can support their claims, I am perfectly justified in saying their claims are unsupported.

What would constitute support, in your opinion?

 

[Rodney]

Right now, 8:30 P.M. EDT on CNN Headline News in the U.S. East, Nancy Grace is doing a show on police and psychics.

 

[Rodney]

Right now, 8:30 P.M. EDT on CNN Headline News in the U.S. East, Nancy Grace is doing a show on police and psychics.

The show, which lasted only about 20 minutes, is over. It featured episodes about two psychics -- Laurie McQuary and Noreen Renier.

In the first episode, a woman named Vashti Apostol-Hurst stated that her relatives' small plane went missing in Oregon in the winter. A search failed to turn up anything, and so she turned to psychic McQuary. According to Apostol-Hurst, McQuary pinpointed exactly the location of the missing plane, which she said had crashed. Based on the information supplied by McQuary, a search plane located the wreckage of the missing plane and, unfortunately, the bodies of the four people on-board.

In the second episode, a man named Jay Uribe of the Montana Division of Criminal Investigations stated that he was involved in a murder case in which he believed that he knew who the perpetrator was, but didn't have enough evidence to obtain a conviction. He claims he did not believe in psychics, but saw an Unsolved Mysteries' show about psychic Renier that featured a case very similar to the case in which he was now involved. He contacted Renier through Unsolved Mysteries, and upon meeting her, placed six photographs face down on a table. According to Uribe, Renier selected the photograph of the suspected perpetrator. Uribe then says he asked Renier to tell him what had happened, and she not only confirmed his information, but also supplied new information. Based on the additional information supplied by Renier, Uribe claims that the suspect was arrested and later convicted.

 

[R.Mackey]

You do realize, of course, that even if everything you've posted above is true, it can be explained away without using psychic phenomena?

Gee, a small plane disappears in winter. Do you suppose it might have crashed??

A detective shows a guy six pictures and asks him to pick one -- a guy who's well versed in reading his clients' body language. Tough odds, huh??

You'll have to do much, much better than that. But if you can provide some law enforcement professionals that we can contact to verify the stories, we will be more than happy to follow up on this.

 

[Yahzi]

So how do you know that "[t]he answer to the larger question, 'have psychic abilities ever been useful in a police investigation?' is 'not that we know of?'"

Because police departments don't routinely hire psychics.

They buy DNA analyzers, join fingerprint databases, send detectives to school, practice interrogation techinques... all sorts of things.

And they are always recruting.

But you never see them recruting psychics. No adds, no job postings... nothing.

Why do you suppose that is?

Could it have anything to do with the reason you don't see Las Vegas casino owners recruting anti-psychics to stop all the psychics from cheating?

 

[Rodney]

You'll have to do much, much better than that. But if you can provide some law enforcement professionals that we can contact to verify the stories, we will be more than happy to follow up on this.

Noreen Renier's website -- http://www.noreenrenier.com/testimonials/index.php5 -- lists a number of testimonials from law enforcement professionals.

 

[tsg]

What would constitute support, in your opinion?

Considerably more than a TV show and anecdotes. Give me what you got and I'll let you know whether or not it's convincing.

 

[Drudgewire]

Right now, 8:30 P.M. EDT on CNN Headline News in the U.S. East, Nancy Grace is doing a show on police and psychics.

This infuriated me. I don't like Nancy to begin with. But I figured as a former prosecutor who seems pretty no-nonsense, she would be at the forefront of those who would oppose "psychics" getting in the way of investigations.

I guess since her bread is still buttered by Court TV and they make advertising revenue off those crappy psychic shows she's happy to tow the woo woo line for them.

 

[Luke T.]

The show, which lasted only about 20 minutes, is over. It featured episodes about two psychics -- Laurie McQuary and Noreen Renier.

In the first episode, a woman named Vashti Apostol-Hurst stated that her relatives' small plane went missing in Oregon in the winter. A search failed to turn up anything, and so she turned to psychic McQuary. According to Apostol-Hurst, McQuary pinpointed exactly the location of the missing plane, which she said had crashed. Based on the information supplied by McQuary, a search plane located the wreckage of the missing plane and, unfortunately, the bodies of the four people on-board.

Not the first time we've heard of Ms. McQuary and her claims. In fact, I was thinking of her in regard to the question asked in the opening post of this topic.

Read this topic and see what I mean.

In that topic, we had a Larry King Live show hosted by a someone from Court TV who is a big cheerleader for "psychic detectives" who had Ms. McQuary on as a guest along with a police officer who confirmed McQuary had helped on a case.

So they go on and on about it. Only they left out one extremely important fact which was discovered by Psiload. Read the topic to find out why TV shows are completely unreliable as "evidence".