A Question??

[R.Mackey]

Whoa!! Thanks Luke (and Psiload), that just about does it for McQuary.

Let me take a look at Noreen Renier, assuming this hasn't already been done for me... Rodney was good enough to provide more information, keeping in mind that testimonials are always suspect. But there are names here, so we can attempt to verify them:

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

So let's look at the testimonials. There are nine of them.

"...the Bureau has used Renier strictly in an academic setting, to expand the thinking of police officers. We have, however, given her name to law enforcement people who want to try a psychic. And some of them have said she's solved cases."
— F.B.I. Special Agent Robert Ressler, New York Post, June 4, 1988

Eh, this is the first testimonial?? Off to a bad start. "And some of them have said she's solved cases." Second hand, no names, unverifiable, not worth trying. No debunk possible or needed.

"You definitely opened many eyes to the potential investigative tool of the psychic. Obviously, many a doubting Thomas had to revise his ideas concerning this somewhat esoteric area."
— Daniel Grinnan. Jr. Bureau of Forensic Science Commonwealth of Virginia

The "potential" investigative tool, huh. Implies that it is not a "real" investigative tool, viz. it hasn't done anything. Again, nothing to talk about here. I hope the testimonials get better.

"Noreen never could have known this stuff beforehand and she was so accurate it was chilling."
— Retired Lt. Commander. R. Krolak, The Times Union, February 11, 1992

It'd be real nice if she mentioned what she was "accurate" about. For all I know, she gave the guy a psychic reading of his love life over the telephone. Next.

"I was skeptical until Noreen said on the phone from almost 1OOO miles away that there was something wrong with my friend's leg. He had been hobbling around on crutches for a week, and there was no way for her to know that."
— David Rogers, National Council of Churches Interreligion Task Force for Criminal Justice

So here it's clear that she is doing a cold reading over the telephone. I have no idea what this is supposed to prove with respect to criminal justice. (Aside: "Council of Churches Interreligion Task Force?" Are you kidding me?)

"It was kind of scary when we did find it, and it was almost exactly as she described it. I wouldn't say I'm a total believer, but I don't throw out anything they say."
— Lt. Robert Miller, Port St. Lucie Tribune, May 19, 1991

Found what? His missing car keys? Next.

"In a lot of the cases new information comes forth as a result of Noreen's consultation. She has established a formidable track record for honesty and professionalism..."
— Rod Englert Forensic Consultants April, 1990

Consultation need not imply psychic ability. She could merely function as a counselor. Next.

"...She helped to locate a plane containing the body of a relative of an FBI agent."
— Retired Special Agent, Robert Ressler. Whoever Fights Monsters, St. Martin's Press

How? By looking up topographic maps and driving around in a Jeep looking for it? Again, no mention of psychic ability. Next.

"Without Noreen Renier we would not have located Norman Lewis. I'm extremely impressed with her abilities. She told us things that she would have to have been an eyewitness to have known."
— Olin Slaughter, Chief of Police, Williston Police Department Williston Pioneer, June 27, 1996.

Okay, so we're down the eighth out of nine and FINALLY we have something that sounds like an endorsement of psychic ability. Maybe. I note it was ten years ago. This leads me to conclude that her "guessing in the dark" rate is simply not very high.

"Your presentation on right brain processes as they relate to psychic ability and awareness was germane to our topic of left-brain/right-brain activities, and your discussion and demonstrations contributed to the participants' overall understanding and appreciate of WHOLE-BRAIN processes."
— Clairette T. Murray Training Specialist, Martin Marrietta, Orlando, Florida

No comment.

----

This is Noreen promoting herself, and the only vaguely impressive testimonial is a ten-year-old small town quote. Pathetic. If I was a detective, psychic or not, I'd better solve more than one crime every ten years or I'd quickly be out of a job, if not run out of town on a rail.

The Williston case is apparently well known and studied, and another common topic of -- you guessed it -- Court TV. What a surprise. As it happens, others have already investigated this case: Gary Posner on the Williston case:

Unmentioned on the program was that Hewitt had learned, as documented in his official report dated May 12, 1995 -- two months before Renier's reading -- that three weeks prior to his disappearance, Lewis had confided to a handyman friend that if his life deteriorated sufficiently "he would find a river or pit," i.e., commit suicide in one of the many quarry pits in the area.

The police are said to be "stunned at how dead-on" Renier's reading was. But she had time, if she wished, to research the local newspaper coverage of the disappearance and search, and to obtain maps of the area, as I did. And the most prominent feature on the Williston roadmap is the quarry (labeled "Limestone quarry to the east") located at the junction of State Routes 45 and 121. [Note: That portion of U.S. 41 is also S.R. 45, as indicated on the reverse side of the map.] Indeed, during my investigation in Williston, someone familiar with the case (but who requested anonymity) told me on videotape that this quarry was initially "the prime target for the investigation after the [Renier reading]."

Bottom line, there's no evidence of anything psychic here at all.

Just for fun, let's hit Ray Krolak too: Gary Posner again, for Tampa Bay Skeptics Report

Now for the smoking gun (if there is one) on Geraldo. With Renier on the stage and both Krolak and the grandson's mother -- who had encouraged that Renier be brought in on the case -- in the studio audience, Geraldo asks the mother, "Marge, are you confronted now with the incredible dilemma that the psychic has apparently fingered, or helped to accuse, your own flesh and blood of killing your parents, his grandparents?" Marge's reply: "She did not do that. She did not finger my son. She did finger the other two."

The camera cuts to Renier, who merely smiles. She had earlier told Geraldo that she retains little memory of her "psychic" readings once they are over.

Back to you Rodney. Thank you for providing some material for us to follow up. Unfortunately, it looks like it all has a much more mundane explanation.

Now you understand why we don't believe in this stuff. Everytime it has been tested, even gently, it falls to pieces.

If there really WAS a reliable psychic, I'd expect him or her to start solving crimes full-time. Not like there aren't enough of them around. It would be a simple matter to prove that he or she was the real thing. Somehow, though, it has never happened...

 

[gumboot]

I'm ashamed that I have to offer up my country... but this, on the surface, appears to be such a case.

Psychic helps find man's belongings
Jul 3, 2006

A psychic from Palmerston North has helped searchers find the belongings of a missing elderly man on the banks of the Manawatu River.

James Alexander, 73, disappeared from his rest home in Palmerston North a week ago, prompting an extensive police search.

Search co-ordinator Bill Nicholson says an email from the woman on Friday had enough detail about the missing man for her to be taken seriously.

He says she directed police to a part of a river which they had not considered searching.

The missing man suffers from Alzheimer's disease and it is thought he walked the three or four kilometres from the rest home to the river.

It's really not much to go on, and I'm not having much luck with other sources, but this is an ongoing case here so I'll keep an eye out for more info.

-Andrew

EDT. Correlating article, from the local newspaper here.

 

[Luke T.]

Notice how old the cases are with supposed police corrobaration?

Nothing recent.

Those cases which are recent are still unsolved, which says it all, and you can be sure they won't follow up later to show just how far off the psychic was.

 

[Luke T.]

Okay, blowing my horn a little bit, but I wrote an article for KellyJ's web site about psychics and the media here. The symbiotic relationship between psychics and the media is chief among my pet peeves with respect to the paranormal.

In that article is a link to a story about a psychic who was used in a missing person case and when the police were asked their opinion on her reading, expressed apparent amazement at her abilities.

But if you look at what I found surrounding the psychic's reading, I think you will figure out the truth.

One thing I have found with media figures who shill for psychics is that honesty, integrity, and/or a quest for the truth are not their strong suits.

 

[Rodney]

Back to you Rodney. Thank you for providing some material for us to follow up. Unfortunately, it looks like it all has a much more mundane explanation.

Now you understand why we don't believe in this stuff. Everytime it has been tested, even gently, it falls to pieces.

If there really WAS a reliable psychic, I'd expect him or her to start solving crimes full-time. Not like there aren't enough of them around. It would be a simple matter to prove that he or she was the real thing. Somehow, though, it has never happened...

Your analysis makes for a good lawyer's brief, but the fact remains, a number of law enforcement officers do believe that Noreen Renier has helped them solve some cases. What is needed is an impartial study of her and other psychics, but I don't think one has ever been done.

 

[R.Mackey]

Your analysis makes for a good lawyer's brief, but the fact remains, a number of law enforcement officers do believe that Noreen Renier has helped them solve some cases. What is needed is an impartial study of her and other psychics, but I don't think one has ever been done.

Hello again, Rodney.

I have to nitpick. The fact doesn't "remain," because the fact has not been proven. What law enforcement officers? How many? What do they believe?

Noreen Renier cites testimonials from eight people (Robert Ressler is cited twice, with different credentials...). Of those eight, only two mention anything "psychic." These two are Krolak and Slaughter, both of whom have been discredited. That brings our total down to zero.

If there are more, and more credible, LEOs who will vouch for psychic phenomena, please point them out to us.

There are plenty of organizations willing to set up an impartial evaluation of a psychic. JREF is one of them. The burden lies, alas, upon the psychics.

 

[Luke T.]

Law enforcement people are, uh, people. Imperfect and susceptible to fallacious conclusions like anyone else. I'm sure they have better B.S. detectors than most people, but they aren't all perfect critical thinking machines, you know?

 

[Luke T.]

When you look at cases these psychics have supposedly solved, you are often presented with a situation that occured a decade or more ago. Verification is nearly impossible. So they win by default.

And even if you show that there is a lot of room for doubt of their claims, they move merrily on undaunted and with no loss of a following. And the media consistently fails to follow up claims made by psychics on current cases.

Very frustrating.

 

[Rodney]

Hello again, Rodney.

I have to nitpick. The fact doesn't "remain," because the fact has not been proven. What law enforcement officers? How many? What do they believe?

Noreen Renier cites testimonials from eight people (Robert Ressler is cited twice, with different credentials...). Of those eight, only two mention anything "psychic." These two are Krolak and Slaughter, both of whom have been discredited. That brings our total down to zero.

If there are more, and more credible, LEOs who will vouch for psychic phenomena, please point them out to us.

There are plenty of organizations willing to set up an impartial evaluation of a psychic. JREF is one of them. The burden lies, alas, upon the psychics.

So you think your analysis is "impartial"? For example:

Originally Posted by Noreen Renier @ her website:
"It was kind of scary when we did find it, and it was almost exactly as she described it. I wouldn't say I'm a total believer, but I don't throw out anything they say."
— Lt. Robert Miller, Port St. Lucie Tribune, May 19, 1991

R. Mackey: Found what? His missing car keys? Next.

An impartial investigation would look into what Lt. Miller was talking about. What was found and why was it kind of scary? It won't do to simply assume that Renier provided Lt. Miller information through ordinary (non-psychic) means.

 

[R.Mackey]

So you think your analysis is "impartial"? For example:

Originally Posted by Noreen Renier @ her website:
"It was kind of scary when we did find it, and it was almost exactly as she described it. I wouldn't say I'm a total believer, but I don't throw out anything they say."
— Lt. Robert Miller, Port St. Lucie Tribune, May 19, 1991

R. Mackey: Found what? His missing car keys? Next.

An impartial investigation would look into what Lt. Miller was talking about. What was found and why was it kind of scary? It won't do to simply assume that Renier provided Lt. Miller information through ordinary (non-psychic) means.

Hi Rodney,

Strictly speaking, I didn't analyze anything. No need. Seven of the nine testimonials that you presented contained no indication of psychic phenomena. The remaining two were analyzed by someone else, and I merely presented their arguments, which I find compelling.

You are totally wrong. An impartial investigation will wait until there's something to look into. This quote -- which is quite silly -- is not enough to start an investigation. To use your own words, it won't do to simply assume that Renier provided Lt. Miller information through extraordinary (psychic) means, either. This alleged "testimonial" is 100% content free.

Furthermore, I don't claim to be impartial. But if a psychic wants an impartial evaluation, all he or she needs to do is ask JREF (or CSICOP, etc.) to set one up. Yes, it is that simple.

 

[chillzero]

I believe the answer to that is 'no', or at least 'not that we've ever heard about', at least not in the UK or USA, and certainly not in recent years.

Forum member chillzero has collected a lot of statements from UK police departments regarding this issue, and the answer is always the negative.

However, there are many psychics who will claim that they did in fact solve the crime. I'm unsure what their defence is when shown the police statements to the contrary.

Chillzero recently wrote an article here: http://theskepticexpress.com/diane_lazarus.php which is worth reading if you are interested in this subject.

In the USA, a police officer was recently dismissed for consulting a psychic about a case, so presumably the police there also have a policy of not using them.

Hi,
Sorry to take so long to get to this, but there was another member of the ukskeptics forum who contacted a lot more police forces than I have done so far.
EddieSilence mentions this and starts collating the information here:
http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/index.php/topic,18.0.html

and I think it was all collated separately somewhere else - John Jackson - do you know where he put it all?

The outcome is basically that no UK police force has so far endorsed the use of psychics. They treat information from them the same as from any other member of the public. On being asked about specific cases, all have indicated that no psychics have been instrumental or useful in those cases.

The garda in Ireland is different, leaving the decision to local officer discretion. They have been very unhelpful in assisting with any information in follow up queries to this. Therefore I have been unable to verify any of the claims that psychics were used, or were of any help.

 

[Ashles]

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.

This is the important distinction, otherwise you could refer to anything that any individual police officer had ever believed or done and refer to it generically as "The Police".

Do the Police help Money launderers?
Yes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5055110.stm

Do the Police go cycling on the Great Wall of China?
Yes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/news/032001/11/pc.shtml

Do the Police believe in Buddhism?
I'm sure some of them do.

The question isn't really about what individual policemen might personally believe - it should be about what they do and use as an organisation, and what can actually be demonstrated about any specific claims.

The onus is, of course, on any psychic or believer to demonstrate that they have been effective in such a case.

 

[Rodney]

The question isn't really about what individual policemen might personally believe - it should be about what they do and use as an organisation, and what can actually be demonstrated about any specific claims.

The onus is, of course, on any psychic or believer to demonstrate that they have been effective in such a case.

Yes, and some have produced police officers who claim to have been intimately involved in cases that they say the psychic contributed to solving. Some of these officers say they were skeptical of psychics initially, but became convinced that the information provided by the psychic could not have been known by non-psychic means.

 

[Ashles]

Yes, and some have produced police officers who claim to have been intimately involved in cases that they say the psychic contributed to solving. Some of these officers say they were skeptical of psychics initially, but became convinced that the information provided by the psychic could not have been known by non-psychic means.

Anyone can believe or say anything they like.
But unfortunately they have never been able to provide any evidence that would convince anyone else.

There are so many murder cases and missing persons cases that are just stalled completely. Why can psychics never help with these?

The answer to your question is that there is no evidence to indicate that a single crime has ever been solved by the use of information gleaned in a paranormal manner by a psychic.

 

[Rodney]

Anyone can believe or say anything they like.
But unfortunately they have never been able to provide any evidence that would convince anyone else.

Except for those they have convinced, such as Jay Uribe of the Montana Division of Criminal Investigations, referenced earlier in this thread.

There are so many murder cases and missing persons cases that are just stalled completely. Why can psychics never help with these?

First, Jay Uribe claims that information provided by Noreen Renier helped lead to a murder conviction, and some other police officers have similar stories. Second, it's illogical to assume that a psychic should always be able to solve a case, any more than it is logical to believe that police or private (non-psychic) investigators should always be able to solve a case. In fact, while the police usually do an excellent job in pursuing all leads, sometimes they botch things completely. [For example, in the well-known Chandra Levy disappearance case in Washington, DC -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Levy -- the police undertook what was said to be a thorough search of densely-wooded Rock Creek Park shortly after Levy vanished in May 2001. However, the search turned up nothing. Then, in May 2002, a dog being walked by a man in Rock Creek Park found Levy's remains. Unfortunately, by that time any DNA evidence that might have been used to obtain a conviction in the case had been contaminated.]

The answer to your question is that there is no evidence to indicate that a single crime has ever been solved by the use of information gleaned in a paranormal manner by a psychic.

In your opinion. In my opinion, a thorough study of the evidence claimed by psychics and their police supporters is needed.

 

[R.Mackey]

Rodney... are you talking about this?

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/30/ng.01.html

URIBE: And I ended up going down to Florida for a psychic consultation, I guess you call them. And what we did during our consultation was, the first thing I wanted her to do, because I had seen on one of these programs, to have -- possibly pick out a picture of our killer. And we brought some pictures along that weren`t our suspect and put them all face down. And sure enough, she picked out the picture of the individual who was our prime suspect.

GRACE: Hey, Joe? Joe?

URIBE: Yes?

GRACE: how many pictures did you show her?

URIBE: I believe -- well, there were, I think, six pictures face down on table. And she picked out the one that she -- I asked her, Which one do you think was our killer, and she picked out the right picture.

URIBE: In fact, she was ribbing me because I wouldn`t give her any information about the case, and she started laughing. And she says, Well, I guess I`ll have to tell you what happened. And she did. She literally told us about an ambush that took place. There were three people involved in the ambush. Our victim was beaten badly. He had a crescent wrench hit along the side of his head. She had a pain her head during the consultation. And then she said, I was put down on my knees, and now I`m hurting in the back of my head. Well, our victim was in a position down on his knees, and he was shot in the back of the head.

She didn't solve a thing.

She was alerted way in advance that Uribe was coming to see her, and what about. When he arrived, she did the usual psychic "talk to the dead" stuff, and read his body language to pick one out of six pictures (17% chance of success even if she was the worst performer in the world, and if Uribe was a skeptic, which he is definitely not). Then she recounted details of the case as Uribe already understood them -- and were in the press for FIVE YEARS BEFORE she said anything!!

You'll also notice that, according to Uribe, he was very generous about scoring her "hits." "An ambush..." "pain in the head..." but she did not pick out that there were three people, specify the wrench or the gunshot -- just "pain in the head." Riddle me this, since the guy was murdered near his car in unfamiliar grounds, what are the odds that he was ambushed and hit in the head? Darn near 100%, I'd say.

She did not help solve this case, by Uribe's own admission. All she did was "confirm" what he already believed.

Rodney, do you understand why these claims -- even if we accept them at face value -- do not support your position?

Does it bother you that it is so hard to find a clean-cut example of a psychic actually solving a crime?

 

[Rodney]

Rodney... are you talking about this?

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/30/ng.01.html

Yes.

She didn't solve a thing.

She was alerted way in advance that Uribe was coming to see her, and what about. When he arrived, she did the usual psychic "talk to the dead" stuff, and read his body language to pick one out of six pictures (17% chance of success even if she was the worst performer in the world, and if Uribe was a skeptic, which he is definitely not). Then she recounted details of the case as Uribe already understood them -- and were in the press for FIVE YEARS BEFORE she said anything!!

You'll also notice that, according to Uribe, he was very generous about scoring her "hits." "An ambush..." "pain in the head..." but she did not pick out that there were three people, specify the wrench or the gunshot -- just "pain in the head." Riddle me this, since the guy was murdered near his car in unfamiliar grounds, what are the odds that he was ambushed and hit in the head? Darn near 100%, I'd say.

She did not help solve this case, by Uribe's own admission. All she did was "confirm" what he already believed.

According to the transcript: URIBE: Well, The case was well investigated by the local authorities and our previous agents who were down there. They did everything possible to try and find out what happened with Walter. They had a suspect. They had all the things, all the elements, but they didn`t have enough to quite make the case . . . I didn't believe in psychics. I never have believed in them . . . She led us to information that only -- I don`t know how she knew these things.

GRACE: Very quickly, did you get the killer?

URIBE: We did.

Rodney, do you understand why these claims -- even if we accept them at face value -- do not support your position?

Now that you mention it, no.

Does it bother you that it is so hard to find a clean-cut example of a psychic actually solving a crime?

What would be a clean-cut example?

 

[Yahzi]

What would be a clean-cut example?

An arrested psychic.

Believe me, if you walk into a police station and give specific details of an unsolved murder so accurate they lead to finding the body, the police are going to want to know how you know. And "a little psychic birdy told me" isn't going to cut it.

Until a psychic is so informative that the police consider them as an "investigative lead," their will not be a clean-cut example of a psychic being informative.

 

[R.Mackey]

Rodney, I'm beginning to think the problem here is one of reading comprehension, which isn't being helped by a biased and deliberately misleading presentation.

Where did Uribe say that Renier had given them new information? Nowhere:

Uribe: [...] And what we were going to do is try and ask her what happened, and we basically knew what had happened...

GRACE: Wow.

URIBE: ... but we wanted to see if she could confirm it.

Let me try to help. Can you point out anything that says:

• Renier provided new information to investigators
• Renier provided information specific enough to be tested (and results of those tests)
• Renier provided information that could only have been gathered paranormally
• Renier was responsible for the case's successful conclusion

The answer to all four is no. The interview does not say any of these things. That's why this anecdote does not support your conclusion.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Rodney]

An arrested psychic.

Believe me, if you walk into a police station and give specific details of an unsolved murder so accurate they lead to finding the body, the police are going to want to know how you know. And "a little psychic birdy told me" isn't going to cut it.

Actually, a good point. For example, let's suppose someone had called Logan Airport in Boston around 8 A.M. on September 11, 2001 to tell whomever answered the phone that (s)he had a premonition that two planes bound for Los Angeles that morning were going to be hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center. After the attacks took place, the police would have conducted an all-out search for that person, on the assumption that (s)he was involved in the hijackings. Which is why we shouldn't have expected someone to have called Logan that morning, even if they had such a premonition.

Until a psychic is so informative that the police consider them as an "investigative lead," their will not be a clean-cut example of a psychic being informative.

Which leaves the question unresolved, doesn't it?