A Question??

[Rodney]

Rodney, I'm beginning to think the problem here is one of reading comprehension . . .

I agree. May I suggest you try "Hooked on Phonics"?

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

Except for: "She led us to information that only -- I don`t know how she knew these things." No, Uribe doesn't specify in the transcript what "these things" are, but you have no basis to conclude that he's misrepresenting the facts.

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.

Uribe clearly believes that Renier helped convict the killer. You (and I) know only the few details that appear in the transcript. You are making Uribe out to be a Renier dupe, but you have only a tiny handful of facts. That's why we need an investigation to determine what all the facts are.

 

[R.Mackey]

I agree. May I suggest you try "Hooked on Phonics"?

If you can't convince me because of your lack of facts, trying to make up for it with insults won't work either. I've been very patient with you, Rodney, you should have some respect.

Except for: "She led us to information that only -- I don`t know how she knew these things." No, Uribe doesn't specify in the transcript what "these things" are, but you have no basis to conclude that he's misrepresenting the facts.

(emphasis added)

Not relevant! Nobody has yet claimed anything interesting, but only suggested them. This is not enough to support your position, or to start an investigation.

NOW do you understand??

 

[chillzero]

Yes.


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.

Now that you mention it, no.

What would be a clean-cut example?

emphasis mine.

So, the case was already solved, but they had some finer details to sort out to ensure a conviction. Asking did they get the killer, after this, seems irrelevant - they already had him. They had the suspect based on pure policework. Gathering the court evidence is often problematic, and there is no embellishment as to what this psychic uncovered for them - nothing that they didn't already know, from what I can see.

For me, a clear-cut example would be when a psychic is able to provide clear, unambiguous, previously uncovered but still verifiable information. Never happened yet.

 

[pchams]

Newest nut from Alberta:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2006/07/05/1669219-sun.html

"But there have been a number of examples over the years where (information from psychics) has been fruitful."

Oh sorry, no sources...

 

[grayman]

I'm still waiting to read "Psychic Wins Lottery!" in the news.

 

[Starrman]

I have no data to support this, but my guess is that just about any case of a missing person is going to attract a ton of unsolicited 'psychic' help. E-mails, calls to hotlines or letters explaining how someone 'saw the whole thing happen in a dream!' There has to be thousands and thousands of attempted psychic guesses to solve cases in the US, maybe tens of thousands across the globe - yet here we are quibbling over maybe one or two that seem to maybe come close possibly perhaps? I'm sorry, but even if some items seem dramatic on their surface, in terms of utility and accuracy, they are no more than a few drops drowned in a sea of useless information that nobody remembers or keeps track of. You would be talking paranormal if there WASN'T a single case where a psychic happened to provide a guess that turned out to be useful or maybe even solved a crime.

I'm sorry if this has been said before, but we shouldn't be surprised to find that an alleged psychic actually helped police. We just can't jump to the conclusion that psychic abilities had anything to do with it. I may beat the odds at a blackjack table for a few hours, but they aren't going to put that on Larry King. But a psychic makes 1000 guesses and gets one right and they build an industry off of it.