Critic’s “Top 15” claims by psychic detective Noreen Renier

[Garrette]

Answer this: If the "psychic's" clues were so helpful, why did it take several months after the reading to actually find the body? As was quoted earlier:


So the months long search based on the reading was totally ineffective. Sounds to me like the handyman's mention of driving into a pit had more to do with actually "zeroing in" on the pit the victim was found in. Regardless of what the investigators involved say now, it seems pretty obvious that this case was solved by a mixture of delayed witness testimony and blind luck.

Precisely.

Rodney, are we to believe that the police searched nowhere else between July (when Renier gave her readings) until April (when they found the remains in the Whitehurst pit)?

This is not an idle question and is, I think, critical.

What were the police doing during those 9 months?

 

[fls]

"Quite fortunately"? So, they searched the correct pit just by chance?

There may have been some element of chance. But there are also characteristics which would make some choices more likely than others (Sherlock already pointed this out), like depth and accessibility.

Linda

 

[fls]

As they would have been had they searched anywhere but the Whitehust pit. So why did they search there -- and only there -- following Renier's reading and then walking around about 30 candidate quarries? Just blind luck?

It seems more obvious to conclude that walking around the quarries allowed them to recognize that most weren't suitable candidates.

Linda

 

[fls]

That would be Detective Hewitt, who supported Renier before he died; and Chief Slaughter, who still supports her.

And what has been nicely documented is that their opinions are wrong. They wrongly remembered what she had said, they wrongly attributed information to her which did not come from her, and they used a confirmation bias to evaluate the information which easily allows them to be wrong about whether the information she gave was useful. Since they clearly demonstrated that they did not use the thinking skills necessary to evaluate these claims, their support only serves as evidence for the skeptics' cause (that belief doesn't speak to whether a claim is true).

Linda

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I've never in my life heard the term "weigh bridge" until I came across this thread, if the "psychic" is American it's not a term she would use.

Of course I couldn't possibly prove it, but I'd be prepared to bet dollars to doughnuts that before this thread, neither had Rodney.

 

[brodski]

If the dogs aren't skeptical, it doesn't count.

They may not be skeptics but they are cynics.

 

[Rodney]

Precisely.

Rodney, are we to believe that the police searched nowhere else between July (when Renier gave her readings) until April (when they found the remains in the Whitehurst pit)?

This is not an idle question and is, I think, critical.

What were the police doing during those 9 months?

As I noted in Post # 176 on this thread, the sequence of events was this:

March 1994: Norman Lewis disappears from Williston, FL.

July 1995: Noreen Renier paid by Lewis' family to assist the Williston police investigation.

August 1995: Detective Brian Hewitt of the Williston police department discovers, in accord with Renier's July reading, a buried railroad track near the Whitehurst pit. Williston Police Chief Olin Slaughter calls in some local divers to search the pit, but they don't find anything.

September 1995: Chief Slaughter observes, again in accord with Renier's reading, an old (weigh) bridge near the Whitehurst pit. Slaughter then has Hewitt write a letter to the U.S. Department of Navy seeking the assistance of U.S. Navy divers in searching the pit.

April 1996: After a delay of more than six months, the Navy divers finally arrive to search the Whitehurst pit and quickly locate Lewis's truck and remains.

So, presumably, between September 1995 and April 1996, the police weren't searching anywhere. They had searched extensively for 18 months between March 1994-September 1995, and now believed that Lewis's truck and remains would be found in the Whitehurst pit. However, they had to wait for the Navy divers to arrive to validate their belief.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

September 1995: Chief Slaughter observes, again in accord with Renier's reading, an old (weigh) bridge near the Whitehurst pit.

I like the fact that you're now using the British term and putting the first word in brackets in order to try to make it look like a hit. I'd have thought that if the clues were genuinely accurate then you wouldn't have to change them in order to make them fit. It's a teeny bit dishonest to change the clues and pretend that the changed clue is what the actual clue was, though, isn't it?

 

[Garrette]

As I noted in Post # 176 on this thread, the sequence of events was this:

March 1994: Norman Lewis disappears from Williston, FL.

July 1995: Noreen Renier paid by Lewis' family to assist the Williston police investigation.

August 1995: Detective Brian Hewitt of the Williston police department discovers, in accord with Renier's July reading, a buried railroad track near the Whitehurst pit. Williston Police Chief Olin Slaughter calls in some local divers to search the pit, but they don't find anything.

September 1995: Chief Slaughter observes, again in accord with Renier's reading, an old (weigh) bridge near the Whitehurst pit. Slaughter then has Hewitt write a letter to the U.S. Department of Navy seeking the assistance of U.S. Navy divers in searching the pit.

April 1996: After a delay of more than six months, the Navy divers finally arrive to search the Whitehurst pit and quickly locate Lewis's truck and remains.

So, presumably, between September 1995 and April 1996, the police weren't searching anywhere. They had searched extensively for 18 months between March 1994-September 1995, and now believed that Lewis's truck and remains would be found in the Whitehurst pit. However, they had to wait for the Navy divers to arrive to validate their belief.

Ah. So the ONLY place they searched after her reading was the Whitehurst Pit. Nowhere else. And they did this because the information Renier gave pointed exactly to the Whitehurst Pit. That is what you're saying?

 

[beren]

Ah. So the ONLY place they searched after her reading was the Whitehurst Pit. Nowhere else. And they did this because the information Renier gave pointed exactly to the Whitehurst Pit. That is what you're saying?

He can't say exactly that because it is obviously stupid. Thus he will ask another "question" that says nothing but implies exactly that while trying to fororce us to either say it ourselves our argue against something he refuses to come out and say.

 

[Resume]

I like the fact that you're now using the British term and putting the first word in brackets in order to try to make it look like a hit. I'd have thought that if the clues were genuinely accurate then you wouldn't have to change them in order to make them fit. It's a teeny bit dishonest to change the clues and pretend that the changed clue is what the actual clue was, though, isn't it?

A perfect example of what fls termed attribution bias. Let's see if Rodney creates some more.

 

[Rodney]

I like the fact that you're now using the British term and putting the first word in brackets in order to try to make it look like a hit. I'd have thought that if the clues were genuinely accurate then you wouldn't have to change them in order to make them fit. It's a teeny bit dishonest to change the clues and pretend that the changed clue is what the actual clue was, though, isn't it?

Nope. Whatever you want to call it, the fact that Chief Slaughter observed it led him to believe that is what Renier was referring to when she stated: "We're not too far from an old bridge. Either it's been decayed or it's broken or it's not used . . ." And that is what Slaughter says bolstered his confidence enough to call in the Navy divers to search the Whitehurst pit. See http://noreenrenier.com/media/articles/lawenforcementmag.html

 

[Garrette]

Nope. Whatever you want to call it, the fact that Chief Slaughter observed it led him to believe that is what Renier was referring to when she stated: "We're not too far from an old bridge. Either it's been decayed or it's broken or it's not used . . ." And that is what Slaughter says bolstered his confidence enough to call in the Navy divers to search the Whitehurst pit. See http://noreenrenier.com/media/articles/lawenforcementmag.html

Could you answer this question, please?

Ah. So the ONLY place they searched after her reading was the Whitehurst Pit. Nowhere else. And they did this because the information Renier gave pointed exactly to the Whitehurst Pit. That is what you're saying?

 

[Sherlock]

Remember folks that Renier has claimed her informants include trees. Again how is it that her claimed paranormal ability to talk with trees didn't identify the EXACT location as she claims her trees have related specific events and locations before? If she lied about her ability to talk with oak trees why should we believe anything related to anything else? Rodney how do you balance these inconsistencies? And why do you believe Renier did not refer to the abandoned railroad bridge in the same area?

 

[Rodney]

Ah. So the ONLY place they searched after her reading was the Whitehurst Pit. Nowhere else. And they did this because the information Renier gave pointed exactly to the Whitehurst Pit. That is what you're saying?

I never said that the information Renier gave pointed exactly to the Whitehurst Pit. Rather, according to Investigator Brian Hewitt, the police examined about 30 quarries before deciding that the Whitehurst one was the best fit to her reading. And that conclusion was evidently based largely on two landmarks that Renier referenced in her reading. First, Hewitt uncovered a railroad track near the Whitehurst Pit. Then, when Chief Slaughter noticed a second landmark near there ("weigh bridge", "truck scale", or -- as he referred to it "an old Fairbanks Morris Scale"), Hewitt solicited diving assistance from the U.S. Department of Navy.

 

[Garrette]

I never said that the information Renier gave pointed exactly to the Whitehurst Pit. Rather, according to Investigator Brian Hewitt, the police examined about 30 quarries before deciding that the Whitehurst one was the best fit to her reading. And that conclusion was evidently based largely on two landmarks that Renier referenced in her reading. First, Hewitt uncovered a railroad track near the Whitehurst Pit. Then, when Chief Slaughter noticed a second landmark near there ("weigh bridge", "truck scale", or -- as he referred to it "an old Fairbanks Morris Scale"), Hewitt solicited diving assistance from the U.S. Department of Navy.

I see. So Renier's information did not point to the Whitehurst Pit, and to be able to claim after the fact that it did, the investigators had to ignore everything that did not fit as well as force-fitting the few things that did.

 

[GeeMack]

I never said that the information Renier gave pointed exactly to the Whitehurst Pit.

It didn't.

Rather, according to Investigator Brian Hewitt, the police examined about 30 quarries before deciding that the Whitehurst one was the best fit to her reading.

If Investigator Brian Hewitt believes in magical powers, he's an idiot.

And that conclusion was evidently based largely on two landmarks that Renier referenced in her reading. First, Hewitt uncovered a railroad track near the Whitehurst Pit.

There are railroad tracks within a half mile or so from virtually every quarry and pond in that area. Big deal. If Investigator Brian Hewitt believes in magical powers, he's an idiot.

Then, when Chief Slaughter noticed a second landmark near there ("weigh bridge", "truck scale", or -- as he referred to it "an old Fairbanks Morris Scale"), Hewitt solicited diving assistance from the U.S. Department of Navy.

A scale is not a bridge. If Chief Slaughter thinks it is, he's an idiot, too.

I see. So Renier's information did not point to the Whitehurst Pit, and to be able to claim after the fact that it did, the investigators had to ignore everything that did not fit as well as force-fitting the few things that did.

Correct. Renier's information did not point to the Whitehurst gravel pit.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Nope.

It's not dishonest to pretend that something other than what was predicted was actually predicted in order to make it seem like it was correct when it was actually wrong?

Whatever you want to call it, the fact that Chief Slaughter observed it led him to believe that is what Renier was referring to when she stated: "We're not too far from an old bridge. Either it's been decayed or it's broken or it's not used . . ." And that is what Slaughter says bolstered his confidence enough to call in the Navy divers to search the Whitehurst pit. See http://noreenrenier.com/media/articles/lawenforcementmag.html

This is irrelevant to your dishonesty in representing what was predicted.

 

[Rodney]

It's not dishonest to pretend that something other than what was predicted was actually predicted in order to make it seem like it was correct when it was actually wrong?

This is irrelevant to your dishonesty in representing what was predicted.

Was Chief Slaughter also dishonest when he decided that the old Fairbanks Morris Scale he saw through the woods near the Whitehurst Pit fit Renier's reading and decided to call in Navy divers to search that pit? Should he have said to himself: "Renier's reading clearly specified a conventional bridge, not a weigh bridge. Therefore, that was a miss, not a hit, and I won't call in divers to search the pit"?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Was Chief Slaughter also dishonest when he decided that the old Fairbanks Morris Scale he saw through the woods near the Whitehurst Pit fit Renier's reading and decided to call in Navy divers to search that pit? Should he have said to himself: "Renier's reading clearly specified a conventional bridge, not a weigh bridge. Therefore, that was a miss, not a hit, and I won't call in divers to search the pit"?

He was wrong. You are being dishonest.