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

[GeeMack]

That's as convincing as the other explanations I've read here as to how this case was solved.

Why do you continue to insinuate that the Williston police were so incompetent that they couldn't, or so negligent that they wouldn't read a map?

 

[Garrette]

That's as convincing as the other explanations I've read here as to how this case was solved.

Regardless, it is irrelevant to the claim about Renier.

I will summarize the case for Renier's reading being of any help:

There is no evidence presented by Renier or Hewitt or Slaughter that anything from Renier's reading led them to the Whitehurst Pit.

 

[GeeMack]

Regardless, it is irrelevant to the claim about Renier.

I will summarize the case for Renier's reading being of any help:

There is no evidence presented by Renier or Hewitt or Slaughter that anything from Renier's reading led them to the Whitehurst Pit.

I'd modify that slightly for purposes of this discussion:

There is no evidence presented by Renier or Hewitt or Slaughter or Rodney that anything from Renier's reading led them to the Whitehurst Pit.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As Posner acknowledges, Renier mentioned the number "45" in her reading, and both the Whitehurst and eastern pits are located adjacent to Florida State Route 45.

The numbers and letters Renier gave were: "4.5 miles, 45, 221, 22, 21, 2I, H, EML, I, 22I, E, 11.2, 1.2". Can you explain why 45, 21 (retrofitted as 2.1, even though that still doesn't fit) and 22 were seen as significant and none of the others were?

 

[GeeMack]

To make it more clear, Rodney:

Hewitt's report on 23 July says the Whitehurst pit was an "obvious first impression."

But the track and the scale were found well after that. The number 21 was (wrongly) fitted to the distance after the body was found.

What made the Whitehurst pit an obvious first impression?

As Posner acknowledges, Renier mentioned the number "45" in her reading, and both the Whitehurst and eastern pits are located adjacent to Florida State Route 45. So, that clue may have initially narrowed the search to those two pits. The fact that there were known to be railroad tracks near the eastern pit, but not near the Whitehurst pit, apparently led at least some Williston police to believe that the eastern pit was the one referenced by Renier. However, for unknown reasons, Hewitt focused more on the Whitehurst pit. My best guess (again, we don't have the complete audio/video record of Renier's reading) is that she made some reference that Hewitt picked up on. What is your explanation for Hewitt focusing more on the Whitehurst Pit?

First, the dishonest attempt to deflect the burden of proof is noted.

In the video you linked in post #248, starting at about 2:00 and onward, the narrator doing the voice-over for the television human interest piece says, "... with the discovery of Lewis's remains, the numbers suddenly made sense." You linked the video, Rodney. Didn't you even watch it?

​

The significance of the numbers "21" and "45" was retrofit, made to correspond post hoc, after the fact, as an afterthought, when the location of Lewis was already known. That means your entire comment above is nonsense. It doesn't remotely answer Garrette's question. So I will ask again to see if you can make up an answer that isn't so easily shown to be wrong... What made the Whitehurst pit an obvious first impression?

 

[Rodney]

Regardless, it is irrelevant to the claim about Renier.

I will summarize the case for Renier's reading being of any help:

There is no evidence presented by Renier or Hewitt or Slaughter that anything from Renier's reading led them to the Whitehurst Pit.

Except:

1) Renier's reading clearly focused the police on quarries. (Yes, yes, I know: Any idiot already knew that. The fact that the police couldn't figure it out over the course of 16 months only goes to show their utter incompetence, unlike Gary Posner and the folks here who have solved too many missing persons cases to enumerate.)

2) Her reading mentioned the number 45, and the Whitehurst Pit is adjacent to Florida State Route 45. (Yes, yes, I know: She mentioned several other numbers. It was a clear-cut case of cold reading, and she got lucky with one of the numbers. It's very common to get lucky like that and then continue to get lucky with references to other numbers, railroad tracks, and a bridge that the police were dumb enough to think were hits.)

3) We don't know everything Renier said in the reading, but it's a logical inference that she said something that caused Detective Hewitt to focus on the Whitehurst Pit. (Yes, yes, I know: Hewitt already suspected that Norman Lewis had wound up in the Whitehurst Pit based on the handyman's statement. True, the eastern pit was a lot closer to Lewis' home, but Hewitt undoubtedly realized that Lewis wanted to take a final spin in his car before driving off a cliff.)

 

[beren]

Except:

1) Renier's reading clearly focused the police on quarries.

Evidence for this? I mean, evidence that they were not already considering the quarries.

(Yes, yes, I know: She mentioned several other numbers. It was a clear-cut case of cold reading, and she got lucky with one of the numbers. It's very common to get lucky like that and then continue to get lucky with references to other numbers, railroad tracks, and a bridge that the police were dumb enough to think were hits.)

I know you are being sarcastic, but yes, exactly. How many quarries DON'T have something like a railroad or something that could be stretched to be like a bridge? Probably none.

[quote[3) We don't know everything Renier said in the reading, but it's a logical inference that she said something that caused Detective Hewitt to focus on the Whitehurst Pit.[/quote]
No it isn't for several reasons already addressed and unrebutted by you in this thread

Overall, it is sad that your sarcastic parody of the sceptics makes much more sense than you do.

 

[GeeMack]

Except:

1) Renier's reading clearly focused the police on quarries.

That is a wholly unevidenced assertion apparently supported only by incredulity.

(Yes, yes, I know: Any idiot already knew that. The fact that the police couldn't figure it out over the course of 16 months only goes to show their utter incompetence, unlike Gary Posner and the folks here who have solved too many missing persons cases to enumerate.)

Whether any skeptic or circus clown or plumber or homeless vagrant ever did or did not solve a missing person case is completely irrelevant to the fact that no purported psychic ever did. And the continued dishonest attempt to rationalize a belief in magic by drawing irrational comparisons is again noted.

2) Her reading mentioned the number 45, and the Whitehurst Pit is adjacent to Florida State Route 45. (Yes, yes, I know: She mentioned several other numbers. It was a clear-cut case of cold reading, and she got lucky with one of the numbers. It's very common to get lucky like that and then continue to get lucky with references to other numbers, railroad tracks, and a bridge that the police were dumb enough to think were hits.)

Nobody considered the number 45 to have any significance until after, repeat after me... after Lewis was found. To continue to claim significance in that or any number she ambiguously mumbled is clearly willful ignorance given all the times in this thread where it has been explained.

There are railroad tracks within a few hundred feet of at least the two largest gravel pits in/near Williston. To continue to claim significance, after the fact, in something she ambiguously mumbled about railroad tracks is clearly willful ignorance given all the times in this thread where it has been explained.

There was no bridge. The post hoc and somewhat desperate conflating of a truck scale to a bridge is clearly willful ignorance given all the times in this thread where it has been explained.

And continuing to argue in support of alleged magical powers based on nothing but willful ignorance and incredulity is dishonest.

3) We don't know everything Renier said in the reading, but it's a logical inference that she said something that caused Detective Hewitt to focus on the Whitehurst Pit.

That is a wholly unevidenced assertion apparently supported only by incredulity.

(Yes, yes, I know: Hewitt already suspected that Norman Lewis had wound up in the Whitehurst Pit based on the handyman's statement. True, the eastern pit was a lot closer to Lewis' home, but Hewitt undoubtedly realized that Lewis wanted to take a final spin in his car before driving off a cliff.)

To make such ridiculous strawmen out of what were offered as plausible explanations is silly, dishonest, and adds absolutely no support to the ridiculous conjecture that Noreen Renier has magical powers.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

1) Renier's reading clearly focused the police on quarries.

There is no evidence to support this statement.

2) Her reading mentioned the number 45, and the Whitehurst Pit is adjacent to Florida State Route 45.

So is the eastern pit.

(Yes, yes, I know: She mentioned several other numbers.

Yes she did. What's your explanation for the significance of the other numbers? If you have none, then can you explain why only some of the numbers are significant?

It's very common to get lucky like that and then continue to get lucky with references to other numbers, railroad tracks, and a bridge that the police were dumb enough to think were hits.)

Actually it is.

3) We don't know everything Renier said in the reading, but it's a logical inference that she said something that caused Detective Hewitt to focus on the Whitehurst Pit.

No it's not. It's a logical inference that the parts of the recording the police had edited down to use as notes in the field would contain the portions of the reading the police thought were significant.

Yours is only a logical inference if you're starting from the position that Renier actually used psychic powers to solve the case. Mine is a logical inference if you assume that the police would take all the information they thought would be useful out in to the field, rather than deliberately deciding to omit information they thought would be useful when going out in to the field.

 

[Garrette]

I truly expected better of you, Rodney.

You don't even attempt to answer the question of what in Renier's reading made the Whitehurst pit an obvious first impression. You don't attempt to answer it because you can't answer it.

You have already admitted that you would have counted it as a hit even Lewis had been found in the eastern pit.

There are only two things in her reading (track and 45) that are reasonably linked to the Whitehurst pit and each of those can be linked to others as well, and these things did not lead the police to Whitehurst; they were found after Whitehurst was already being checked out.

There is one thing which is a long, long stretch (the scale) to call a hit, and it, too, was found after Whitehurst was already being checked out.

There is one number (2.1) which is not even remotely linkable to Whitehurst though Slaughter (or was it Hewitt?) tried hard to do so, having to misstate the mileage to accomplish it.

And there are many things Renier mentioned that not even Slaughter or Hewitt or Renier tried to link to Whitehurst, though she mentioned them in her reading, and there are things in her reading which lead distinctly away from the Whitehurst pit, yet you and the others ignore them.

Your last post is actually shameful, Rodney. You're wrong. There is nothing in this case to support the claim that anything psychic or paranormal led to finding Lewis' remains. I've dealt with you long enough to know that your are more than smart enough to grasp this. The fact that you stick to your fallacies (including, sadly, the constant attempt to shift the burden of proof) does your credibility a world of harm.

I'm serious. Shameful.

 

[Rodney]

No it's not. It's a logical inference that the parts of the recording the police had edited down to use as notes in the field would contain the portions of the reading the police thought were significant.

We don't know how or why the tapes were edited -- often, the reason is to protect personal information. What we absolutely do know is that the police investigation went nowhere for 16 months until Noreen Renier's July 17, 1995 reading. Following the reading, Detective Hewitt focused on the Whitehurst Pit, even though he did not know that there were railroad tracks or anything that could even arguably be called a bridge near there. So, why did he focus on that pit following Renier's reading, if it were not for something she said in the reading?

 

[GeeMack]

We don't know how or why the tapes were edited -- often, the reason is to protect personal information. What we absolutely do know is that the police investigation went nowhere for 16 months until Noreen Renier's July 17, 1995 reading. Following the reading, Detective Hewitt focused on the Whitehurst Pit, even though he did not know that there were railroad tracks or anything that could even arguably be called a bridge near there. So, why did he focus on that pit following Renier's reading, if it were not for something she said in the reading?

(Bolding mine.) Good. You've finally acknowledged that the issue of the railroad tracks and the truck scale you continue to mistakenly refer to as a bridge were not involved in the decision to look at the Whitehurst gravel pit. We can leave that silliness alone now.

Now try this...

So, why did he focus on that pit following the day the Nasdaq Composite index closed above the 1,000 mark for the first time, if it were not for something about the NASDAQ index?​

When you realize how utterly stupid it would be to try to make that kind of connection, you'll realize the validity, quality, and the level of intellect and logic in the argument you're making.

And let's see if we can get this out of the way next: Yes or no, is there any objective evidence that Noreen Renier actually provided information that was used in directing the investigation to the Whitehurst pit? That's just a yes/no question.

 

[fls]

We don't know how or why the tapes were edited -- often, the reason is to protect personal information. What we absolutely do know is that the police investigation went nowhere for 16 months until Noreen Renier's July 17, 1995 reading. Following the reading, Detective Hewitt focused on the Whitehurst Pit, even though he did not know that there were railroad tracks or anything that could even arguably be called a bridge near there. So, why did he focus on that pit following Renier's reading, if it were not for something she said in the reading?

So you are agreed that we have not been given information which tells us why they focussed on the Whitehurst pit. The information we have been given from Renier does not tell us to focus on the Whitehurst pit. There may be information out there somewhere which comes from Renier and tells the police to focus on the Whitehurst pit, but it isn't this information. Therefore, this case, as it stands, does not serve as an example of Renier helping the police solve a case.

So we are back where we started. She claims that she has helped the police in hundreds of cases. We do not have information that she has helped in even one case.

Linda

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

We don't know how or why the tapes were edited --

We know what Hewitt said it was edited: "[the tape] was expressly made [from a more lengthy original] for field use with regard to the location of Mr. Lewis." Are you now calling him a liar?

And why not answer the question about the numbers? You've said that the number 45 has significance, as it relates to Renier's abilities. Do the other numbers have significance? Which ones? How are they significant? Why aren't the other numbers significant? How can we tell the difference?

If you attach significance to the number 45 but not the number 11.2, then you must know the answers to these questions. Either that or you're deliberately and wilfully fooling yourself. Or deliberately and wilfully trying to fool us. But either you can answer these questions, or you're tacitly admitting that the numbers do not have any significance.

 

[Rodney]

So you are agreed that we have not been given information which tells us why they focussed on the Whitehurst pit. The information we have been given from Renier does not tell us to focus on the Whitehurst pit. There may be information out there somewhere which comes from Renier and tells the police to focus on the Whitehurst pit, but it isn't this information. Therefore, this case, as it stands, does not serve as an example of Renier helping the police solve a case.

So we are back where we started. She claims that she has helped the police in hundreds of cases. We do not have information that she has helped in even one case.

Linda

Wrong. The police were not focussed on any quarry until Renier's reading. For all they knew, Norman Lewis would not be found within 100 miles of a quarry. However, as Gary Posner noted in his article:

"Following Renier's reading, did the police zero-in on one quarry to which Noreen's directions pointed? Hewitt says on Sightings that he 'walked around probably 30 quarries' before deciding that the Whitehurst pit most closely matched the totality of Renier's clues. Perhaps that was his reason for having the Navy divers scour that one pit, which did result in Lewis' body and truck being recovered. But his initial rationale for concentrating on the Whitehurst pit was described this way in his report filed six days after Renier's reading: '. . . the Whitehurst pits are an obvious first impression . . . being the closest and the most accessible from the Lewis residence.' (Although the 'eastern' pit was fenced off by this time, it had been easily accessible when Lewis disappeared, and it is half as far from Lewis' home as is Whitehurst.)

"As for this 'eastern' pit, a person with some inside knowledge of the police investigation (who allowed me to tape our conversation but requests anonymity) told me that this had been the 'prime target for the investigation' immediately following Renier's reading. 'They didn't think there was a [railroad] track [at Whitehurst].'"

So, Renier's reading narrowed the focus from "anywhere" to "a group of quarries". Apparently most of the police thought her reading was more consistent with the eastern pit, but Hewitt correctly discerned that it was more consistent with the Whitehurst Pit.

 

[Garrette]

Wrong. The police were not focussed on any quarry until Renier's reading. For all they knew, Norman Lewis would not be found within 100 miles of a quarry. However, as Gary Posner noted in his article:

"Following Renier's reading, did the police zero-in on one quarry to which Noreen's directions pointed? Hewitt says on Sightings that he 'walked around probably 30 quarries' before deciding that the Whitehurst pit most closely matched the totality of Renier's clues. Perhaps that was his reason for having the Navy divers scour that one pit, which did result in Lewis' body and truck being recovered. But his initial rationale for concentrating on the Whitehurst pit was described this way in his report filed six days after Renier's reading: '. . . the Whitehurst pits are an obvious first impression . . . being the closest and the most accessible from the Lewis residence.' (Although the 'eastern' pit was fenced off by this time, it had been easily accessible when Lewis disappeared, and it is half as far from Lewis' home as is Whitehurst.)

"As for this 'eastern' pit, a person with some inside knowledge of the police investigation (who allowed me to tape our conversation but requests anonymity) told me that this had been the 'prime target for the investigation' immediately following Renier's reading. 'They didn't think there was a [railroad] track [at Whitehurst].'"

So, Renier's reading narrowed the focus from "anywhere" to "a group of quarries". Apparently most of the police thought her reading was more consistent with the eastern pit, but Hewitt correctly discerned that it was more consistent with the Whitehurst Pit.

Not even wrong.

You are avoiding answer the question by restating the question as a non-question.

Why was the Whitehurst pit an obvious first impression given that everything that those involved say connected it to Renier's reading was not known or discovered until after it was a first impression?

It's an easy question.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Rodney, is there any particular reason you steadfastly refuse to answer the simple questions about the number Renier predicted would be significant? You must have asked yourself them already otherwise you wouldn't be able to cite the number 45 as significant. Why not share the answers with us? If they're good answers you'll make considerable headway in convincing all us doubters about the veracity of Renier's claims.

 

[Rodney]

Not even wrong.

You are avoiding answer the question by restating the question as a non-question.

Why was the Whitehurst pit an obvious first impression given that everything that those involved say connected it to Renier's reading was not known or discovered until after it was a first impression?

It's an easy question.

Which is why I answered it in Post # 266:

"We don't know everything Renier said in the reading, but it's a logical inference that she said something that caused Detective Hewitt to focus on the Whitehurst Pit."

You, on the other hand, refused to answer it in Post # 259:

"I, in fact, do have plausible speculation regarding what happened, but as they are irrelevant to the claim itself, I will forego wasting time listing them."

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Speaking of refusing to answer things, why don't you answer the questions about the significance of the numbers?

 

[Garrette]

Which is why I answered it in Post # 266:

"We don't know everything Renier said in the reading, but it's a logical inference that she said something that caused Detective Hewitt to focus on the Whitehurst Pit."

Then Linda was right and not wrong, as were the rest of us who said the same thing in different ways. The only evidence that the Renier reading led them to the Whitehurst pit is evidence that we not only do not have but evidence which no one in law enforcement has said exists.

You, on the other hand, refused to answer it in Post # 259:

"I, in fact, do have plausible speculation regarding what happened, but as they are irrelevant to the claim itself, I will forego wasting time listing them."

Yes, I do refuse to expand on that as it is irrelevant to the claim. There are times when I am interested in a diversion; this is not one of them.

ETA: And please do answer Squeegee. His question is relevant.