Just One Case

[chillzero]

So why did Detective English state: "I had reached a dead end on a rape murder case . . . I followed up on the information received and reinterviewed the suspect and was able to get a confession."?

We cannot know if the suspect would have confessed anyway, on being re-interviewed.
This very act might have been enough to tip the balance. It could be that the suspect cracked under the added pressuer of a second interview, believing the police had more information or evidence than they did. It could also be that on re-interviewing the suspect, English picked up on things missed before and interviewed more effectively, resulting in a confession. It could be his confidence level was up anyway, as he believed he was right because of what this 'psychic' had told him, and this would have played a part in the interview.

However, it is not evidence that a psychic cracked the case for the police, nor even gave helpful information.

Also, I asked before but you don't seem to have responded - about the barn case -
... if the information was so valuable, how come the case is still unresolved?

 

[fls]

I sorta made reference to this already, but I'll go over it again.

According to the letter written by retired Detective Lieutenant Ross English:

"I first met Nancy in 1980 when one of my female police officers introduced her to me when I had reached a dead end on a rape murder case. The victim was found floating in the local lake and the cause of death was drowning and an injury to the head. Nancy was able to describe the suspected crime scene and basically what took place and the physical features of our suspect. That information was locked in my desk for almost a year in a file at the police station. I followed up on the information received and reinterviewed the suspect and was able to get a confession.

It looks like the rape/murder was a local case that had happened a year earlier and she talked to English and described the crime scene and gave a physical description of a man. English reinterviewed a suspect and got a confession. He does not tell us that she gave him any information that he did not already have. The benefit in this case came from deciding to resurrect an old case and have another go at a suspect. It doesn't seem unlikely to me that a reinterview occasionally leads to a confession. The crime scene information could have been public knowledge (it usually is), and we don't know how unlikely it is for her to have come up with a description that could be fitted to English's suspect. Generally, I wouldn't consider that difficult - the range of possibilities is usually limited.

Nancy continued to work with me on several more cases after that. One was a burglary at ther home where a rifle and other items were taken. She was able to point out where I could find a laten print left by a perpetrator which I developed and lifted. She was also able to describe 2 juveniles, where they lived and where they hid the rifle. I investigated further, obtained a search warrant and found the gun. I arrested the 2 juveniles who confessed."

As I mentioned before, if you take me to a crime scene, it is possible that I could make suggestions, that with the use of information obtained through normal methods of investigation, might turn out to be useful. I am not given that opportunity, though, because I don't bill myself as "psychic". In fact, I doubt English regularly pulls unrelated citizens into a case and asks them to visit crime scenes. So how could he really have any point of comparison? I can give a description of 2 juveniles that would probably fit half of my oldest son's classmates. And I bet "2 juveniles" represents a sizeable chunk of perpetrators for this kind of crime (plus the fact that if they were looking for 2, it will bias them towards finding 2 (instead of 3 or 1)). "Where they hid the rifle" - how many places are there to hide a rifle, especially if they are living in a house with the rest of their family? "Where they lived" - this is the only information that is potentially interesting, depending upon how specific she was compared to the possibilities. He doesn't tell us, though. And I would only trust his original case notes on this point, rather than recall.

The problem with this whole letter is that it is based on a retrospective account and subject to recall bias. And before you accuse me of being unreasonable, this is the exact same criticism I would apply to medical research that exhibited the same bias. This is a well-recognized problem with retrospective studies that leads to error unless specifically addressed. There is no information listed here by English that could not have been obtained by normal means. So the only thing we have to go on, is his impression, several decades after the events, after he has become friends with her and has decided she is "psychic", that there was something about the information she gave him on those cases that was unusual. But he doesn't specifiy what was unusual. And more importantly, he doesn't tell us what measures he took to counteract the unavoidable bias that would come into play in a situation like this. That he doesn't tell us, makes me suspicious that he is unaware of it. And if he is unaware of it, then he cannot counteract it.

For example, if she is providing a physical description and he already has a suspect, then he may fit the description to his suspect (e.g. "average height" could probably apply to anyone from 5'7" to 6'1" if necessary) and also ask leading questions to fine-tune the description to fit. This may all be done subconsciously. One could counteract this bias by having Nancy write a description (which he does not see) without any of his input, and then mixing it in with written descriptions from other, similar cases. If he picks out the description that best matches his suspect, and it happens to be Nancy's, then that would have more meaning.

It isn't that we haven't been given enough information to confirm the unusual nature of how she obtained that information. It's that there's nothing unusual about the information we've been given, to begin with.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

We cannot know if the suspect would have confessed anyway, on being re-interviewed.
This very act might have been enough to tip the balance. It could be that the suspect cracked under the added pressuer of a second interview, believing the police had more information or evidence than they did. It could also be that on re-interviewing the suspect, English picked up on things missed before and interviewed more effectively, resulting in a confession. It could be his confidence level was up anyway, as he believed he was right because of what this 'psychic' had told him, and this would have played a part in the interview.

However, it is not evidence that a psychic cracked the case for the police, nor even gave helpful information.

In your opinion, but not Detective English's opinion. He is convinced that Nancy Weber's information was essential to solving the case. However, even if you assume that the re-interview itself caused the suspect to crack, English would not have done the re-interview without Weber's information. Pretty difficult to get around the idea that Weber's involvement -- if not her specific information -- is what allowed the case to be solved.

Also, I asked before but you don't seem to have responded - about the barn case - ... if the information was so valuable, how come the case is still unresolved?

I've answered the general question more than once, most recently in post # 84. But one last time: A psychic (or non-psychic) can give police valuable information, but the case may still go unsolved. For example, someone may report to the police seeing a female kidnapping victim with a man at a gas (petrol) station, and the police may establish positively that she was there, but still never solve the case. Now, I suppose if you define "valuable information" to mean "information that led to solving the case" then, by definition, the information was not valuable, but does that seem fair?

 

[chillzero]

In your opinion, but not Detective English's opinion. He is convinced that Nancy Weber's information was essential to solving the case. However, even if you assume that the re-interview itself caused the suspect to crack, English would not have done the re-interview without Weber's information. Pretty difficult to get around the idea that Weber's involvement -- if not her specific information -- is what allowed the case to be solved.

That's what I call a bit of a stretch. My point was that there is no hard evidence that indicates this could have been played out any differently without her information. It is my understanding that he would have needed good cause to recall a suspect anyway - he couldn't just say it was because some psychic told him to (which she didn't). There's just not enough information to come to any solid conclusion about this case, which is why it cannot be upheld as a case to 'prove' psychic assistance.

I've answered the general question more than once, most recently in post # 84. But one last time: A psychic (or non-psychic) can give police valuable information, but the case may still go unsolved. For example, someone may report to the police seeing a female kidnapping victim with a man at a gas (petrol) station, and the police may establish positively that she was there, but still never solve the case. Now, I suppose if you define "valuable information" to mean "information that led to solving the case" then, by definition, the information was not valuable, but does that seem fair?

The point you keep ignoring is that the value of the information cannot be ascertained until evidence comes to light.

In your example, the police are able to prove that the victim was definitely in that location. This cannot be said for the barn case - it is all just the psychic's word for it. The information she gave them cannot be determined as valuable until the case is resolved and it is proven that the girl was actually ever there. At the moment it is not valuable, because there is no evidence that the girl was there, and no evidence that the psychic is correct. So the police cannot and should not divert resources into deeper investigation of the locale for another lead which may take them to the girl.

In your example, the police then have a lead that can identify the direction the girl was taken in, and perhaps also provide forensic evidence about who she was with. An eye witness, especially backed up by forensic evidence, is unquestionably valuable evidence. Vague assertions from a psychic, uncorroborated by any evidence or witness are not.

 

[Rodney]

That's what I call a bit of a stretch. My point was that there is no hard evidence that indicates this could have been played out any differently without her information. It is my understanding that he would have needed good cause to recall a suspect anyway - he couldn't just say it was because some psychic told him to (which she didn't). There's just not enough information to come to any solid conclusion about this case, which is why it cannot be upheld as a case to 'prove' psychic assistance.

Again, that's just one case of several cited by former two police officers on --
http://www.nancyorlenweber.com/references.html -- And both officers have confirmed that they are convinced that Nancy Weber is psychic. But the main point of my last post was that -- even if you don't believe that -- the case in question wouldn't have been solved without her involvement. To listen to most folks on this forum, you would think all psychics ever do is provide erroneous information that impedes the police.

The point you keep ignoring is that the value of the information cannot be ascertained until evidence comes to light.

In your example, the police are able to prove that the victim was definitely in that location. This cannot be said for the barn case - it is all just the psychic's word for it. The information she gave them cannot be determined as valuable until the case is resolved and it is proven that the girl was actually ever there. At the moment it is not valuable, because there is no evidence that the girl was there, and no evidence that the psychic is correct. So the police cannot and should not divert resources into deeper investigation of the locale for another lead which may take them to the girl.

In your example, the police then have a lead that can identify the direction the girl was taken in, and perhaps also provide forensic evidence about who she was with. An eye witness, especially backed up by forensic evidence, is unquestionably valuable evidence. Vague assertions from a psychic, uncorroborated by any evidence or witness are not.

I don't think the authorities would have transported the psychic to the barn in a van if they were not convinced that the girl had been in the barn. However, I'm still trying to obtain the police records of this case.

 

[John Jackson]

English would not have done the re-interview without Weber's information. Pretty difficult to get around the idea that Weber's involvement -- if not her specific information -- is what allowed the case to be solved.

If Weber's involvement did lead to the case ultimately being solved as you've described, it doesn't mean that psychic ability was actually involved does it?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So a better brain is responsible for intuition? Can you cite any studies that conclude that?

Any studies? It's a tautology. A brain with intuition is de facto "better".

 

[Rodney]

If Weber's involvement did lead to the case ultimately being solved as you've described, it doesn't mean that psychic ability was actually involved does it?

Not necessarily, but you have to consider the other cases Weber has been involved in -- and that have been solved -- as well. Looking at them as a whole, it's likely that she's been more than just a good luck charm for the police.

 

[Rodney]

Any studies? It's a tautology. A brain with intuition is de facto "better".

The question is whether someone with a better brain is likely to be more intuitive. I know people who are quite smart, but not particularly intuitive, and vice-versa.

 

[John Jackson]

Not necessarily, but you have to consider the other cases Weber has been involved in -- and that have been solved -- as well. Looking at them as a whole, it's likely that she's been more than just a good luck charm for the police.

Not only that, we'd have to consider as many cases as possible where psychics have claimed to have 'helped' and ascertain whether they have had any input that can only be attributed to information that has been obtained by psychic means which led to the solving of the murder (or mystery).

Many psychics claim to have 'helped the police' but how many have actually provided unambiguous information that led to, or would have led to had it been followed, the solving of a case?

Bear in mind the retrofitting that FLS and Chillzero have alluded to. It's very easy to make predictions fit a story if you already know what the story is.

What we need to consider is the predictive value of psychics' information. How much weight should police, or other interested parties, give to psychics' prognostications before the result is known?

They are wrong vastly more often than they are right (and when they're right it's usually trivialities - body will be found in water etc.) so what practical use are they?

Psychics are very good at claiming Post-Hoc Hits but what use are they in an ongoing investigation? That's what we really need to consider.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Lisa, if you're still interested in the Ski Mask Rapist, here's the transcript of Montel were she talks about it:

Warning, may cause your mouth to lose shape from smirking

October 19, 2006 Thursday

MONTEL WILLIAMS, HOST

So, we're gonna have the bet you wanted out, so-but, Sylvia, you know, I had you on the show recently and we talked about this. But this is the book that's in the bookstores now.

SYLVIA BROWNE, BEST SELLING AUTHOR AND WORLD RENOWNED PSYCHIC

That's right.

MONTEL WILLIAMS, HOST

I mean, people do know about it. You decided to go back and look at some of those cases that you helped police solve?

SYLVIA BROWNE, BEST SELLING AUTHOR AND WORLD RENOWNED PSYCHIC

Yeah. Uh-huh. And some of 'em are recent, and some are old cases. And some of 'em are from this show.

MONTEL WILLIAMS, HOST

From this show. Just tell me, not-well, for the book but what case-when you started to think about it, you solved one, you showed up some place, give us that one case that you saw that no one thought you'd do.

SYLVIA BROWNE, BEST SELLING AUTHOR AND WORLD RENOWNED PSYCHIC

The ski mask rapist...

MONTEL WILLIAMS, HOST

Mm-hmm.

SYLVIA BROWNE, BEST SELLING AUTHOR AND WORLD RENOWNED PSYCHIC

...in San Jose. And they didn't believe--but this one--because they had me come and talk to the officers. And I said what have you got to lose? I'm not gonna charge you. So this one officer, and I won't forget, his name was Robinson. In fact, he's still on the force, came and he said, who is the guy? And I said, get me a mug shot book. I said it starts with an S.

MONTEL WILLIAMS, HOST

Mm-hmm.

SYLVIA BROWNE, BEST SELLING AUTHOR AND WORLD RENOWNED PSYCHIC

Salazar, that was his name, I'll never forget it. And I pointed him out. And I said go to city-no, those of you who are from the--not the north, northern part, don't know what I'm talking about. He said that was the stupidest thing. And I said go to a street that has a bird's name, with a Lark.

MONTEL WILLIAMS, HOST

Mm-hmm.

SYLVIA BROWNE, BEST SELLING AUTHOR AND WORLD RENOWNED PSYCHIC

And I told him, and he was driving a green van. He said, what the hell, we don't have any more clue. Goes down the street. Goes to Lark. Drives down the street. Here's a green van. Comes in on the man just as he's getting ready to rape the woman.

MONTEL WILLIAMS, HOST

So they caught him?

SYLVIA BROWNE, BEST SELLING AUTHOR AND WORLD RENOWNED PSYCHIC

Caught him.

MONTEL WILLIAMS, HOST

They got him and people think a lot of what you do isn't proven, but that's proof. But, like, think back, you've had people call you. 'Cause I know, from time to time, I'll be in an airport, I'll be walking around, and people walk up and say, you know, I just had a reading from Sylvia and, Montel, you won't believe what she said. But you-I mean...

SYLVIA BROWNE, BEST SELLING AUTHOR AND WORLD RENOWNED PSYCHIC

There is someone.

MONTEL WILLIAMS, HOST

Hey, I would, honestly. But you could do a book alone just on the number of people that you've helped via the telephone, correct?

SYLVIA BROWNE, BEST SELLING AUTHOR AND WORLD RENOWNED PSYCHIC

Oh, sure. Oh, sure.

 

[Questioninggeller]

correction

Wow...

...
SYLVIA BROWNE: Salazar, that was his name, I'll never forget it. And I pointed him out. And I said go to city-no, those of you who are from the--not the north, northern part, don't know what I'm talking about. He said that was the stupidest thing. And I said go to a street that has a bird's name, with a Lark.
...

Browne says his name is Salazar and she'll "never forget it."

Well his name is George Sanchez. See: http://www.corpus-delicti.com/chronicle_082397.htm

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Yeah, that's the first thing I noticed.

Salazar? Maybe she was thinking of the WTC Bombing suspect, since she's always touting those two as her biggest successes.