So if the newspaper article does not meet your standard for burden of proof, what would?
Just One Case
- Thread starter Jackalgirl
- Start date
They still don’t know she was taken to that barn. The girl remains unfound. And the analogy is correct. Morrison was taking information she was given and feeding it back as if she came up with it.Rodney said:
The article is written to give the impression that the sequence was like this:
1. Morrison gives a detailed and specific description of the barn
2. The police search for a barn that fits that description
3. The police find such a barn and bring Morrison out
Read that very carefully, Rodney.From the article Rodney linked said:
The sequence is actually this:
1. The child goes missing
2. The police are interested in several properties including the barn
3. Many people are involved in the search and know about the sites in which the police are interested
4. Morrison contacts the police and provides a description
5. Morrison talks to French who volunteers information which Morrison uses to say “yes, that’s the place”
6. Morrison goes on television and gives a detailed description after the fact
7. The child remains unfound.
And this is even assuming that the article’s author is correct and my earlier version of the sequence was wrong.
Before I answer, are you suggesting that a newspaper articles meets your standard of proof?
Slight update. I spoke with Ron English on the phone. He was adamant that Ms. Weber is psychic and that she did help him, via psychic means, to solve cases. He was also adamant that he would not reveal any details to me about the cases on Ms. Weber's site without Ms. Weber's approval and insisted I contact her.
So I emailed Ms. Weber.
I did not ask specifically, but I got the impression that Mr. English is not married to Ms. Weber (as we have speculated), though he said quite clearly he has "direct contact" with her.
So I emailed Ms. Weber.
I did not ask specifically, but I got the impression that Mr. English is not married to Ms. Weber (as we have speculated), though he said quite clearly he has "direct contact" with her.
Wrong. As the article states: "The last time anyone had seen the 5-year-old girl was around 7:30 p.m. the night before, when she was playing with another child in the Park Springs apartment complex in East Vincent Township where she lived. Lauren's mother, Christina O'Donnell, had called police around 9:15 p.m. to report Lauren missing. People were turning out in droves to help search for Lauren over an eight-mile radius surrounding the apartment complex. The search area stretched from the defunct Pennhurst State Hospital in Spring City to an abandoned garage at the intersection of routes 23 and 724 in East Pikeland. Several former patients from the state hospital had moved into Park Springs after the facility was shut down. In checking all possible leads, the Greater Philadelphia Search and Rescue (GPSAR) team took their dogs to the grounds of the former state-run mental facility, which also houses the Southeast Pa. Veterans Center. Their mission was to check the utility tunnels beneath the buildings."
Why would police focus on a barn when the child disappeared from an apartment complex? What you're talking about -- "property owners granted access to houses, farms, tool sheds, ponds and other structures in the days following Lauren's disappearance" -- occurred after Valerie Morrison called the police.
No, but I'm trying to figure out what more you want me to do to verify this story.
No, I was not wrong.
Again, from the article:
If you want answers on why that are beyond mere speculation, then talk to the police department.From Rodney's article said:
The article, as unclearly written as it is, makes it clear that there were several properties of interest, including the barn, before Morrison contacted the police.
If not, and if you are interested in "why" then tell me why the police would have an interest in any place other than the barn if, based on Morrison's description and the scent-trail, they were certain the child had been there.
This article is a muddle. You want to prove Morrison's psychic ability contributed to this case? Fine. Make an open records request and get a copy of the case file. Until you do that, you have nothing but a poorly written, credulous newspiece.
And don't forget, Rodney: The case remains unsolved. Heckuva lot of psychic help.
The author of the article has informed me that was not the case.
That's pretty simple -- the child was no longer there!
How do I do that and how much does it cost?
Since you seem to be a baseball fan, that's like saying if a pinch-hitter ties the game in the top of the ninth with a grand slam, but his team loses in the bottom of the ninth, the grand slam was of no help.
According to you the author said "she gave the information, the cops found the barn." That is not equivalent to the barn not being a property of interest already. It only means they found it among the properties that were of interest.
The case records could show this.
Cote's comment does not indicate a difference among the barn and the other properties. They were all properties of interest equally. And Cote, being on the police force, is more apt to know than your author.Rodney said:
It varies state to state and city to city, but in general you send in a request under the appropriate law (usually something like "Freedom of Information Act" or "Open Records Act"). Cost is usually restricted to actual cost, not including manhours, i.e., you pay for copies, but this also varies.Rodney said:
You don't need to know the actual name of the law. Look up the relevant police department (they are probably online), and email the records division. If they don't list records, just pick someone to email and explain what you want.
I don't know how you got me being a baseball fan from our talks. I am a very moderate fan but rarely mention it here. I'm a much bigger NFL fan.Rodney said:
In any case, no. The analogy would go like this:
Slugger: I won the game for our team with my grand slam!
Reporter: But your team lost.
Psiload
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2001
- Messages
- 2,102
On the topic of "psychic detectives", I like to step back and consider the big picture.
"Has a psychic ever provided information, information gleaned through "paranormal" channels, which has in turn lead to a case being solved?"
That's a fun question, and the generous answer to that question would be a definite maybe.
But here's a better question...
"Do "psychic detectives" do more harm than good?"
The obvious answer to that question, at least to anyone willing to take an honest look at the subject, is... "Oh hell yes they do."
The sad, ugly truth about "psychic detectives" is this... the world would be a better place without them.
"Has a psychic ever provided information, information gleaned through "paranormal" channels, which has in turn lead to a case being solved?"
That's a fun question, and the generous answer to that question would be a definite maybe.
But here's a better question...
"Do "psychic detectives" do more harm than good?"
The obvious answer to that question, at least to anyone willing to take an honest look at the subject, is... "Oh hell yes they do."
The sad, ugly truth about "psychic detectives" is this... the world would be a better place without them.
I remember that there may be problems with the sig, but I thought we'd at least all see the same thing.
Right now yours says,
"Sure, I know people who don't like baseball... but I don't trust 'em."
Linda
Okay, I just e-mailed East Vincent Township and asked what I need to do to obtain the police records of the case.
As Linda notes, from your sig, which evidently appears different to you.
Okay, to change the analogy to the NFL: That's like saying if a kicker boots a 50-yard field goal to tie the game with one minute left, but his defense allows a winning field goal with one second left, the field goal was of no help.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Are you suggesting that the psychic gave the police the information necessary to solve the case but the cops somehow fumbled it? Do you have any evidence that the investigation was not competently conducted?
Can this case be used as evidence of a psychic significantly helping on a case?
These are the events. A woman gave an accurate description of the contents of a barn (such that it could only apply to one barn). A dog followed a scent trail.
There are natural means by which a person could know the contents of a barn. I see no indication that any of these means were ruled-out in this case.
Does a dog following a scent trail indicate with a hundred percent accuracy the identity of that scent trail? I don't know. I found this which looks reasonable. If we had enough well-documented information that the tracking dog was well-trained and the scent article was not contaminated, I think I would be willing to accept that the scent trail that was found did actually belong to Lauren. We do not yet have this information. So this case does not demonstrate that a psychic (i.e. the use of methods that would have to be supernatural) significantly helped the police.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the scent trail was Lauren's. In that case, even though it is still unsolved, I would still consider it of some help. Does it provide evidence that psychic ability is what helped?
Missing person cases must lead to many location tips. By chance, some of these tips will co-incide with locations the missing person was at. Also, some of these tips come from psychics. So by chance, some of the tips given by psychics will co-incide with locations the missing person was at. What is that chance? What is the percentage of tips that come from psychics? 10 percent? 50 percent? 1 percent? If the police follow up all location tips and therefore occasionally find a location the missing person was at that they would not have discovered otherwise, the chance that that tip came from a psychic would be the same as the proportion of tips that come from psychics (in the absence of supernatural ability). So a single case of simply getting the location right cannot serve as support that psychic ability helped.
So now we're back to whether or not Morrison could know the contents of that barn through natural means, which is similar to the standard paranormal claim (no need to involve a missing person).
Linda
These are the events. A woman gave an accurate description of the contents of a barn (such that it could only apply to one barn). A dog followed a scent trail.
There are natural means by which a person could know the contents of a barn. I see no indication that any of these means were ruled-out in this case.
Does a dog following a scent trail indicate with a hundred percent accuracy the identity of that scent trail? I don't know. I found this which looks reasonable. If we had enough well-documented information that the tracking dog was well-trained and the scent article was not contaminated, I think I would be willing to accept that the scent trail that was found did actually belong to Lauren. We do not yet have this information. So this case does not demonstrate that a psychic (i.e. the use of methods that would have to be supernatural) significantly helped the police.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the scent trail was Lauren's. In that case, even though it is still unsolved, I would still consider it of some help. Does it provide evidence that psychic ability is what helped?
Missing person cases must lead to many location tips. By chance, some of these tips will co-incide with locations the missing person was at. Also, some of these tips come from psychics. So by chance, some of the tips given by psychics will co-incide with locations the missing person was at. What is that chance? What is the percentage of tips that come from psychics? 10 percent? 50 percent? 1 percent? If the police follow up all location tips and therefore occasionally find a location the missing person was at that they would not have discovered otherwise, the chance that that tip came from a psychic would be the same as the proportion of tips that come from psychics (in the absence of supernatural ability). So a single case of simply getting the location right cannot serve as support that psychic ability helped.
So now we're back to whether or not Morrison could know the contents of that barn through natural means, which is similar to the standard paranormal claim (no need to involve a missing person).
Linda
First, thanks for the link, which is quite informative. Second, I am not suggesting that this case irrefutably proves the value of psychics in assisting the police, but I am confident that Garrette has mischaracterized the article that I cited. The author of the article is convinced that Valerie Morrison located the missing child's location through psychic means. Third, I have just heard back from Jerry Lewis, who is cited on Nancy Weber's website. Mr. Lewis is completly convinced that Nancy Weber has psychic ability and has assisted the police in a number of cases. Among many other things, he states:
"After I read her book, I was curious about whether it was all true. I had worked with the police officers mentioned in the book. In my edition of the book they had supplied statements as to the accuracy of the information in the book. I knew most of these police officers and had worked with many of them on cases, including Ross English from Mt. Olive. So I called them and they all verified that what was in the book was what really happened."
Jumping in because Garrette is obviously getting ready for his Superbowl party...
I don't think any of the points under dispute by you and Garrette make any difference. I figured that my summary included only what was salient, and wouldn't be disputed. Did you think anything else in the story was relevant to the question under consideration (has anyone significantly helped the police through psychic (supernatural) means?)
I'm also not suggesting the case needs to be about irrefutable proof. But I am suggesting that it meets a reasonable standard - that at the very least it is "unlikely" that natural means could account for the events - something that has not been demonstrated so far.
I think many people are not capable of proper investigation of these claims, including journalists and police officers. The evidence that this is so is overwhelming; else we wouldn't have the JREF cadre of battle-weary soldiers, hunkered down behind crumbling walls, loosing the occasional piercing arrow in response to the veritable volley of slung mud and sticks and stones raining over our heads. I admit that last bit is silly, but you get the picture.
Even you, an intelligent and well-read person, have shown that your approach is inadequate - more of a "seeking to confirm" rather than "disprove" (and by "disprove" I don't mean disproving the supernatural, but disproving the natural - the proper form this investigation should take). I see nothing in the writings of either individual to suggest that they are any different from most. Jerry Lewis' statement about polygraph testing is very telling - "In my entire career running the polygraph, this is the only known error that I made." This is a crystal clear example of confirmation and attribution bias, and that he seems oblivious to it indicates that his opinion cannot be trusted as unbiased.
Going through the examples, I think the question of whether or not she provided significant help could be picked apart and reduced to only a few specific events. However, even if I conceded that she provided significant help, there is no evidence that this was because of psychic ability.
Most of the time, people unrelated to the investigation are not brought to the crime scene or given the opportunity to question friends and family. I happen to be a very intuitive person (I often know what's going to happen before anyone else around me does, I laugh at jokes before they are finished, I have to follow very strict rules or my in-laws will not allow me to watch any movies with them, I constantly amaze others by coming up with stuff that later turns out to be true, pictures/numbers/ideas often pop into my head and later some match up with events/places, etc.) and I bet that if you brought me into a crime scene or allowed me to talk to someone, I would come up with additional, useful information that hadn't been considered by the officers. I think any reaonably intuitive and creative person could do this. The only difference between us and the "psychics" is that applying the label gives them access that would be denied any other stranger.
Just look at the kind of information that was given. Suggesting a stranger was involved in a case that was not immediately solved (since investigations start with those around the victim, cases where a friend/family member was the perpetrator are likely to be solved more quickly) and suggesting he came in through a window in a situation where the doors were locked. How are those suggestions not obvious? Pointing out places where there may be latent prints at a crime scene, picking out a sociopath based on a picture, making descriptions that police later fit to individuals....I can do all of that stuff, as can many others.
Linda
I don't think any of the points under dispute by you and Garrette make any difference. I figured that my summary included only what was salient, and wouldn't be disputed. Did you think anything else in the story was relevant to the question under consideration (has anyone significantly helped the police through psychic (supernatural) means?)
I'm also not suggesting the case needs to be about irrefutable proof. But I am suggesting that it meets a reasonable standard - that at the very least it is "unlikely" that natural means could account for the events - something that has not been demonstrated so far.
I think many people are not capable of proper investigation of these claims, including journalists and police officers. The evidence that this is so is overwhelming; else we wouldn't have the JREF cadre of battle-weary soldiers, hunkered down behind crumbling walls, loosing the occasional piercing arrow in response to the veritable volley of slung mud and sticks and stones raining over our heads. I admit that last bit is silly, but you get the picture.
Even you, an intelligent and well-read person, have shown that your approach is inadequate - more of a "seeking to confirm" rather than "disprove" (and by "disprove" I don't mean disproving the supernatural, but disproving the natural - the proper form this investigation should take). I see nothing in the writings of either individual to suggest that they are any different from most. Jerry Lewis' statement about polygraph testing is very telling - "In my entire career running the polygraph, this is the only known error that I made." This is a crystal clear example of confirmation and attribution bias, and that he seems oblivious to it indicates that his opinion cannot be trusted as unbiased.
Going through the examples, I think the question of whether or not she provided significant help could be picked apart and reduced to only a few specific events. However, even if I conceded that she provided significant help, there is no evidence that this was because of psychic ability.
Most of the time, people unrelated to the investigation are not brought to the crime scene or given the opportunity to question friends and family. I happen to be a very intuitive person (I often know what's going to happen before anyone else around me does, I laugh at jokes before they are finished, I have to follow very strict rules or my in-laws will not allow me to watch any movies with them, I constantly amaze others by coming up with stuff that later turns out to be true, pictures/numbers/ideas often pop into my head and later some match up with events/places, etc.) and I bet that if you brought me into a crime scene or allowed me to talk to someone, I would come up with additional, useful information that hadn't been considered by the officers. I think any reaonably intuitive and creative person could do this. The only difference between us and the "psychics" is that applying the label gives them access that would be denied any other stranger.
Just look at the kind of information that was given. Suggesting a stranger was involved in a case that was not immediately solved (since investigations start with those around the victim, cases where a friend/family member was the perpetrator are likely to be solved more quickly) and suggesting he came in through a window in a situation where the doors were locked. How are those suggestions not obvious? Pointing out places where there may be latent prints at a crime scene, picking out a sociopath based on a picture, making descriptions that police later fit to individuals....I can do all of that stuff, as can many others.
Linda
Last edited:
Excellent.
Yup. I don't dislike baseballe; I just don't consider it sigworthy.Rodney said:
As Mojo notes, this only works if you're suggesting that the police screwed up the case after Morrison set them up for victory.Rodney said: