You forgot to mention that her descriptions of said ghosts were factually inaccurate, clearly being based on popular misconceptions rather than any actual meeting.
Ghosts manifest themselves as we want them to be not as they really are. The observer affects the observed. Duh!
I disagree with this part. I don't see anything that suggests Anita has any observation skills at all, let alone particularly good ones.
I don't want to rehash the entire saga, so I'll just share some bullet points based on having read everything here, on her site, on my site, and in about 85,000 words of private chats.
* While she has been caught in a few lies, her stories actually remain remarkably consistent. She spins things, but once spun, they remain spun and don't change.
* Taking her at her word, she has been "accurate" in a number of seemingly unrelated observations ranging from neck pain to menstruation to full bladder.
* Contrary to her assertion, each and every "confirmed" observation could have been accompanied by information accessible by ordinary and mundane means.
* In all but one trial in her study on induced information, she scored above "chance" but never so much to indicate that she had the powers she claimed. The *one* time she did worse than chance was when it was completely dark, and she couldn't see the subject at all.
Taken as a whole it points to a likelihood that she has some good skills of observation. Take menstruation for example. At any given time probably 1 in 5 women of child bearing age is menstruating. She's never performed a series of trials to see if she can detect this significantly above chance.
However, it *appears* that the one time she had this perception, she was right. She had a chance to observe the woman for a few hours. Maybe she saw her pop some Motrin and take her purse to the bathroom instead of leaving it with her boyfriend. Maybe she noticed swollen ankles or the woman wincing from cramps. It's no guarantee that the woman was menstruating, but I'm willing to bet it increased the odds.
This is why Anita's observations are so varied. In fact she almost never repeats an observation. Each one has a separate set of circumstances that lead to an educated guess. She has managed to weave them together with her fantasies to create her sooper powers.
Having good observational skills is not mutually exclusive with pulling hits out thin air, ignoring misses, postdiction, or twisting results around to look like a hit.
Though Anita had just a 23% chance of getting one completely right at the IIG just by rolling a die and flipping a coin, I would not have bet against her without getting odds on my money. There was simply too much information available to her to make this a "pure chance" scenario like with Connie Sonne.
I'm also not surprised in the least that she identified two people missing a kidney even though the odds were 13 to 1 against because those odds are
wrong! Those odds assume no other information was available when in fact there was a lot of information available to her. 13 to 1 is just the worst case scenario where she couldn't see the people at all.
I, like everyone else, knew that Anita was not detecting kidneys. She was looking for the person most likely to be missing a kidney and then guessing "left" because the odds were better.
You seem to contend that pure chance was at work. I've already established that there was a wealth of information that could be used to better the odds of getting the right person. If you're right, she ignored all that information and beat 13 to 1 odds. If I'm right, she used some skill to increase her odds while still guessing. I think my scenario is far more likely.
By your "logic", if there had been 12 rounds and Anita had come up with the correct person each time, but had missed the locations, you would conclude that she has no paranormal ability and that there is no need to investigate further. 
