Anyone can get lucky on occasion; if this is an example of a "supernatural" gift, it's not very impressive. Kinda sucky actually.
Critic’s “Top 15” claims by psychic detective Noreen Renier
- Thread starter Sherlock
- Start date
Anyone can get lucky on occasion; if this is an example of a "supernatural" gift, it's not very impressive. Kinda sucky actually.
Sherlock
Muse
Actually one can't even credit psychic detective Noreen Renier with being lucky. Her actual documented track record speaks for itself --- including sensing a missing person was dead when in fact they were alive. And claiming before media that she was getting good results ("vibes") about a missing woman when she in fact got no results. Refer to http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/Promise%20to%20find%20missing%20student.html
Rodney likes referencing Noreen Renier's claims, but none of the actual findings on her claims later.
Indeed Rodney just likes to site her web site time and time again. But Noreen Renier's web site is absolutely filled with bogus claims that have re-issued time and time again but found lacking truth and credibility. On March 21st a federal judge noted that police psychic Noreen Renier was not a credible witness. And her claims of working directly for (not with, but for) state law enforcement agencies and other police agencies across hundreds of cases is also clearly a multi-decade fabrication. See http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/Police bookings that don't exist.html
Rodney likes referencing Noreen Renier's claims, but none of the actual findings on her claims later.
Indeed Rodney just likes to site her web site time and time again. But Noreen Renier's web site is absolutely filled with bogus claims that have re-issued time and time again but found lacking truth and credibility. On March 21st a federal judge noted that police psychic Noreen Renier was not a credible witness. And her claims of working directly for (not with, but for) state law enforcement agencies and other police agencies across hundreds of cases is also clearly a multi-decade fabrication. See http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/Police bookings that don't exist.html
Last edited:
Before focusing on other cases, how about focusing on the Williston one? Do you accept Posner's analysis of it, or do you have an alternative one, as to how Norman Lewis' remains came to be found?
If the nitwits that call themselves psychic detectives had any "powers" whatsoever, organizations like The Missing Children's Network would use banks of "em. We wouldn't be questioning them on some obscure skeptic forum but lauding their accomplishments in the international media.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
So what information did she give them that they weren't already in possession of?
Renier provided landmarks indicating where Lewis' truck and remains were located. The landmarks included a cliff surrounded by vegetation, a pile of bricks, a bridge, and an old railroad bed. Investigator Hewitt explored the Williston area, looking for these landmarks, and found an old water-filled phosphate pit surrounded by cliffs a couple of miles from Lewis' home. Hewitt then found a steel rail in a heavily wooded area near the pit, and a pile of bricks. He started digging by the rail, and found an old railroad bed underneath it. Those landmarks led Williston Police Chief Slaughter to believe that this area might be the one identified by Renier. So, he called in some local county divers to search the pit, but they did not find Lewis' truck or remains. Later, however, Chief Slaughter observed through the woods by the pit a wooden truck scale that could be confused for a bridge, which increased his confidence that the area might be the one identified by Renier. So, he ordered a more extensive diving operation using Navy divers, which located Lewis' truck and remains.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
The clues she provided actually were:
- A cliff. No mention of vegetation, but vegetation is hardly uncommon. Neither are cliffs in quarries.
pile of bricks. Again, something that's not unocommon.
- A bridge. Something that wasn't actually there. What there was was a weigh-bridge which, after the fact, the police decided looked enough like an actual bridge to count as a hit.
- A railway track "that goes through there". No mention of "old". This was not present. What there was was an old steel rail.
- That he drove from his house in a southerly direction. This is not true, if he were heading to the pit in which his body was found.
- That the pit was due east from his house. It was actually due north.
- That the combinations of numbers and letters that had a connection to the location of the body were 45, 221, 22, 21, 2I, H, EML, I, 22I, E, 11.2. Of these letters and numbers, only 45 had any connection to the location of the body whatsoever.
Of those clues, in fact, 3 are hits - that there was a cliff, that there were bricks, and that the number 45 is connected. The first two are so general as to apply to anything and the last is fairly abstract, and was information it was easy to come by by reading a map. 3 hits, which I'm being extremely generous to call hits, and 14 misses.
As has been said, the clues fit the pit that actually is due East of his house much better.
So, even with you - again - changing the facts to suit your own agenda (not to mention omitting salient facts), her track record is appalling. And, as I have said more than once, she provided no information the police weren't already in possession of.
Last edited:
Your version of events assumes Gary Posner has his facts straight. Let's suppose that is the case. How did the police come to search the correct pit, rather than the incorrect pit?
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
My version of events assumes that the audio and video recordings of Renier have their facts straight.
Sheer blind luck.
The audio and video recordings do not represent the totality of the information available to Investigator Hewitt and Police Chief Slaughter. So, while the recordings may not demonstrate, for example, that Renier mentioned an "old" railway bed, she says that she did, and the fact that Hewitt found an old railroad bed underneath a steel rail by the Whitehurst phosphate pit is what Slaughter says led him to order the initial search of the pit.
So, you believe that while Renier's reading pointed to a different pit, Chief Slaughter misunderstood and ordered a search of the Whitehurst pit?
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
So what you're saying is there might be even more misses that we just don't know about?
I'm not sure he misunderstood. The first pit he looked at was the one she seemed to be pointing to. And I believe he looked at 30 before settling on the one that they did.
What the exact reasons they settled on that particular pit were is something I've not offered an opinion on. Maybe he was desperately trying to fit the clues to something. Maybe it was for entirely pragmatic reasons. Maybe it was somewhere in between.
Whatever the reason, it's not relevant to the fact that Renier didn't give the police any information they didn't already have.
So why didn't he order a search of that pit?
Noreen Renier's got to be the luckiest person in the world: She points the police in the wrong direction, but they don't search there. Instead, they examine a whole slew of other locations, not knowing if any of them are where Norman Lewis and his truck wound up. But finally, they take a stab at one of them, and lo and behold, they find Lewis's remains and truck. Then, instead of criticizing Renier for her erroneous reading, they credit her for helping solve the case.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
I'm not sure what you're looking for me to say. Certainly, nothing you're saying contradicts the fact that Renier didn't give the police any information they weren't already in possession of.
Sherlock
Muse
Well Rodney you've certainly diverted attention from the 'top 15' claims I started this topic with --- and simply moved it to a claim that was not among her 'top 15'.
So again, why is it you can't or won't defend any of her 'top 15' claims?
So again, why is it you can't or won't defend any of her 'top 15' claims?
I haven't had a chance to examine most of these claims, but I fail to understand why you did not include the Williston case as one of the Top 15. One thing I agree with Gary Posner about is that this case "quickly became the pinnacle of Renier's storied career." So, why don't you address it?
I'm trying to get you to recognize the implausibility of Posner's version of events and examine whether he got his facts straight. For example, Posner claims that "the police did not become aware of the buried track until a potion of it was unearthed after the divers had already been called in." However, Williston Police Chief Slaughter contradicts Posner, stating that Investigator Hewitt found "a pile of red bricks. He went back to the rail he discovered earlier, started digging and found an old railroad bed underneath it. I called Levy County Sheriff's Department divers to come over and work the [Whitehurst] pit."
Slaughter then relates that the initial search of the Whitehurst pit didn't find anything, but later he noticed "a wooden truck scale that could be confused for a bridge. Slaughter's confidence grew, and he got some Navy demolition divers to dive the pit on their off time. On their second day, they got a hit while using a magnetometer." See http://www.lawofficer.com/article/magazine-feature/psychic-detectives
Posner, on the other hand, claims that Renier's bridge clue offered no assistance to police in targeting the Whitehurst pit.
So who's right about the buried track and bridge -- Posner or Slaughter?
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
I'm not entirely sure what you believe is implausible about the account. I'd be especially interested to know what you believe is less plausible in the account than Renier having psychic powers.
Especially as it is still self-evident that Renier gave no information to the police that they were not already in possession of. It doesn't matter how many tangents you try to drag me down, this fact does not change.
I have no idea with the track, although I will point out that statements by the police have been contradicted by the evidence, whereas it's not been demonstrated that any statements by Posner have. So, for that reason alone, if I had to call it (which, incidentally, I don't as the railway clue, like the rest of the clues, fits the pit to the east perfectly) I'd say that Posner is more likely to be correct. But, as I've said more than once in this thread, what I'm doing is looking at the evidence and drawing my own conclusions, rather than accepting anybody's word for anything. So who's right and who's wrong in this instance makes no difference to me at all.
As far as the bridge goes, I've already addressed it. Renier claimed there was a bridge. There wasn't. There was a weigh-bridge. These are not the same thing.
Sherlock
Muse
Wolrab: Exactly. And that's why its not among the "top 15". But neither Renier herself or Rodney don't like to address and defend her on the forum any of those. Clearly the charades only continue.