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

[Rodney]

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.

Posner disregards the following facts:

1) The police investigation had turned up nothing in 16 months at the time Renier was called in.
2) Renier's involvement began more than two months after the handyman's "smoking gun" statement that Posner seems to regards as critical to solving the case.
3) Following Renier's reading, police considered a number of locations for the whereabouts of Mr. Lewis and his truck, but zeroed in on only one -- the correct one.
4) The Williston Police Chief, Olin Slaughter, stated that "we wouldn't have found Norman Lewis without the help of Noreen."

I will point out that statements by the police have been contradicted by the evidence

What statements are those?

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.

And yet, Chief Slaughter states: "It was a wooden truck scale that could be confused for a bridge." So, while Renier may not have stated weigh-bridge, her mention of a "bridge" gave Slaughter the confidence to order a new search of the Whitehurst pit, which proved successful.

 

[Sherlock]

Rodney since you really want to stick with this --- here's my take. If one absolutely believes and acknowledges Noreen Renier's claims then it becomes clear how she arrived at the location where Norman Lewis was found. She claims that she has a paranormal ability to communicate well with informants who have memories of visual events in the past and are able to convey such events to her. These critical informants she claims have previously told her where rivers once flowed and even recalled seeing "fighting" near them in the past. And these informants absolutely were available to her and remain available to her in this case. The informants? Trees. She claims she communicates to trees and they speak in English and they have memories of events around them. They are for her reliable and credible informants.

And there are several hundred trees along the route taken by Norman Lewis to the where he was found. Clearly if one believes in her paranormal claims then the trees are her most likely source of how Norman Lewis arrived where he did. Among all the examples you site of specific items found near the site, all were within 50 feet or so of a tree. And obviously the trees themselves must communicate among themselves in order to have learned the ability to communicate with Noreen in English --- at least she claims they spoke to her in English. So there you have it.

Her communication with tree informants solved the entire case. And clearly if you believe her claims the use of her communication with trees is the most reasonable, reliable, and easier way for her to have received credible information via this unique paranormal method. So no more nonsense. She evidently found the location by talking to trees. And if you don't think so why not? What better explanation can there be if one agrees in her claims and sorts through the claims that would have been the most likely to have assisted her? It is absolutely the easiest means for her to have located the spot if she is telling the truth about her paranormal ability. For more see one of those 'top 15' claims you don't wish to acknowledge at http://www.gpinquirygroup.com/gpinquirygroup/Non-human%20informant%20claims.html

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Posner disregards the following facts:

1) The police investigation had turned up nothing in 16 months at the time Renier was called in.
2) Renier's involvement began more than two months after the handyman's "smoking gun" statement that Posner seems to regards as critical to solving the case.
3) Following Renier's reading, police considered a number of locations for the whereabouts of Mr. Lewis and his truck, but zeroed in on only one -- the correct one.
4) The Williston Police Chief, Olin Slaughter, stated that "we wouldn't have found Norman Lewis without the help of Noreen."

That doesn't answer my questions. What theory do you consider to be the most plausible?

What statements are those?

Already discussed in this thread.

And yet, Chief Slaughter states: "It was a wooden truck scale that could be confused for a bridge." So, while Renier may not have stated weigh-bridge, her mention of a "bridge" gave Slaughter the confidence to order a new search of the Whitehurst pit, which proved successful.

So, as I said, not a bridge.

And, as I've said many times and which is still unquestionably true - Renier provided no information that the police were not already in possession of.

 

[Rodney]

She evidently found the location by talking to trees. And if you don't think so why not?

I'm not so much interested in Noreen Renier's explanation as to how this case was solved as I am interested in the undeniable fact that it was solved only after she gave her reading. So what's your best guess as to how it was solved?

 

[TjW]

What would be the probability of Renier's getting involved after the case was solved?

 

[Rodney]

That doesn't answer my questions. What theory do you consider to be the most plausible?

I don't know if we have enough information to formulate a theory, but I am dubious as to whether Gary Posner has his facts straight because he displays such an obvious bias.

Already discussed in this thread.

Please humor me by recapping those statements.

So, as I said, not a bridge.

Do you disbelieve the account given at lawofficer.com that Police Chief Olin Slaughter 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"?

And, as I've said many times and which is still unquestionably true - Renier provided no information that the police were not already in possession of.

And, as I've noted many times, Police Chief Slaughter stated that "we wouldn't have found Norman Lewis without the help of Noreen." So, why is Slaughter so willing to credit her, if she provided no useful information?

 

[Sherlock]

Rodney: So what's your best guess as to how it was solved?

Sherlock: The trees that Renier talks to told her where to find him.
So please give the credit where it is due. The trees solved it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I don't know if we have enough information to formulate a theory, but I am dubious as to whether Gary Posner has his facts straight because he displays such an obvious bias.

I'd guess you're not claiming that the audio and video are faked? Or the maps?

Please humor me by recapping those statements.

The statements made about what Renier said don't match up to the audio and video of what she actually said.

Do you disbelieve the account given at lawofficer.com that Police Chief Olin Slaughter 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"?

It makes no difference whether I believe it or not. A weigh-bridge is not a bridge. Renier claiming there was a bridge is a miss.

And, as I've noted many times, Police Chief Slaughter stated that "we wouldn't have found Norman Lewis without the help of Noreen." So, why is Slaughter so willing to credit her, if she provided no useful information?

I'm still not psychic, and can't speak for Slaughter's thought processes. The fact remains, however, that Renier did not provide any information that the police were not already in possession of. Speculating on what other people's motives for their actions are won't affect that fact one iota.

 

[Rodney]

Rodney: So what's your best guess as to how it was solved?

Sherlock: The trees that Renier talks to told her where to find him.
So please give the credit where it is due. The trees solved it.

I think the most likely possibility is that Norman Renier's reading pointed police in the right direction. The reading was not specific, in that she did not identify the Whitehust pit as being the location of Norman Lewis' truck and remains, but there was something about the reading that the police found credible, which led to the verification of the landmarks that Renier provided. As to where she got her information, I'm not sure.

 

[Rodney]

I'd guess you're not claiming that the audio and video are faked? Or the maps?

No, but they do not provide the complete picture of Noreen Renier's reading.

The statements made about what Renier said don't match up to the audio and video of what she actually said.

Are you talking about statements made by Williston Police Chief Olin Slaughter? If so, which ones?

It makes no difference whether I believe it or not. A weigh-bridge is not a bridge. Renier claiming there was a bridge is a miss.

Even if Renier's reference to a bridge provided the final piece of the puzzle to Chief Slaughter?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No, but they do not provide the complete picture of Noreen Renier's reading.

What information did she give that they're lacking?

Are you talking about statements made by Williston Police Chief Olin Slaughter? If so, which ones?

The numbers, for a start.

Even if Renier's reference to a bridge provided the final piece of the puzzle to Chief Slaughter?

A weigh-bridge is not a bridge.

I think the most likely possibility is that Norman Renier's reading pointed police in the right direction. The reading was not specific, in that she did not identify the Whitehust pit as being the location of Norman Lewis' truck and remains, but there was something about the reading that the police found credible, which led to the verification of the landmarks that Renier provided. As to where she got her information, I'm not sure.

What hypothesis do you favour?

 

[Rodney]

What information did she give that they're lacking?

I can't tell you specifically, because I wasn't there for her July 17, 1995 reading. However, there must have been a reason why the police searched only the Whitehust pit. If you examine only the information that's publicly available, you might conclude, as Gary Posner does, that "Norman Lewis' remains appeared to have been found not because the police had the Navy divers search the body of water best fitting Renier's psychic clues, but because they had the Navy search the wrong watery pit!" But that combination of police incompetence and blind luck simply does not make sense to me, even if it does to you.

The numbers, for a start.

Instead of talking in riddles, how about if you cite a statement by Chief Slaughter that does not match up to the audio and video of what Noreen Renier said in her July 17, 1995 reading.

 

[GeeMack]

[...] But that combination of police incompetence and blind luck simply does not make sense to me, even if it does to you.

That's an argument from incredulity. Blind luck and police incompetence happen all the time. With billions of people on the planet and multiple billions of events occurring every day, it's a virtual certainty that blind luck and police incompetence will occasionally both be components of the same event.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I can't tell you specifically, because I wasn't there for her July 17, 1995 reading. However, there must have been a reason why the police searched only the Whitehust pit. If you examine only the information that's publicly available, you might conclude, as Gary Posner does, that "Norman Lewis' remains appeared to have been found not because the police had the Navy divers search the body of water best fitting Renier's psychic clues, but because they had the Navy search the wrong watery pit!" But that combination of police incompetence and blind luck simply does not make sense to me, even if it does to you.

Ah so, rather than relying on the evidence that we do have on which to base your opinion, you're content to base it on information that you believe might exist but which we don't have access to? You'll excuse me if I choose to stick with the facts.

Instead of talking in riddles, how about if you cite a statement by Chief Slaughter that does not match up to the audio and video of what Noreen Renier said in her July 17, 1995 reading.

I'm not talking in riddles. This has already been gone over in this thread.

Now, why don't you explain which hypothesis you favour for who Renier got her information?

 

[Rodney]

Ah so, rather than relying on the evidence that we do have on which to base your opinion, you're content to base it on information that you believe might exist but which we don't have access to? You'll excuse me if I choose to stick with the facts.

But you don't have them all, and so you have to make logical inferences. Posner's version of events is highly illogical, and is contradicted by Williston Police Chief Slaughter.

I'm not talking in riddles. This has already been gone over in this thread.

Where? Again, I'm referring to a statement by Chief Slaughter that does not match up to the audio and video of what Noreen Renier said in her July 17, 1995 reading.

Now, why don't you explain which hypothesis you favour for who Renier got her information?

For who Renier got her information? I would say she either got very lucky or was privy to some information that eluded the police.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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?

"Even a blind pig finds an occasional truffle." anon

 

[Fnord]

"Even a blind pig finds an occasional truffle." anon

One coincidental hit out of hundreds of misses does not tender validity to any of Ms. Renier's claims.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

One coincidental hit out of hundreds of misses does not tender validity to any of Ms. Renier's claims.

Plus, of course, continuing to search until you find the object you are looking for is the way the Universe operates. The object is always "in the last place you search". If Chief Slaughter had not found the body in pit #31, he could have easily searched another 30. And then promptly retrofitted the "psychic pviewings" to the pit the body was found in.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But you don't have them all, and so you have to make logical inferences.

Yup, and the logical inference is that the audio and video recordings are accurate or are edited in order to be favourable to Ms. Renier.

Posner's version of events is highly illogical, and is contradicted by Williston Police Chief Slaughter.

We've been over this many times. I'm not following anybody's logic or relying on anybody's conclusions other than my own. What Posner's version of events is is irrelevant to me.

Where? Again, I'm referring to a statement by Chief Slaughter that does not match up to the audio and video of what Noreen Renier said in her July 17, 1995 reading.

Look at the numbers. Look at what Slaughter says about the numbers.

I would say she either got very lucky or was privy to some information that eluded the police.

If it's option 1, then I'd be interested to know why you didn't find that a satisfying answer when it's what I said. That, in fact, you said that such an explanation didn't make sense to you. If it's option 2, then why haven't the police mentioned this information Renier provided which eluded them?

 

[Rodney]

Look at the numbers. Look at what Slaughter says about the numbers.

Do you mean this quote?

"Now Hewitt and I start working on the numbers. We have to complete the puzzle. Lewis's home was exactly 2.1 miles from the pit. The entrance to the mine is located on US 41, but if you look at the map carefully, you'll see it's also SR 45. Now we were left with the number 22 and couldn't do anything with it. That was until we had Norman's watch cleaned up before giving it back to his brother. It had stopped on the 22nd of the month."

Is there something that Slaughter said that's inconsistent with the audio and video evidence?

If it's option 1, then I'd be interested to know why you didn't find that a satisfying answer when it's what I said. That, in fact, you said that such an explanation didn't make sense to you. If it's option 2, then why haven't the police mentioned this information Renier provided which eluded them?

Option 1 is just another way of saying that you can't explain it. Regarding Option 2, Chief Slaughter has mentioned a number of landmarks that Renier provided.