FBI and Pychics

[CFLarsen]

As an experiment why don't you ring up and ask does the FBI have an official position on say "chemtrails"?

Because Clancie thinks it is "not the same thing".

Dang, I'm psychic!!

 

[voidx]

Again, whether they're right or wrong (and we can't know), the fact is that some police investigators do find working with psychics helpful.

Do we have any quotes of FBI investigators saying the same thing? That psychics are helpful? And what does helpful mean. This thread seems to be asking the question of whether or not psychic's have been instrumental in solving a case. In that regard there seems to be no evidence presented so far.

And what does it matter that you get the official FBI standpoint on this? Does that eliminate the possibility that individual investigators might say something contrary to that claim? I really don't see what this whole exercise of yours is attempting to achieve aside from pointing out Stoessels is potentially making an invalid statement about the "official" policy of the FBI. But then, depending who you might talk to, perhaps he was given that impression, or maybe he was biased to believe it was true. Again, whats the point?

Can anyone show or present a convincing case of which a psychic has indeed been instrumental in the solving of said case? I haven't seen Stoessel's show, know nothing about it, and really could care less.

But I'd still like to see some actual citation from an FBI website, or at least an FBI spokesman, establishing that Stoessel's statement is the official position of the FBI itself, namely, that "psychics have never helped solve a single case." I thought in the past their policy has always been "no comment", so this would be quite a change.

As per your conversation with the FBI, they say they take no position on psychics. So I'm willing to let this whole Stoessel's comment about the offical policy of the FBI thing go if you'll also agree that your individual police investigators saying psychics are helpful is also not worth much. The FBI says nothing one way or the other. They don't say their helpful either. Of course an official statement of practice again doesn't really mean dick all when it comes down to how individual investigators might make practical calls of judgement.

As for the source at ABC, Larsen did send them an email, and he got a response saying that yes, it was the official policy of the FBI. I won't repost it, you can decide for yourself if you'd like to go read it. He has the name of the woman that returned his email.

 

[Clancie]

Since no one is going to look at the links I gave, here are some highlights (from Gary Posner's article that is critical of Reiner, but includes these references that were given her by law enforcement officials):

Supporters of Renier's alleged psychic abilities can be found in the law enforcement and academic communities....

• "[Renier's] class was outstanding. She worked on two local cases and taught officers how to work with a psychic. All the students requested I find a way to bring her back."
  
  -- In a memo to "All Florida Academy Directors" from David E. Walsh, Director, Southwest Florida Criminal Justice Academy Lee County Area Vocational Tech. School, Fort Myers, Florida
  
• "It is a pleasure to extend to you an invitation to address ... students attending the National Academy class entitled, 'Applied Criminology.' As you know, the National Academy students are police managers from throughout the United States and several foreign countries."
  
  -- James W. Greenleaf, Assistant Director, FBI Academy, Quantico, Va.
  
• "You definitely opened my eyes to the potential investigative tool of the psychic. Obviously, many a doubting Thomas had to revise his ideas concerning this somewhat esoteric area."
  
  -- Daniel Grinnan, Jr., Training Coordinator, Commonwealth of Virginia Bureau of Forensic Science, Richmond
  
• "I have observed Ms. Renier in several situations where she has demonstrated her psychic talents and I was very impressed with these demonstrations. She has been willing to have her abilities scientifically evaluated in a laboratory setting which is rare for most psychics."
  
  -- Robert L. Van de Castle, Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Behaviorial Medicine & Psychiatry, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville
  
• "Your demonstrations and predictions were most accurate and although there still will be skeptics, you're able to have a lot of people leave with an open mind."
  
  -- Peter Slusar, Director, Peninsula/Tidewater Regional Academy of Criminal Justice, Hampton, Virginia.

http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/posnerChapter.htm

 

[Clancie]

voidx,

My points, again are as follows:

• Like it or not, some law enforcement officials (police, CIA and FBI) have used psychics
  
• Like it or not, rightly or wrongly, some of these law enforcement officials do say psychics are helpful to them in trying to solve crimes
  
• Does the above mean that psychics have single-handedly solved crimes? No. We don't know that they have. What we do know is that some people who are responsible for solving crimes have found psychics helpful to them.
  
• If law enforcement officers find psychics helpful, I don't see anything wrong with consulting them.
  
• If someone makes the sweeping generalization (made here, in this thread) that "Not one single case has ever been solved by the use of a psychic", well, yes, I think they need to back it up with a factual source.
  
• It's not enough to say that because one is ignorant of how law enforcement works with psychics, that therefore they don't do it. For example, this statement by thaiboxerken,
  

  "Since no person can ever cite a case where a psychic actually solved a case, the statement (that not one single case has ever been solved by the use of a psychic") can be considered to be true."

  Sorry, but that is just faulty reasoning.
  
• And, lastly, I think Stoessel's claim of what the FBI's official position is may not be true at all. My understanding has been that the FBI has a "no comment" position. Of course, I could be wrong, but I'd like to see an FBI source before I'm convinced that Stoessel was actually quoting them, rather than (as I think) repeating something that he read or was told--erroneously.

But, I'm bored with it too, voidx. Same old, same old. All I can say is that if Stoessel had said, "Psychics have helped the FBI solve crimes for 50 years" I think people here would want that verified.

Funny how acquiescent the same people can be when Stoessel says what they want to believe is the FBI's position. It may be true. It may not be. The interesting thing is that no FBI source is being required to support that kind of statement at all. ("Confirmation bias", anyone?)

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Funny how acquiescent the same people can be when Stoessel says what they want to believe is the FBI's position. It may be true. It may not be. The interesting thing is that no FBI source is being required to support that kind of statement at all. ("Confirmation bias", anyone?)

But you've told us what the FBI official position is haven't you? I.e. they don't have one.

 

[voidx]

Since no one is going to look at the links I gave, here are some highlights (from Gary Posner's article that is critical of Reiner, but includes these references that were given her by law enforcement officials):


http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/posnerChapter.htm

Also from the linked article:

Robert K. Ressler, a Supervisory Special Agent assigned to the Behavioral Science Unit of the Quantico center, attended that performance, and was questioned about it during his 1986 deposition in the Renier vs. Merrell case. Ressler testified that "she said she felt that [Reagan] was having a heart attack in the future... some sort of chest pains... and then she clarified it by saying no, it's a sharper pain and it is a gunshot.... I believe she said in the left chest because she was patting her left side, and that he would not die..." (5)

But, says Ressler, Renier's vision went further, as "she went on to say that... later in the fall, October, November, he would be killed in a machine gun assault on a parade stand by many in foreign uniforms..." The following exchange then ensued:


Question: Do you recall if she specifically said the second shooting would be President Reagan?
Ressler: She thought it was President Reagan.
Question: She was wrong on which President it was, then?
Ressler: Yeah... circumstances were uncanny in their accuracy [but] it turned out that it was not Reagan, it was Sadat." (6)

Yes, Noreen Renier is also known for having successfully predicted the assassination of Egypt's President Anwar Sadat. However, in her version of the story, the U.S. Secret Service seems responsible for her apparent ambiguity. In a 1988 New York Post article included in her promotional packet, Renier says that following the Reagan shooting, and after hearing that she had predicted it, agents from the Secret Service paid her a visit. "They thought I might actually know John Hinckley. I didn't. Then they came back again and asked what I saw in the future for the President. I said I saw a parade, a reviewing stand, foreign uniforms, and gunfire. After Sadat was shot, I realized they never asked me which President" (emphasis in original). (7)

Nice bit of data fitting there. Oh I was pretty sure it was Reagan at the time, but after it proved to be wrong... I realized they never asked specifically about Reagan, therefore I predicted two presidential assasinations, not one. Give me a break.

And then there's this whole bit:

When I called the FBI Academy, I was informed that Robert Ressler has since retired from duty. In his stead, I spoke with Richard Ault, also a Supervisory Special Agent in the Behaviorial Science Unit and instructor at the FBI Academy, and long-time co-worker with Ressler. Ault, who holds a Ph.D. in counseling psychology, informed me that indeed "Bob [Ressler] did have Renier down here to the Academy to speak. It was against my recommendations [but] he did it anyway." Ault says that he attended a couple of Renier's lectures, and recalls that "At no time during any of her lectures, or any of the time that I was associated with her, did she make any 'uncanny' predictions, nor was I impressed with anything that she did say.... I've seen that same technique used by a lot of people." (8)

Ault added that although he did not attend Renier's January 1981 presentation, "I've questioned Bob about it on several occasions, and it sounded like the same stuff I've heard before.... The way he described her prediction sounded to me rather bland. It didn't really sound 'uncannily accurate'.... What he said to me was she made this prediction, and to him it sounded neat. When I asked him exactly what all did she say, he wasn't real clear to me on it. He came up with some things that sounded pretty general." Ault went further: "In fact, he [Ressler] has often expressed [to me] regrets at having brought Renier here to lecture. She's just caused him a lot of [paperwork] problems over the years [regarding] the kinds of claims that she's made." (9)

Doesn't sound like she was very impressive after all.

And then there is the kicker:

As alluded to in Collins' remarks that introduce this chapter, Renier's promotional "bio" said that her law enforcement cases have included "several for the Federal Bureau of Investigation." It added that "Mrs. Renier will not accept a case unless an officially authorized representative of the agency having jurisdiction contacts her directly. At that time an agreement outlining fees, expenses, and confidentiality requirements will be sent." (16)

However, Robert Ressler testified in his deposition that Renier's claim to having worked as a psychic for the FBI "is not true from the standpoint of being a paid employee and is not true from the standpoint of her being on a retainer or being used in any regular capacity. She does not work on FBI cases." (17) Added Ressler, "Merrell wanted to know whether the FBI used psychics in our investigative process. And I told him that was absolutely something I wouldn't discuss, but, in reality, we don't." (18) Additionally, Renier was compelled to modify her promotional literature as a result of a reproach by Ressler, who testified that she had claimed "that she was an instructor for the FBI, something along that line, and I told her she could not say that." (19)

Did you read the whole article?

 

[Ed]

OK, call me stupid but I decided to check out these references.

Supporters of Renier's alleged psychic abilities can be found in the law enforcement and academic communities....



"[Renier's] class was outstanding. She worked on two local cases and taught officers how to work with a psychic. All the students requested I find a way to bring her back."

-- In a memo to "All Florida Academy Directors" from David E. Walsh, Director, Southwest Florida Criminal Justice Academy Lee County Area Vocational Tech. School, Fort Myers, Florida

Can't find this guy but this place is a school. It is approved by the JD but is not affiliated with them. Think technical school approves psychics and you got it.

http://www.lee.k12.fl.us/schools/tex/Criminal_Justice/SWFCJA.htm


"It is a pleasure to extend to you an invitation to address ... students attending the National Academy class entitled, 'Applied Criminology.' As you know, the National Academy students are police managers from throughout the United States and several foreign countries."

-- James W. Greenleaf, Assistant Director, FBI Academy, Quantico, Va.

Dunno. This guy appears to be Agent in Charge in Boston. I will follow up with the Feds on this general area and ask about this guy

"You definitely opened my eyes to the potential investigative tool of the psychic. Obviously, many a doubting Thomas had to revise his ideas concerning this somewhat esoteric area."

-- Daniel Grinnan, Jr., Training Coordinator, Commonwealth of Virginia Bureau of Forensic Science, Richmond

Can't find the person on the staff of the institution, I sent a question and the quote to the director.


"I have observed Ms. Renier in several situations where she has demonstrated her psychic talents and I was very impressed with these demonstrations. She has been willing to have her abilities scientifically evaluated in a laboratory setting which is rare for most psychics."

-- Robert L. Van de Castle, Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Behaviorial Medicine & Psychiatry, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville

The is no Dept. of Behaviorial Medicine & Psychiatry at UV. I may have missed it, look for yourself

http://www.medschool.vcu.edu/departments.html

In psychiatry, there is no Prof. Van de Castle.


"Your demonstrations and predictions were most accurate and although there still will be skeptics, you're able to have a lot of people leave with an open mind."

-- Peter Slusar, Director, Peninsula/Tidewater Regional Academy of Criminal Justice, Hampton, Virginia.

The name of the organization is the Hampton Roads etc, etc. The current director is not Mr. Slusar, in fact he is not on the staff. I did a search on the name and the only guy I turned up in Va. was a WWII vet, he must be in his 80's. I dropped a note to the current director with the quote asking him about it

Why do I smell duplicity?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

Did you read the whole article?

Yes, that's why I said,

"Here are some highlights (from Gary Posner's article that is critical of Reiner, but includes these references that were given her by law enforcement officials)...

Posted by Darat

But you've told us what the FBI official position is haven't you? I.e. they don't have one

I've never said that is their position, Darat. I said that is what I -thought- it was and what the Public Affairs rep in DC told me. (Someone else in the LA Public Affairs office didn't know but said they'd check it and get back to me. Hopefully....)

Unlike me, Stoessel said flat out that the official FBI position is that psychics don't help at all in solving crimes. I don't know the position with 100% certainty myself, but I question that he really is quoting them accurately.

My point (is this the fifth or sixth time I've made it?) is that I think he owes his audience an attribution, something more than, "It's true because I say so."

Posted by Ed

OK, call me stupid but I decided to check out these references

Good! I'm sure Posner (as well, of course, as all of us) will be very interested in the results you get.

 

[Virgil]

one could always file a FOIA request...


Virgil

 

[voidx]

voidx,

My points, again are as follows:

Like it or not, some law enforcement officials (police, CIA and FBI) have used psychics

Never doubted this, next.

Like it or not, rightly or wrongly, some of these law enforcement officials do say psychics are helpful to them in trying to solve crimes

Doesn't surprise me some would say that. But helpful in what capacity. No one knows. Again, where are we going with this?

Does the above mean that psychics have single-handedly solved crimes? No. We don't know that they have. What we do know is that some people who are responsible for solving crimes have found psychics helpful to them.

Sure, they think so. I simply doubt that anything a psychic has provided information wise has been instrumental in solving a case. And I imagine in most examples even if an investigator themselves thought so, it would be shown that the information was vague, or was already known, or that somehow the information provided merely is being fit with what ended up being a key piece of information in the investigation. And this key information would have been verified as key by normal forensic procedures. We do not have any information that seems contrary to my opinion here.

If law enforcement officers find psychics helpful, I don't see anything wrong with consulting them.

But in the majority of cases it seems they don't actively go looking for them. They accept all information as it comes in, merely because they cannot afford to dismiss it, just in case. While one might say they are not detrimental, and this is arguable, if they can also not be shown to have any marked efficiency, then why bother? Again I'd like to see how officers define how their "helpful" before I myself would make an opinion one way or the other here. How about you?

If someone makes the sweeping generalization (made here, in this thread) that "Not one single case has ever been solved by the use of a psychic", well, yes, I think they need to back it up with a factual source.

Fine, reword it thusly, "Not one single case has ever be conclusively shown to have been solved by the instrumental and key information provided by a psychic". Done. Let's move on.

It's not enough to say that because one is ignorant of how law enforcement works with psychics, that therefore they don't do it. For example, this statement by thaiboxerken,

Sorry, but that is just faulty reasoning.

Then ignore his reasoning if its so faulty to you. Ken has never shown any indication of changing his attitudes based on any conversation I've seen the two of you have. So deal with statements made by those of us you believe have non-faulty reasoning.

And, lastly, I think Stoessel's claim of what the FBI's official position is may not be true at all. My understanding has been that the FBI has a "no comment" position. Of course, I could be wrong, but I'd like to see an FBI source before I'm convinced that Stoessel was actually quoting them, rather than (as I think) repeating something that he read or was told--erroneously.

Assume he was quoting poor information that is in fact not correct. You win. What has that gained you? Stoessel might be guilty of some poor fact checking, or he might not, big deal. Now what?

But, I'm bored with it too, voidx. Same old, same old. All I can say is that if Stoessel had said, "Psychics have helped the FBI solve crimes for 50 years" I think people here would want that verified.

Funny how acquiescent the same people can be when Stoessel says what they want to believe is the FBI's position. It may be true. It may not be. The interesting thing is that no FBI source is being required to support that kind of statement at all. ("Confirmation bias", anyone?)

So some skeptics might be guilty of taking a comment too literally and not checking up on it. Everyone does this. So if you're goal here is to score a point against the constant thoroughness of some skeptics well then congratulations. I just don't see that its very useful to furthering the discussion. I could say the same thing about your linked article, that you quoted only the first parts of it which cast Reiner in a good light, or which supported your opinion/bias, and that you did not read the rest of the article. Or that if you did you still picked those points which best supported your own arguement. We could sling mud back and forth all day, but its rather pointless. At the end of the day does there seem to be any indication that psychics have any effectiveness at solving crimes. There doesn't seem to be any conclusive information pointing to the fact that they are.

 

[Clancie]

Clancie:

Like it or not, rightly or wrongly, some of these law enforcement officials do say psychics are helpful to them in trying to solve crimes

voidx:

No one knows. Again, where are we going with this?

Where we're going is....People shouldn't claim things that aren't true.

Into that category, I think Stoessel's comment would go. Also, the statement in this thread, "Psychics have never helped solve a crime." We don't know it's true. So don't say it's true.

And I imagine in most examples even if an investigator themselves thought so, it would be shown that the information was vague, or was already known, or that somehow the information provided merely is being fit with what ended up being a key piece of information in the investigation.

This may be true. It may not be. It's just speculation on your part. You can discount their perception all you want to. But that doesn't at all affect my point which is simply....Don't forget that some investigators themselves DO say it was helpful.

Stoessel might be guilty of some poor fact checking, or he might not, big deal.

Well, surprise. But I think accuracy -is- important. (Some of his other "myths" were full of inaccuracies or half truths as well. Journalist should get their facts right. They shouldn't just get a "pass" when they get them wrong).

And I can just imagine a future post from someone saying, "Even the FBI says psychics have never helped solve a crime. The official FBI position was even quoted on 20/20 (link to Stoessel's comment)."

That's how inaccurate information gets accepted as true and, wrongly, passed on and on.

And, that, voidx, is the essence of my concern.

 

[voidx]

Yes, that's why I said,

And the fact that the article basically shows that while Reiner has run seminars for the FBI she has not in any official, or retainer basis assisted the FBI in any investigations? And that the rest of the cases of Reiner, have to do with working with police departments, and not the FBI. And that anything she says regarding this has to be a little suspect as she had tried to pass herself off as an instructor at the FBI in her brochures and was legally instructed to change that. I'm sorry, Reiner's credentials and facts about just how she "worked" with the FBI seem to be quite shaky. Which is why I'm surprised you linked the positive comments about her, because they seem rather hollow and off-target when taken in context of the entire article.

 

[Clancie]

The Public Affairs Office in LA called back and said the FBI treats calls from psychics as leads just like any others. They also said that they have no statistics showing whether working with psychics has been helpful or not, or how much, if at all, it happens.

"Without statistics showing how many times we've used information from psychics, and what the outcome was, there would be no way for us to have a clear cut statement of policy about it. "

 

[Ceinwyn]

The Public Affairs Office in LA called back and said the FBI treats calls from psychics as leads just like any others. They also said that they have no statistics showing whether working with psychics has been helpful or not, or how much, if at all, it happens.

"Without statistics showing how many times we've used information from psychics, and what the outcome was, there would be no way for us to have a clear cut statement of policy about it. "

To me, that says that they don't actively seek out psychics, and they don't actively use them. What they do is follow up leads, which is part of any decent investigatory process. Nowhere do I see "so-and-so psychic was indispensible in the arrest of..." or "we wouldn't have found the body without the aid of Joe Psychic."

So. I guess that pretty much sums it up then.

 

[FutileJester]

This thread seems to be asking the question of whether or not psychic's have been instrumental in solving a case. In that regard there seems to be no evidence presented so far.

For me, this is what it still comes down to at the end of the day.

It seems incredible to me that a psychic could provide help of any true value without also showing up in some kind of official (and publicly available) documentation. Imagine that a psychic points out a suspect or locates a piece of evidence, something that wouldn't otherwise have been known/found. The accused always has the opportunity to confront their accuser; is there a court transcript of a psychic being cross-examined because they provided critical evidence? What about motions to dismiss evidence because a warrant was based on psychic testimony? With the plethora of psychics claming to have solved crimes, the lack of any paper trail seems very telling.

Of course another possibility is that the help they've provided hasn't been to give the police information they didn't have, but to help them look at things in different ways. This is quite possible and utterly unremarkable. I bet the average detective's spouse or bartender does that just as well.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, well....same old, same old, indeed.

• Named sources ignored.
• FUD.
• Selective quoting.
• Anonymous sources.
• Sources supporting law enforcement use of psychics hard to track down - some don't even exist.
• Faulty logic.
• FBI sources (tried suppressed) flat-out states that psychics are not helpful.
• FBI sources (tried suppressed) flat-out states that psychics are not used.
• FBI sources (tried suppressed) flat-out states that psychics have not solved crimes.

I don't think we are going any further. Clancie has made up her mind, and no amount of evidence will sway her. But it sure is interesting to see just how far a believer will go to protect her belief. This kind of blind fanaticism is luckily not something you see every day.

 

[LTC8K6]

In this story, if you read what the psychic says, they have been very helpful. If you read what the police say, psychics have not been helpful.

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/3320768.htm

Perhaps psychics are useful in a reverse-logic way? The police use them to learn where they shouldn't look.

Since they aparently haven't found Cindy*, I think the truth is obvious.

* or anyone else.

 

[LTC8K6]

More blah blah blah, but no Cindy.

http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/paranormal/news_press_6132002.htm

http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/paranormal/news_press_022703.htm

 

[Psiload]

More blah blah blah, but no Cindy.

http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/paranormal/news_press_6132002.htm

http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/paranormal/news_press_022703.htm

Psychic detective... man, what a sweet gig. Basically, you don't have to do jack squat, and you get to write books, give seminars, host radio shows, appear on national television, etc...

You even get to write your own press releases!:

http://theezine.net/articles/610/Pr...air-Family-In-Search-For-Mother-Daughter.html

Premier Psychic Investigator, Carla Baron, Advises Sinclair Family In Search For Mother, Daughter

By Carla Baron

You get to be "nationally known" despite having done, well, nothing at all!

She hasn't solved a single case. She hasn't provided a single bit of productive info... nothing. Yet she has somehow parlayed her uselessness into an entire career. What a racket!

I wish I could get in on some of this...

Damn my accursed integrity and self respect!

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Well, well....same old, same old, indeed.

• Named sources ignored.
• FUD.
• Selective quoting.
• Anonymous sources.
• Sources supporting law enforcement use of psychics hard to track down - some don't even exist.
• Faulty logic.
• FBI sources (tried suppressed) flat-out states that psychics are not helpful.
• FBI sources (tried suppressed) flat-out states that psychics are not used.
• FBI sources (tried suppressed) flat-out states that psychics have not solved crimes.

I don't think we are going any further. Clancie has made up her mind, and no amount of evidence will sway her. But it sure is interesting to see just how far a believer will go to protect her belief. This kind of blind fanaticism is luckily not something you see every day.

But is it spreading, Claus? It looks to me that it is.