Just One Case

[Garrette]

fls: I will thank you to stop divining what I really want to say and saying it better than I have managed.

Harumphs and pshaws.

btw: My preparation for the Super Bowl comprises turning on the television. Had a very nice time with it this year.

 

[Garrette]

I am not suggesting that this case irrefutably proves the value of psychics in assisting the police,

Then what does it do, Rodney?

You presented it as if it is at least strong evidence. I suspect that if you had not been challenged, you would continue to do so. It is only the fact that I and others have pointed out problems that you now begin to back off.

If the article is not irrefutable proof, then what level of proof is it? How strong is it as evidence?

Please answer the question I asked you after you asked what I would accept as proof of psychic assistance since I don't accept newspaper articles:

Do you accept newspaper articles as proof of psychic assistance?

but I am confident that Garrette has mischaracterized the article that I cited.

My characterization comes directly from what is in the article itself. The question you asked the author and the answer she gave you do not rule out my characterization; you and she lacked the precision necessary to do that. I suspect you knew (and know) this; it is part of how you play the game: Ask questions that appear skeptical but which are really worded in such a way as to garner a psi-positive response. It's as irresponsible as those who report poorly conducted polls with leading questions.

The author of the article is convinced that Valerie Morrison located the missing child's location through psychic means.

And yet she cannot point to any specifics, does not mention the case files, and leaves obscured the fact that the case is unresolved. Conviction means little in the face of a dearth of evidence.

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.

Yes, that's clear from the reference. fls beat me to it, but his comment about how he's only been wrong once with the polygraph reminds me of Judge Judy (on American television). She is convinced she can detect lies from those who testify for her. She is, in fact, adamant about it. She cuts people off. She says how she's never wrong. Tellingly, she never mentions any validation or certification of her amazing ability.

"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."

Great. Have them provide specifics so we can rule out the usual suspects:

Deliberate fraud on the part of the psychic which goes undetected by the police.

Confirmation bias.

Deliberate lying on the part of the police.

Selective memory.

Etc.

 

[Garrette]

Update: Nancy Weber has not resonded to my email requesting specifics on the cases mentioned by Detective English. Since English will not comment without permission from Weber, it appears as if I will get no further with either of them. I will let you know if that changes.

So I will have to craft my requests for information from the Mt. Olive Police Department the best I can, and hope I can be specific enough to allow them to get the files.

This could take a while.

 

[Rodney]

As Mojo notes, this only works if you're suggesting that the police screwed up the case after Morrison set them up for victory.

No. What both you and Mojo are missing is that someone can make a major contribution and victory still may not result. Until this year, that was true of Peyton Manning of the now National Football League Champion Indianapolis Colts. For years, Manning has been an outstanding quarterback, but that alone wasn't enough for the Colts to win the championship. I'm not suggesting that the police screwed up the child kidnapping case, but the best evidence is that Valerie Morrison provided a major lead which, sadly, did not resolve the case.

 

[Garrette]

No. What both you and Mojo are missing is that someone can make a major contribution and victory still may not result. Until this year, that was true of Peyton Manning of the now National Football League Champion Indianapolis Colts. For years, Manning has been an outstanding quarterback, but that alone wasn't enough for the Colts to win the championship. I'm not suggesting that the police screwed up the child kidnapping case, but the best evidence is that Valerie Morrison provided a major lead which, sadly, did not resolve the case.

Emphasis mine.

By "best evidence" you mean a newspaper article that does not reference the case files?

And which, even if true in the manner you claim, does not rule out nonparanormal means for the transfer of information?

 

[chillzero]

No. What both you and Mojo are missing is that someone can make a major contribution and victory still may not result. Until this year, that was true of Peyton Manning of the now National Football League Champion Indianapolis Colts. For years, Manning has been an outstanding quarterback, but that alone wasn't enough for the Colts to win the championship. I'm not suggesting that the police screwed up the child kidnapping case, but the best evidence is that Valerie Morrison provided a major lead which, sadly, did not resolve the case.

If the case is still unsolved, how do we evaluate this 'contribution'? Maybe I missed it - was there any evidence in the barn as to whether the girl had been there? Did the police find her hair, or a piece of her clothing, for example?

Football games and seasons all come to an end, and then can be evaluated in their parts, so this analogy is not good. This case is unresolved, and therefore still an incomplete game, so to speak.

 

[Rodney]

Then what does it do, Rodney?

You presented it as if it is at least strong evidence. I suspect that if you had not been challenged, you would continue to do so. It is only the fact that I and others have pointed out problems that you now begin to back off
If the article is not irrefutable proof, then what level of proof is it? How strong is it as evidence?

I haven't backed off a bit. The best evidence indicates that Valerie Morrison provided evidence to the police that she would not have been able to obtain through non-psychic means. It's not irrefutable, but I don't see that anyone has refuted it -- certainly, you haven't.

Please answer the question I asked you after you asked what I would accept as proof of psychic assistance since I don't accept newspaper articles:

Do you accept newspaper articles as proof of psychic assistance?

"Newspaper articles" cannot all be lumped together as you are attempting. Some reflect a lot of research, some very little. To say generally "I don't accept newspaper articles" is a convenient way of avoiding facts that are inconsistent with your worldview.

My characterization comes directly from what is in the article itself.

No, it comes from your misinterpretation of that article.

The question you asked the author and the answer she gave you do not rule out my characterization; you and she lacked the precision necessary to do that. I suspect you knew (and know) this; it is part of how you play the game: Ask questions that appear skeptical but which are really worded in such a way as to garner a psi-positive response. It's as irresponsible as those who report poorly conducted polls with leading questions.

And yet she cannot point to any specifics, does not mention the case files, and leaves obscured the fact that the case is unresolved. Conviction means little in the face of a dearth of evidence.

She wasn't writing a journal article, replete with 200 footnotes, but was rather writing for a general audience. And your notion that she "leaves obscured the fact that the case is unresolved" shows you didn't read the article carefully:

"After receiving the phone call from The Phoenix last summer, Morrison said she had another vision about Lauren. 'I know she is at peace with our God,' she said. Morrison also provided additional information that was turned over to authorities. Despite the hope that Morrison's vision would provide clues to Lauren's whereabouts, the search of French's property turned up no new leads. Although the search dogs had tracked Lauren to the barn, the trail dissipated, and Morrison's vision did not extend past the barn."

Yes, that's clear from the reference. fls beat me to it, but his comment about how he's only been wrong once with the polygraph reminds me of Judge Judy (on American television). She is convinced she can detect lies from those who testify for her. She is, in fact, adamant about it. She cuts people off. She says how she's never wrong. Tellingly, she never mentions any validation or certification of her amazing ability.

I can't speak for Judge Judy, but here is what Mr Lewis stated in his e-mail to me:

"I did not state on the TV program that that was the only test I ever did that produced an inaccurate opinion. I stated that that was the only case THAT I KNEW OF where my opinion had been proven wrong. I have no doubt that there are others, I just haven't heard of them or the cases haven't been solved. But of more than 1000 exams that I know the answer, only that one has been wrong."

Great. Have them provide specifics so we can rule out the usual suspects:

Deliberate fraud on the part of the psychic which goes undetected by the police.

Confirmation bias.

Deliberate lying on the part of the police.

Selective memory.

Etc.

There is some minimal merit in three of your ideas, but the police are trained to see through fraud and avoid confirmation bias and selective memory. And your notion that the police lie [to make a psychic look good] is fanciful. Do you really think the police like it when a psychic provides evidence that they've failed to come up with? I would say only if they can take credit for it without mentioning the psychic. If a psychic (or non-psychic, for that matter) provides evidence that helps solve a crime, the press will focus on the psychic (or non-psychic) assistance and make the police look less valuable and even -- in some cases -- inept.

 

[Starrman]

With all of the psychics out there throwing their guesses at any number of cases, wouldn't it be more surprising if there weren't at least some seemingly uncanny hits?

And even with this, Rodney, you seem to be hanging your hat on a case involving an accurate 'sequence of numbers'. How many numbers did she get right on the plate? Did she see a '1' and a '2' and those were on the plate - that wouldn't be that impressive. Did she get the whole plate, in sequence? Are we sure the sequence she gave were in the plate - maybe they were in the VIN, which is a bigger pool. Were there other details about the barn that she gave that turned out to be wrong? Either way, the OP was looking for psychics helping solve a case - in this example the psychic simply got some details about a barn right in an unsolved case. Big deal.

 

[Garrette]

I haven't backed off a bit.

So you think this article represents strong evidence of a psychic helping police?

The best evidence indicates that Valerie Morrison provided evidence to the police that she would not have been able to obtain through non-psychic means.

No, Rodney. We do not start from a vacuum here. The best evidence is that psychics continually claim that they have provided psychic assistance but none have demonstrated it. The fact that one more has joined the lengthening queue of claims does not make it evidence.

The best evidence is that we know about confirmation bias and selective memory and fraudulent psychics.

If you want to claim a newspaper article as best evidence, then you also have to claim Benny Hinn's claims as best evidence of miraculous healing.

This is another version of shifting the burden of proof.

You are claiming that Morrison has psychically helped the police. In support you have presented a journalist's claim that Morrison has psychically helped the police. The entirety of the journalist's argument is that Morrison has claimed she psychically helped the police.

There is no evidence in that article, Rodney; it is a story.

It's not irrefutable,

There is nothing to refute but a claim without support. You would be better served by saying it's not defensible.

but I don't see that anyone has refuted it -- certainly, you haven't.

I haven't shown that a story without support is a story without support?

"Newspaper articles" cannot all be lumped together

I never suggested they can be lumped together. I said they are not proof. And I stand by that.

Some reflect a lot of research, some very little.

Which end of the spectrum does this particular article fall on?

To say generally "I don't accept newspaper articles" is a convenient way of avoiding facts that are inconsistent with your worldview.

No. To throw out an article as strong evidence, even when that article offers nothing but unsupported assertions and does not even reference the case files, is irresponsible.

And please tell me these things:

1. What is my worldview?

2. What facts which are inconsistent with my worldview have I avoided?

No, it comes from your misinterpretation of that article.

I have not misinterpreted it. But, as I have said several times, you are not my audience; the lurkers are. I'm content to let my argument stand on its own next to yours.

She wasn't writing a journal article, replete with 200 footnotes, but was rather writing for a general audience.

And yet you quote it as strong evidence.

And your notion that she "leaves obscured the fact that the case is unresolved" shows you didn't read the article carefully:

"After receiving the phone call from The Phoenix last summer, Morrison said she had another vision about Lauren. 'I know she is at peace with our God,' she said. Morrison also provided additional information that was turned over to authorities. Despite the hope that Morrison's vision would provide clues to Lauren's whereabouts, the search of French's property turned up no new leads. Although the search dogs had tracked Lauren to the barn, the trail dissipated, and Morrison's vision did not extend past the barn."

Yup. She obscures it.

I can't speak for Judge Judy, but here is what Mr Lewis stated in his e-mail to me:

"I did not state on the TV program that that was the only test I ever did that produced an inaccurate opinion. I stated that that was the only case THAT I KNEW OF where my opinion had been proven wrong. I have no doubt that there are others, I just haven't heard of them or the cases haven't been solved. But of more than 1000 exams that I know the answer, only that one has been wrong."

Fair enough.

There is some minimal merit in three of your ideas,

Darned generous of you.

but the police are trained to see through fraud and avoid confirmation bias and selective memory.

Yes, of course. All my police friends (I have a few) all took classes in skeptical thinking, confirmation bias, and fraudulent-psychic-detection at the Academy.

And your notion that the police lie [to make a psychic look good] is fanciful.

Let's see:

1. Someone lies

2. Someone has provided psychically-acquired information despite the lack of evidence demonstrating it.

I wonder which is more fanciful...

Do you really think the police like it when a psychic provides evidence that they've failed to come up with? I would say only if they can take credit for it without mentioning the psychic.

So we can use hypothetical lying in support of psychics but not hypothetical lying not in support of psychics.

If a psychic (or non-psychic, for that matter) claims to provides evidence that helps solve a crime, the press will focus on the psychic (or non-psychic) assistance and make the police look less valuable and even -- in some cases -- inept.

Fixed it for you.

 

[fls]

How come my bogus sig never reads something like "Garrette: Certified by 50 Nobel Laureates as the Sexiest Skeptic Alive" ?

First of all, since the problem seems to be that sigs are getting mixed up, you would have to get someone else to use that as their sig.

Second of all, I'm not entirely sure that I'd be all that interested in what a bunch of old, white, male geeks find sexy.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

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.

So where do you think your intuition comes from? Specifically, where do the
pictures/numbers/ideas that often pop into your head and later match up with events/places, etc. come from?

 

[Rodney]

If the case is still unsolved, how do we evaluate this 'contribution'? Maybe I missed it - was there any evidence in the barn as to whether the girl had been there? Did the police find her hair, or a piece of her clothing, for example?

According to the article:

"Morrison spoke of seeing a red barn, something orange and a sequence of numbers. She also heard dogs barking. She contacted police to tell them that, although she couldn't provide an exact location of the barn, she knew that Lauren had been inside. Search parties combed the area until they found a red barn matching the description given by Morrison. Inside was a car covered by an orange tarp. The sequence of numbers Morrison had provided to police was on the license plate of that vehicle and, at a nearby home, there were three dogs - two of them were barking.

"On Friday, Oct. 7, 1988, Morrison was shepherded around the township in a van with shaded windows, then transported to the barn by the Army National Guard. When search dogs were brought to the area near French's property, they picked up Lauren's scent trail, which led them directly to the barn. The trail ended there."

So evidently police did not find Lauren's hair or a piece of her clothing, but, if the above sequence of events has been accurately reported, it would seem extremely unlikely that Morrison just happened to get a number of key details right and then the search dogs just happened to pick up some other scent trail that led them to the barn.

Football games and seasons all come to an end, and then can be evaluated in their parts, so this analogy is not good. This case is unresolved, and therefore still an incomplete game, so to speak.

Again, the point is that a psychic (or non-psychic) can provide the police with valuable information, but the case may remain unsolved.

 

[fls]

So where do you think your intuition comes from?

My brain.

Specifically, where do the
pictures/numbers/ideas that often pop into your head and later match up with events/places, etc. come from?

Also my brain.

Linda

 

[fls]

So evidently police did not find Lauren's hair or a piece of her clothing, but, if the above sequence of events has been accurately reported, it would seem extremely unlikely that Morrison just happened to get a number of key details right and then the search dogs just happened to pick up some other scent trail that led them to the barn.

I agree that it is extremely unlikely that Morrison just happened to get a number of key details right (assuming that the numbers she provided and the match with the license was very specific). I think it is far more likely that Morrison had been in the barn some time in the past, or someone else had been in the barn and told her about it. If the number match was not that specific (for example, she gave the numbers "6, 2, 3" and there were lots of places to look for numbers in the barn (VIN on the car, cans of paint or hardware, old newspapers, old license plates, etc.) and the license plate was W2Z 3P6, then coincidence is likely, as the other descriptors were too non-specific to make a match unlikely (e.g. lots of things commonly found in barns are orange - extension cords, binder twine).

A scent trail leading to a barn is a likely and mundane occurance. If someone is walking around a particular area, it is normal for them to be heading towards a building. As I mentioned before, it is only of particular importance if it can be proven that the only scent trail the dogs would have followed would have been Lauren's (something that cannot be assumed without more information).

Again, the point is that a psychic (or non-psychic) can provide the police with valuable information, but the case may remain unsolved.

The point is that if the case is unsolved, there's no reason to assume the information was correct.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

My brain.

Also my brain.

Linda

According to my dictionary, "intuition" means "the direct knowing or learning of something without the conscious use of reasoning; immediate apprehension or understanding." So why are you more intuitive than most others?

 

[Rodney]

I agree that it is extremely unlikely that Morrison just happened to get a number of key details right (assuming that the numbers she provided and the match with the license was very specific). I think it is far more likely that Morrison had been in the barn some time in the past, or someone else had been in the barn and told her about it.

That's a very speculative scenario. Don't you think police would have investigated whether she had ever been in the barn or been told by someone about the barn? Further, how did she know that the dogs would pick up on the scent trail?

The point is that if the case is unsolved, there's no reason to assume the information was correct. Linda

So if the case is solved and it is conclusively shown that Lauren had been in the barn you would change your mind about Morrison?

 

[Mr. Stick]

.... Don't you think police would have investigated whether she had ever been in the barn or been told by someone about the barn? ......

Why should they? They were not investigating Morrison's psychic ability, but a missing person's case. The police have an obligation to follow leads given by the public, so if they had no reason to believe she was involved in the crime, why would they investigate her?

 

[Garrette]

More to the point, if they had no reason to think Morrison had given them any useful information they would have no reason to investigate how she came by it.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

According to my dictionary, "intuition" means "the direct knowing or learning of something without the conscious use of reasoning; immediate apprehension or understanding." So why are you more intuitive than most others?

Oo. Oo. Too easy. Better brain?

 

[Earthborn]

There are television shows like Psychic Detectives and Psychic Witness that claim to present such cases, though I have not watched them myself. What I find striking about how these shows are presented: they always claim that psychics are used only if they are the 'last hope' when all else is exhausted. That does not speak well about their accuracy, does it?