I just saw the show last night, so obviously I haven't filed anything yet. Maybe I'll file eventually, but let's see what other information turns up first.
Why? Why rely on other information that by definition will not be primary source material? I can think of a reason, but it isn't favorable toward you.
Rodney said:
By the way, what is the status of your information request about Nancy Weber? I have filed several information requests that have gone nowhere, and I see no evidence that you have done better.
To the contrary, you have seen my evidence, and I have fared better.
For cases mentioned by Weber and Lewis and English but not posited by you as "best examples" the records person at the Mount Olive Police Department can find no indication that Weber had any involvement at all.
For the one case posited by you as a "best example" -- the Muscio rape case -- the department found information but is waiting for word from the town's attorney before releasing it.
You responded to the thread and post in which I gave that update, so you are aware of this.
Rodney said:
That's what you've claimed, but you haven't supported that claim with respect to Renier's website, Weber's website, or television shows about psychics in general.
Bollocks, balderdash, poppycock, folderol, and blather.
First, burden of proof and all that. Making a claim is not the same as providing evidence for that claim, and Renier fails miserably in providing such evidence. Note the plane crash in Massachusetts example.
Second, every single time you have presented something on this forum as having evidentiary value, it has been summarily deconstructed as having no such value at all. In those few instances where deconstruction is not possible, it is because there is a paucity of information preventing discovery of primary sources.
Rodney said:
For example, regarding last night's Biography program, were the three officials that supported Renier's work on the Staunton rape case her shills?
Possibly. Probably not. Have you demosntrated they are not? It wouldn't be hard. Just get the case notes or the publicly releasable information. I forget; you want to see what other information is out there.
Rodney said:
If not, how do you explain their statements supporting Renier's work in this case?
The vague statements you have referenced and the ones in Eeny's pm? Here's a possible explanation. Tell me how it is less plausible than the "Renier-is-psychic" explanation.
The match of Renier's description to the suspect was done sloppily.
This is not uncommon. Police officers show a photo of a suspect to a witness and ask "Is this the person?" A positive response seems to carry great value while in reality it has almost none. The proper method would be a "photo lineup" in which the suspect photo were mixed with photos of non-suspects, appropriately similar and dissimilar to the suspect and in which the lineup is shown to the witness only in blinded circumstances.
It would be quite easy for someone prone to belief to see a photo of the suspect and mentally match it to Renier's description. No biggie.
Did the television show eliminate this possibility? I tend to doubt it.
Rodney said:
Why is it "spamming" to ask questions that haven't been resolved?
It is spamming when you have been here long enough to know the flaws in scenario already. My co-worker who asks me today the same thing he has every week for the past five years and who has received sufficient, supported answers every time, is a buffoon, a trouble-maker, or a spammer.
Rodney said:
Gary Posner has posted on-line a "25-page chapter (containing 60 footnotes) [covering] Renier's career through 1993 . . ."; see
http://members.aol.com/garypos/Renier_list.html Somehow, however, those 25 pages and 60 footnotes supposedly covering Renier's career through 1993 make no mention of the 1979 Staunton rape case. Further, John Merrell's treatment of this case addresses only one of the five pieces of information that the police say Renier gave them.
If you have an issue with Merrell, I suggest you take it up with him.
Is that one piece of information the bit about the scar being on the arm and not the knee? What do you make of that, Rodney. The scarred-knee was a significant issue demonstrating the psychic's correctness. Does it faze your belief at all that the psychic was wrong?