Police and Psychics
- Thread starter Lucianarchy
- Start date
RonSceptic
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2001
- Messages
- 514
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
Lothian said:
You know nothing about the case, but would rather make wild guesess? Well to have had a 'lucky' guess in getting that particular nickname would be pushing 'luck' to a ridiculous degree, it was "Pokie", a very, very, uncommon nickname, but she gave this name to the police.
But there's more to this 'luck'...
"During the course of the investigation, we received several calls from people offering their services as psychics, but they talked nonsense. Christine was exceptional. We were never to find the remotest connection between her and anyone who could have told her all that she seemed to know. In theory, and given nough time and resources, she could have collected much of her information through contact with the actual killer or someone in whom he confided, and with the victim’s relatives and friends, and also with Murder Squad officers. I collated every statement and document throughout the 1983-4 investigation. However bizarre the conclusion, the only single source of all her knowledge had to be the victim. If any lesson is to be learnt, it is that one should not dismiss the possibilities out of hand. [...]
[...]Christine then described three different aspects of his (a police officer's ) personal life, none of which I had known about. We had not worked together before.
The first was extremely personal indeed and quite detailed. He confirmed those details to me after we had left. She also stated that he had received a letter concerning ‘essential electrical work’. He told me that he had received a mortgage offer from a Building Society the previous day, with the condition that the house he wanted to buy was rewired. Andy was quite dismissive about the third, which predicted his imminent transfer to another police area. Unexpected by him, maybe, but an order transferring him to another Division came within a few days. He was quite shaken by the whole experience. The Squad included more than twenty detectives, and we ourselves had picked up the assignment only that morning, and by chance. "
RonSceptic
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2001
- Messages
- 514
Hannibal said:HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
I thought you'd like it. It's pretty accurate.
Meanwhile, undeterred, Luci proceeds to post more repetitive drivel.
Lothian
should be banned
Care to comment on the rest Luci ?
Wolverine
Centered and One
Okay, we can do the selective quotation thing from the Police Magazine magazine article.
"Within a few days of the incident, a colleague and I were assigned to visit 22-year old Christine Holohan at her council house in South Ruislip, after she had telephoned to offer information. Her call omitted to mention her belief that her source of information was the dead victim. She told us that she had been “bothered by psychic experiences” since her childhood in Ireland."
Note the person they went to interview is not on the police department's payroll as a psychic employed by the police. As stated by Hannibal as well as Scotland Yard, is routine police procedure for them to interview someone bringing forth information.
"During the first week, two more sessions were held with Christine, and although the officers reported being impressed by her grasp of related issues, we gained little of consequence."
Imagine my surprise.
"Almost all that Christine said would have and indeed did come to light during the investigation, but we lacked the vital evidence of witnesses and forensics."
If that's so, then what useful function did Christine serve? Did she specifically introduce anything the investigating officers would have not found otherwise, or is this just a fringe feel-good article written for an obscure British police union magazine?
See, the problem here is that the context of the article written by Tony Batters, although he was at the time a police officer, stems from his personal beliefs about Christine Holohan, her alleged psychic abilities, and any usefulness the interaction with this person provided during the investigative process. Simply because he deemed her "exceptional" does not imply that it is police policy for any department in the United Kingdom to seek out and work with psychics during the investigative process, nor does it verify Holohan's alleged psychic powers. Additionally, his position and/or personal beliefs should not be applied to the Police Federation of England and Wales as a whole, unless they acknowledge an endorsement of psychics by their union.
Perhaps things work a tad differently in the UK, but here in the US, there is significant likelihood that an outside party with such detailed knowledge of a crime, the victim(s), the perpetrator(s), the crime scene.... would find themself under investigation by the police for any connection to the slaying.
Having already established Scotland Yard's position, that they do not employ psychics to participate or aid in ongoing or unsolved criminal investigations, perhaps it's now time to contact the Police Federation of England and Wales to see if they're willing to clarify their position on the issue as well.
[*edited to correct a typo*]
"Within a few days of the incident, a colleague and I were assigned to visit 22-year old Christine Holohan at her council house in South Ruislip, after she had telephoned to offer information. Her call omitted to mention her belief that her source of information was the dead victim. She told us that she had been “bothered by psychic experiences” since her childhood in Ireland."
Note the person they went to interview is not on the police department's payroll as a psychic employed by the police. As stated by Hannibal as well as Scotland Yard, is routine police procedure for them to interview someone bringing forth information.
"During the first week, two more sessions were held with Christine, and although the officers reported being impressed by her grasp of related issues, we gained little of consequence."
Imagine my surprise.
"Almost all that Christine said would have and indeed did come to light during the investigation, but we lacked the vital evidence of witnesses and forensics."
If that's so, then what useful function did Christine serve? Did she specifically introduce anything the investigating officers would have not found otherwise, or is this just a fringe feel-good article written for an obscure British police union magazine?
See, the problem here is that the context of the article written by Tony Batters, although he was at the time a police officer, stems from his personal beliefs about Christine Holohan, her alleged psychic abilities, and any usefulness the interaction with this person provided during the investigative process. Simply because he deemed her "exceptional" does not imply that it is police policy for any department in the United Kingdom to seek out and work with psychics during the investigative process, nor does it verify Holohan's alleged psychic powers. Additionally, his position and/or personal beliefs should not be applied to the Police Federation of England and Wales as a whole, unless they acknowledge an endorsement of psychics by their union.
Perhaps things work a tad differently in the UK, but here in the US, there is significant likelihood that an outside party with such detailed knowledge of a crime, the victim(s), the perpetrator(s), the crime scene.... would find themself under investigation by the police for any connection to the slaying.
Having already established Scotland Yard's position, that they do not employ psychics to participate or aid in ongoing or unsolved criminal investigations, perhaps it's now time to contact the Police Federation of England and Wales to see if they're willing to clarify their position on the issue as well.
[*edited to correct a typo*]
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
Lothian said:
Straw man. I'm not making claims about the official status of 'psychics', I'm providing credible evidence that whether or not they officialy employ them, they still work *with* some of them in a positive relationship.
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
Wolverine said:
Irrelevant.
As 'psychics' or remote viewers aren't yet fully accepted by the majority of mainstream science, then the Police could hardly 'officialy' put them 'through the books', so of course it can't be used as evidence. But the Police Federation article shows an example of the sort of officers who do the face work who can still gather intelligence and record information from a 'psychic', information which she could not have known about. My point has always been not whether or not the police officially employ psychics, officialy they *can't*, but evidently they sometimes do work *with* some 'psychics' in a positive relationship, and they are to be admired for that.
You can't fault the evidence form the Police Federation magazine, this infomation was detected and recorded by Police officers. Apart from accusing her of being involved in the crime ( in which case you better report your evidence to the police ), or of her being involved in some inside conspiracy with the police ( in which case you had better report your evidence to the Home Office ), there is no mundane explanation for her correctly supplying the nickname or of her providing the 'self evident' details about the police officer.
headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
Lucianarchy said:
No matter how you dress it up, it can't be a "positive" relationship, because NO EVIDENCE GENERATED IN A INVESTIGATION AND PROFFERED BY A "PSYCHIC" AS PSYCHICALLY DERIVED would be admissable in a court of law.
The job of the police is to solve crimes and prosecute criminals. If the crime is solved because they positively engaged with a psychic, the evidence of the crime would likely be thrown out of court. A criminal would walk.
You can site this blather all you want, but police don't work with "psychics" because their leads, information is unusable. If they believed the information to be usable, they would move to have the court recognize "psychics" as experts and credable witnesses...they haven't, and won't --- CAUSE' JUDGES, REAL SCIENTISTS AND THE PUBLIC WOULD LAUGH IT OUT OF COURT.
More importantly, any police department that relies on psychic evidence in making its case against an alleged criminal is not only violating that person's civil rights, any conviction obtained based upon that evidence would be thrown out of court.
So, you are left with the proposition that the police lie about how evidence is obtained, rather than stand-up in mass and based upon their use and experience of the "value" of psychics to demand that the evidence be recognized.
They haven't and won't. In the end, either your evidence is as shallow as it seems or there are no honorable men and women in law enforcement.
Guest
Unregistered
G
Thread summary: Independent viewpoint
I've been lurking here for a little while and feel compelled to chime in here (hating myself for it all the while).
The predominant argument appears to be between Lucianarchy and Hannibal. Luci is trying to establish two claims:
(1l) Police use psychics and
(2l) Psychics provide useful information to police.
Hannibal has countered these claims, citing his personal experience in the UK police force, with the assertion that (1h) police in the UK *never* contact psychics, but will respond to the information they volunteer as they do with any information received by the public.
Luci offers two references to support these assertions:
(a) a report in the press (the BBC article);
(b) the other a article written by a British police about how a psychic was helpful in a particular case.
(a) is somewhat self-contradictory, noting that Scotland Yard has and does use psychics (and even keeps a database of 'registered' psychics); but also that South Wales Police do not contact psychics---presumably two separate agencies with two separate policies. This seems to support (1l) and refute (1h), though it isn't clear whether SY actually contacts psychics without them offering information. Other research, such as Wiseman, West and Stemman's (1996) article in the
Skeptical Inquirer, "Psychic Crime Detectives: a new test for measuring their successes and failures", actually seems to support Luci's assertion that Police Departments worldwide will use psychics to provide tips in
cases:
<blockquote>
Many psychics claim to be able to help the police solve serious crime. Recent surveys suggest that approximately 35 percent of urban United States police departments and 19 percent of rural departments (Sweat and Durm 1993) admit to having used a psychic at least once in their investigations. In addition, Lyons and Truzzi (1991) report the widespread use of psychic detectives in several other countries including Britain, Holland, Germany, and France.
</blockquote>
(surely Lucianarcy won't object to the use of the SI when it is supportive?)
(b) is anecdotal evidence supplied by a single individual regarding the efficacy of psychic help. By itself, this contributes little to the debate.
Hannibal's assertion about the UK police not contacting psychics (contradicting (a)) is also anecdotal. Sorry Hannibal, but "FACTS derived from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE" are anecdotal to an independent observer without external corroboration.
In summary: very little can be confidently concluded from this debate. Not so confident conclusions I've come to are:
(1) Police worldwide have passively used psychics to provide tips in active investigations. Some have most likely actively used them (sought their help).
(2) As with the civilian population, some individual police officers/detectives/etc. believe psychics are helpful or have been helpful, while others think they are charletans.
(3) No reliable data exists that confirms the utility of psychic tips in criminal investigations.
(4) No legal system, anywhere (in the West), will accept psychic tips as evidence, or even as legally actionable information (e.g., to obtain a search warrant).
I'll spare the board from personal opinions of the principal participants in this debate (either good or bad).
Cheers.
[Edited to correct formatting]
I've been lurking here for a little while and feel compelled to chime in here (hating myself for it all the while).
The predominant argument appears to be between Lucianarchy and Hannibal. Luci is trying to establish two claims:
(1l) Police use psychics and
(2l) Psychics provide useful information to police.
Hannibal has countered these claims, citing his personal experience in the UK police force, with the assertion that (1h) police in the UK *never* contact psychics, but will respond to the information they volunteer as they do with any information received by the public.
Luci offers two references to support these assertions:
(a) a report in the press (the BBC article);
(b) the other a article written by a British police about how a psychic was helpful in a particular case.
(a) is somewhat self-contradictory, noting that Scotland Yard has and does use psychics (and even keeps a database of 'registered' psychics); but also that South Wales Police do not contact psychics---presumably two separate agencies with two separate policies. This seems to support (1l) and refute (1h), though it isn't clear whether SY actually contacts psychics without them offering information. Other research, such as Wiseman, West and Stemman's (1996) article in the
Skeptical Inquirer, "Psychic Crime Detectives: a new test for measuring their successes and failures", actually seems to support Luci's assertion that Police Departments worldwide will use psychics to provide tips in
cases:
<blockquote>
Many psychics claim to be able to help the police solve serious crime. Recent surveys suggest that approximately 35 percent of urban United States police departments and 19 percent of rural departments (Sweat and Durm 1993) admit to having used a psychic at least once in their investigations. In addition, Lyons and Truzzi (1991) report the widespread use of psychic detectives in several other countries including Britain, Holland, Germany, and France.
</blockquote>
(surely Lucianarcy won't object to the use of the SI when it is supportive?)
(b) is anecdotal evidence supplied by a single individual regarding the efficacy of psychic help. By itself, this contributes little to the debate.
Hannibal's assertion about the UK police not contacting psychics (contradicting (a)) is also anecdotal. Sorry Hannibal, but "FACTS derived from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE" are anecdotal to an independent observer without external corroboration.
In summary: very little can be confidently concluded from this debate. Not so confident conclusions I've come to are:
(1) Police worldwide have passively used psychics to provide tips in active investigations. Some have most likely actively used them (sought their help).
(2) As with the civilian population, some individual police officers/detectives/etc. believe psychics are helpful or have been helpful, while others think they are charletans.
(3) No reliable data exists that confirms the utility of psychic tips in criminal investigations.
(4) No legal system, anywhere (in the West), will accept psychic tips as evidence, or even as legally actionable information (e.g., to obtain a search warrant).
I'll spare the board from personal opinions of the principal participants in this debate (either good or bad).
Cheers.
[Edited to correct formatting]
Charlie in Dayton
Rabid radioactive stargazer and JREF kid
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 1,086
Hannibal said:
..."No, but if you hum a few bars, I'll try and fake it..."
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
Re: Thread summary: Independent viewpoint
I don't disagree with much of what you say here. All I have pointed out is that the police evidently do work with psychics in a positive relationship, there is highly credible evidence to back this up, the example on this thread is the article in The Police federation magazine and the confirmation from the BBC / Scotlnad Yard. Hannibal's claim that the police:
"may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " "
Has been shown to false. We have evidence from the Police Fed that police officers do not treat 'psychics' in the manner he claims.
The evidence from the Police Federation magazine also provides credible evidence of a psychic obtaining significant hits in respect of a police case, in particular the nickname and the details of the police officer the other officers asked of her ( no one has provided a rational mundane explanation complete with supporting evidence ) .
crindt said:
I don't disagree with much of what you say here. All I have pointed out is that the police evidently do work with psychics in a positive relationship, there is highly credible evidence to back this up, the example on this thread is the article in The Police federation magazine and the confirmation from the BBC / Scotlnad Yard. Hannibal's claim that the police:
"may listen to them and say "thank you", but rest assured the "prediction" is treated about as seriously as if they had come in and said they were Jesus. " "
Has been shown to false. We have evidence from the Police Fed that police officers do not treat 'psychics' in the manner he claims.
The evidence from the Police Federation magazine also provides credible evidence of a psychic obtaining significant hits in respect of a police case, in particular the nickname and the details of the police officer the other officers asked of her ( no one has provided a rational mundane explanation complete with supporting evidence ) .
Lucianarchy: Just curious, but in your opinion should law enforcement agencies seek out and accept the help of psychics in their investigations? Should such evidence be admissible in a court of law?
If so, is such evidence to be considered infallible if no other evidence can be presented? Should juries be able to convict based solely on such evidence?
My apologies to the forum regulars if Luci has already answered these questions before, but I'm still new here.
If so, is such evidence to be considered infallible if no other evidence can be presented? Should juries be able to convict based solely on such evidence?
My apologies to the forum regulars if Luci has already answered these questions before, but I'm still new here.
Lothian
should be banned
Nothing has been proved. All we have here is one case where a psychic gave information (source unknown).
To review the history of British crime and cite a single case where a psychic approached the police, rather than the other way round and then quote that the police therefore use psychics is incredibly naïve.
Look at the bigger picture. Luci is (in my opinion) trying to convince people that psychic powers are real, because the police use psychics. For starters that conclusion is wrong. Secondly even if use of a psychic by the police was proof , how many uses constitute proof. Luci has found one, millions of crimes and one use by the police in the UK. Surely if there was evidence, evidence being something the police should be familiar with, that psychics were useful there would not be these arguments about whether police use psychics. There would be a couple assigned to each force and Luci would not have to resort to third party references. The police would freely admit and publish it.
This thread is, as in all Luci threads back where it started. Luci will not listen to reasoned debate. She merely posts the same stuff time and time again. She desperately tries to convince everyone in the existence of the paranormal posting various references. She resorts to this in desperation. If the paranormal does exist then it will be proved in the future not the past. Someone will one day say I can do this or that and then demonstrate it, or as has happened so far they won’t. The lack of successful challengers for the million dollar prize is all we need to know about the existence of paranormal powers.
To review the history of British crime and cite a single case where a psychic approached the police, rather than the other way round and then quote that the police therefore use psychics is incredibly naïve.
Look at the bigger picture. Luci is (in my opinion) trying to convince people that psychic powers are real, because the police use psychics. For starters that conclusion is wrong. Secondly even if use of a psychic by the police was proof , how many uses constitute proof. Luci has found one, millions of crimes and one use by the police in the UK. Surely if there was evidence, evidence being something the police should be familiar with, that psychics were useful there would not be these arguments about whether police use psychics. There would be a couple assigned to each force and Luci would not have to resort to third party references. The police would freely admit and publish it.
This thread is, as in all Luci threads back where it started. Luci will not listen to reasoned debate. She merely posts the same stuff time and time again. She desperately tries to convince everyone in the existence of the paranormal posting various references. She resorts to this in desperation. If the paranormal does exist then it will be proved in the future not the past. Someone will one day say I can do this or that and then demonstrate it, or as has happened so far they won’t. The lack of successful challengers for the million dollar prize is all we need to know about the existence of paranormal powers.
Lothian
should be banned
Hannibal said:
No it doesn't.
(Sorry, can't help falling for the obvious).
susheel
Unregistered
S
Lothian,
Shouldn't the reply be "What Duck?"
or maybe "What Avatar?"
Shouldn't the reply be "What Duck?"
or maybe "What Avatar?"
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
Brickroad said:
In my opinion, in respect of some 'psychics', yes. There is too much credible evidence which suggests that remote viewing / 'psychics' can obtain information by means not fully understood by science. To ignore *out of hand* all information coming from 'psychics', simply because the *method* of information detection is not fully understood, would be irresponsible. In light of that evidence, If I were a police officer who knew details on on a case and had access to a 'psychic' with a history of accuracy, I would asses whatever information they came forward with. If they gave a location, for instance, for a missing person, in light of their previous accuracy it would be irresponsible and stupid to ignore such information - particularly if, like in the case in the Police Fed article, the psychic demonstrated a history of verifiable accuracy. I may not be able to use that evidence in *Court*, but that alone could and should not stop me *acting* on the information recieved.
Now, a question for you. If you had a missing relative, had tried all avenues to locate them, but still couldn't find them, would you act on the information given to you from a 'psychic' with a history of accuracy, as in the case of the 'psychic' described in the Police Federation article? If not, why not?