Police and Psychics

[Lothian]

Yes I am aware of cold reading. Cold reading does *not* give the sort of specifics which the woman gave. The first, we can't really comment on much as it was personal info that the officer confirmed, the second a specific letter about electrical work, that's not cold reading, that's specific detail. No cold reader does that, the third and imminent transfer to another police dept and within a few days it happened, that's not cold reading either, that's specific information. If it were *one*'lucky' guess, then maybe, but three *specific* hits and the correct hit about "pokie", that is not 'luck' and given the specifics, definately not 'cold reading' either!

"Yesterday you recieved a letter from the Nationwide building society saying the House you are buying, 17 The Green, Islington needs major electrical work, further in three days you willl recieve a letter informing you that you will be transfered to Wiltshire" Is specific.

What you have posted could lead to numerous hits. You patently do not understand cold reading.

Answer my question. Would it apply to you ?

 

[Lucianarchy]

Luci,

Have you never seen a good cold reader in action? They can convince the gullible that they are talking to dead close family relatives. So guessing a nickname is far from out of the question.

"Pokie" How common is that nickname? 'Shorty', or 'Lefty', maybe, but not "Pokie"!

If you want to claim cold reading, you will have to provide evidence that such *detail* as given in the Police Fed article can be replicated by a 'cold reader', don't give me vague matches, provide evidence which has specific details. Not, 'you will meet a tall dark stranger' stuff, specific detail and where the cold reader has no prior knowledge of the subject. Apart form accusing the reader of being involved in the crime or joint conspiracy, how can a cold reader obtain information that only the police or victim knows about? "Pokie"

 

[RonSceptic]

Yes I am aware of cold reading. Cold reading does *not* give the sort of specifics which the woman gave. The first, we can't really comment on much as it was personal info that the officer confirmed, the second a specific letter about electrical work, that's not cold reading, that's specific detail. No cold reader does that, the third and imminent transfer to another police dept and within a few days it happened, that's not cold reading either, that's specific information. If it were *one*'lucky' guess, then maybe, but three *specific* hits and the correct hit about "pokie", that is not 'luck' and given the specifics, definately not 'cold reading' either!

Ok, so you don't understand cold reading.

So you think that this woman has some kind of paranormal ability.

So why not help here win the $1,000,000?

 

[Lucianarchy]

"Yesterday you recieved a letter from the Nationwide building society saying the House you are buying, 17 The Green, Islington needs major electrical work, further in three days you willl recieve a letter informing you that you will be transfered to Wiltshire" Is specific.

I understand it very well thankyou! There is *no* evidence that a 'cold reader' can get the sort of specific detail under similar circumstances referred to in the Police Federation article. None at all and you know it! "Pokie" - one or two lucky hits, maybe, but such specific detail as "pokie" is so uncommon, to suggest it's just 'luck' is completely stupid and to suggest collusion with the crime or conspiracy with the police is just ridiculous!

 

[Lucianarchy]

Ok, so you don't understand cold reading.

Yes, I do, more than you think! Where's your evidence that 'cold reading' can replicate the sort of specific detail given in the Police Federation article, come on, where is it? How did she get "pokie" correct, how common is that nickname?

 

[Lucianarchy]

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?

 

[Lothian]

I understand it very well thankyou! There is *no* evidence that a 'cold reader' can get the sort of specific detail under similar circumstances referred to in the Police Federation article. None at all and you know it! "Pokie" - one or two lucky hits, maybe, but such specific detail as "pokie" is so uncommon, to suggest it's just 'luck' is completely stupid and to suggest collusion with the crime or conspiracy with the police is just ridiculous!

You claimed that the letter and transfer were specific. You no now longer appear to be claiming this so all we have left is Pokie.
The woman therefore no longer has a sucessful history. She got Pokie. If she could replicate this then it would be useful. The problem is these people replicate with the same accuracy as random guessers. You would not advocate the police utilising a random guesser. (Whoops sorry you are!) I mean a random guesser who admits it.

 

[RonSceptic]

Yes, I do, more than you think! Where's your evidence that 'cold reading' can replicate the sort of specific detail given in the Police Federation article, come on, where is it? How did she get "pokie" correct, how common is that nickname?

It's no harder than persuading someoine that you have their dead mother on the line.

You too can be a cold reader....

Cold Reading Guide


Mmm, I'm getting a name. Starts with a 'B', or is it a 'V;, no wait a 'P'?

Or maybe she was a Waynes World fan and was just teasing....

'I sense a pork product of some kind........'

Or was it 'bacon' product?

 

[Lucianarchy]

You claimed that the letter and transfer were specific. You no now longer appear to be claiming this so all we have left is Pokie.
The woman therefore no longer has a sucessful history. She got Pokie. If she could replicate this then it would be useful. The problem is these people replicate with the same accuracy as random guessers. You would not advocate the police utilising a random guesser. (Whoops sorry you are!) I mean a random guesser who admits it.

The detail about the police officer *is* specific, I haven't changed my opinion about that, it is the sort of specific detail which CR's do *not* replicate. I've asked for evidence of replication under similar circs from a 'cold reader', you won't provide it because it doesn't exist. And If you think "pokie" is just a lucky guess, then that's up to you! Any rational or critical thinker realises that the chances of 'guessing' that particular nickname are so remote that it's just plain stupid to call it 'lucky'.

 

[Lucianarchy]

It's no harder than persuading someoine that you have their dead mother on the line.

You too can be a cold reader....

Cold Reading Guide


Mmm, I'm getting a name. Starts with a 'B', or is it a 'V;, no wait a 'P'?

Or maybe she was a Waynes World fan and was just teasing....

'I sense a pork product of some kind........'

Or was it 'bacon' product?

No, it was "pokie", not the sort of vague nonsense which CR's produce. It is quite clear "pokie". CR's can't produce the sort of detail given to the officer either, not even close, as your URL shows.

 

[Lothian]

The detail about the police officer *is* specific, I haven't changed my opinion about that, it is the sort of specific detail which CR's do *not* replicate. I've asked for evidence of replication under similar circs from a 'cold reader', you won't provide it because it doesn't exist. And If you think "pokie" is just a lucky guess, then that's up to you! Any rational or critical thinker realises that the chances of 'guessing' that particular nickname are so remote that it's just plain stupid to call it 'lucky'.

For the third time I am cold reading you. Have you ever in your life recieved a letter that made a reference to electrical work. Have you ever changed jobs.

If it is not luck why can it not be repeated better than some one who guesses.

 

[Lucianarchy]

For the third time I am cold reading you. Have you ever in your life recieved a letter that made a reference to electrical work. Have you ever changed jobs.

If it is not luck why can it not be repeated better than some one who guesses.

Show me someone who can guess the same accuracy as "pokie" under similar conditions. Go on, I am skeptical of your claims of 'cold reading' in respect of this particular case.

Regarding your example above, none of those things are relevant to my life at the moment, not even close. They were spot on with the police officer who had only been assigned to the case that day, which only goes to reinforce the accuracy with "pokie" too.

 

[Lothian]

Show me someone who can guess the same accuracy as "pokie" under similar conditions. Go on, I am skeptical of your claims of 'cold reading' in respect of this particular case.

Regarding your example above, none of those things are relevant to my life at the moment, not even close. They were spot on with the police officer who had only been assigned to the case that day, which only goes to reinforce the accuracy with "pokie" too.

The psychic gave no timeframe so all must apply. Your at the moment is not relevant. Answer the question have you ever had a letter about electrical work. Have you ever changed jobs.

Who cares about ‘Pokie’. You are missing the point. Lets assume that psychic abilities exist but they only occur a certain number of times and the psychic can not say whether a particular prediction is an accurate one or a false one. This would be a useless ‘gift’ if the number of times the ability works is no more than a guesser without the gift. This appears the case. I don’t give a damn if she is psychic or not.

 

[The Fool]

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?

If Ever I loose a relative I'm going to the nearest "wooded area near water" as that is where every single psychic directs the police.....

old joke........why did you hide in the woods??, ever tried to hide in the desert?

Luci......please give me the name of this psychic with "a history of accuracy" I want to be thier agent.....Hmmmm, 15% of $1,000,000 is?

 

[RonSceptic]

CR: Ok I'm getting a name, begins with R. Reginald, Rupert?....


Victim: Hey, do you mean Rumplestiltskin! That was my daddy's middle name!

CR: Yes.

Victim:Amazing!


Or in this case.......

CR: Ok I'm getting a name, Patsy? Patty?

Officer: You mean Pokie?

CR: Yes Pokie.

Officer: Amazing!


We have all seen some impressive cold reading performances. If I posted a transcript you would immediatly come back with, 'Ah...but that doesn't prove that Pokie was a cold read.' Or 'How can you prove that the transcript was genuine?' I've watched you games too often to fall into such futility.

You are claiminmg that this woman has paranormal powers.

Prove it. Get her to take the test.

 

[Hannibal]

It is not difficult to pick up on a nickname. Any good listener, especially if they are trying to "prove" something to someone, can easily get this info form overhearing other officers talking, a call going through on a line or even having rung in in advance and asked to speak to the officer concerned. All all just as plausible as the psychic explaination. As an exercise in logical thought -

'Psychic' -."Hello is D.C. XYZ there?"

PC - "Hang on - (in distance) Sarge is "Wibblestick" around...
No sorry, he is out on an enquiry, can I take a message?"

'Psychic' - No it's OK I'll try later"

See? Now I am not saying this is correct, but it seems perfectly feasible to me. We are left with a personal judgement call. You asked could it be faked? Yes - see above! Also where is the WHOLE context of the conversation. We are left with a third person account in an EDITED magazine from a story that SOMEONE ELSE wrote. In court, evidence of this kind would fall down flat.

As to the "evidence" these people provide...It is not admissable. You could NOT get a warrant signed from their info off a senior officer, and certainly not from a magistrate. Why? Because IT IS NOT RELIABLE.

Ah, but could you identify and offender with it? No. Why? look up R vs Turnbull and see what was stated as the requirements for a piece of identifying evidence. the acronymn is ADVOKATE by the way...

What are we left with then? Ah yes, missing bodies. Great! There is no evidence requirement to be met and the info can be given with relative impunity. Why are they not used more often then? Why were they not used in Soham? Why not Lord Lucan? Why not Suzie Lamplaugh? Hell, there were even Psychic hits on the missing intern in the U.S. - AND NOT A SINGLE ONE WAS RIGHT.

Luci, you have changed your stance to psychics now having a "positive relationship" rather than "being used by Police". Howevr, the relationship is STILL the same as the Ybo one I pointed out to you. An officer is DUTY BOUND to look into info. It has NOTHING to do with where it comes from. If a paedophile gives witness testimony to a burglary the Police do not employ paedophiles to solve crime. This has been stated countless times but seems to pass you by each time. Also why no comment on all the other links that are posted? Have you read them?

It is as reliable as any other evidence that the police may detect from anyone else! A police officer recording whatever information any member of the public provides, is *not* anecdotal evidence, if you claimed that in a Court, you'd be laughed right out again!

Interesting - do you have evidence to back this up? Or does that only apply to people who disagree with you? Are you even slightly aware of the requirments for intelligence? And Information is FREQUENTLY anecdotal - it is called heresay.

Yes, I know that my accounts are anecdotal - but I can prove I was in the position I say with my certificates, officer safety log and photos of me in Police uniform. Or should I show you the note I received for my personal file concerning my work on a covert operation? How about the letter about my career break? Whilst these are not direct evidence vis a vis psychics they do show I am what I say I am. That means that I am in a position to speak on how Police handle these matters.- far more than your good self Luci. In a courtroom I would be technically classed as an "expert" witness due to experience.

I anticipate another whining response about apologies and positive relationships ad nauseam ...and to be honest I just cannot be bothered anymore. I leave the evidence I have presented to you all for you to make up your own minds. Luci, answer, dodge, change the subject, flame or whatever...it won't change my opinion or the opinion of anyone else on these boards.

Have a nice day...Bahala Na!

 

[Lucianarchy]

We have all seen some impressive cold reading performances. If I posted a transcript you would immediatly come back with, 'Ah...but that doesn't prove that Pokie was a cold read.' Or 'How can you prove that the transcript was genuine?' I've watched you games too often to fall into such futility.

The burden of proof is on *you* to back up your claim that this was 'cold reading'. If you want to make excuses for not providng evidence, feel free, that's what a lot here do, or say 'it's out there somewhere, you find it' , either that or call me a troll, all good 'outs' for the lazy and dull.

I have provide evidence form the Police Fed of a psychic giving *specific* detail, particularly the very *very* uncommon name of "pokie". It is evidently *not* cold reading. If you just want to say 'cold reading', then you're on your own, I'm not interested without evidence. And if you can't provide verifiable evidence for any transcript you may want to quote from, then *yes*, you must show proof of verification, you are not exempt from the burden of proof for some reason. That's not 'games', that's proper skepticism.

 

[RonSceptic]

The burden of proof is on *you* to back up your claim that this was 'cold reading'. If you want to make excuses for not providng evidence, feel free, that's what a lot here do, or say 'it's out there somewhere, you find it' , either that or call me a troll, all good 'outs' for the lazy and dull.

I have provide evidence form the Police Fed of a psychic giving *specific* detail, particularly the very *very* uncommon name of "pokie". It is evidently *not* cold reading. If you just want to say 'cold reading', then you're on your own, I'm not interested without evidence. And if you can't provide verifiable evidence for any transcript you may want to quote from, then *yes*, you must show proof of verification, you are not exempt from the burden of proof for some reason. That's not 'games', that's proper skepticism.

I have simply furnished an alternative explanation for the events mentioned in the anecdote. You were the one that repeatedly asked for an alternate explanation! Given that my explanation requires no paranormal phenonemon, I'd say that it is more likely to be correct.

By the way, as you are so hot on 'evidence' how do you know that the incident happened as reported? Do you have a tape recording of the interview? A video? How do you know that 'Pokie' was even uttered at all, let alone first by the psychic? Or are you happy to simply accept it as given?

I repeat. If this woman has powers then why not help her to prove it by winning the $1,000,000.

 

[RonSceptic]

Luci,

BTW, do you think that Doris Stokes was a true psychic, or just a good cold reader?

 

[Lucianarchy]

Yes, I know that my accounts are anecdotal - but I can prove I was in the position I say with my certificates, officer safety log and photos of me in Police uniform. Or should I show you the note I received for my personal file concerning my work on a covert operation? How about the letter about my career break? Whilst these are not direct evidence vis a vis psychics they do show I am what I say I am. That means that I am in a position to speak on how Police handle these matters.- far more than your good self Luci. In a courtroom I would be technically classed as an "expert" witness due to experience.

I usually ignore your posts these days, full, as they are, with anecdotal nonsense and flim-flam. So what if you were a police officer, you have been shown that your claim about how 'psychics' are treated is wrong. You were ill informed or ignorant, I don't particularly care which, but wrong, you are. But let me tell you this, sonny, not only have I spent over 12 years working for the Home Office assessing criminal cases, interviewing suspects, offenders and victims, in custody suites and on the streets and homes where these people live, actually *being* an expert witness, with thousands of hours of Crown Court work. Not only that, I have worked *alongside* hundreds of police officers, worked in over thirty different police stations, from all over the country, on all sorts of criminal cases, from all areas of specialism. I *know* I have a far, *far* reaching depth of experience than you. But in the case of these discussions here on this board, it is completely irrelevant, which is why I ahven't brought it up, personal anecdotal stuff is worthless in a forum debate using a skeptical analysis, as has been shown by your ill infomed nonsense about how the police alledgedly treat 'psychics'. I realise it is very important for you to have people around you who will 'believe' what you say, and agree with you, but this is a forum on skepticism, not the school playground. So I suggest you grow up a little bit and stick to the facts actually being discussed, not what you claim is your 'personal experience'. That's what UFO abductees do.

"pokie" How common is that?