Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
Police and Psychics
- Thread starter Lucianarchy
- Start date
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
re-bumped for newbie interest in police / psychic collaboration.
RonSceptic
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2001
- Messages
- 514
Lucianarchy said:
Luci posted this on September 9th 2002. Given this wealth of experience shouldn't she have dozens of clear examples of cases solved by psychic means?
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
RonSceptic said:
I do not claim psychics solve cases.
The police do work with some psychics, supergrasses and others for intelligence gathering purposes though. Why do you find that difficult to comprehend?
Psiload
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2001
- Messages
- 2,102
Lucianarchy said:
I do not claim psychics solve cases.
The police do work with some psychics, supergrasses and others for intelligence gathering purposes though. Why do you find that difficult to comprehend?
In your opinion, are these psychics more of a help, or a hinderance to the police forces that agree to accept their assistance?
One more time... are the police better off with, or without the help of psychic detectives?
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
Psiload said:
I don't really have an opinion on that particular issue.
You'd have to ask the officers involved. I do know that 'Ed' checked with the Williston detective involved with Ms Renier and he confirmed:
Ed said:
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,578
Lucianarchy said:
This cannot be true, because there are no such things as psychics, only people that think they are.
If you want to prove me wrong, get one of the "psychics" to take the JREF million.
Psiload
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2001
- Messages
- 2,102
You have no opinion on the matter? You won't even venture a guess? I can't understand why you would put so much time and effort into defending "psychic detectives", yet at the same time remain genuinely unconcerned with the central tenent of whether they do more harm than good? Would you at least acknowledge the distinct possibility that "psychic detectives" are more hinderance than help to law enforcement investigations?Lucianarchy said:
As far as asking the police agencies involved with "psychic detectives"... they HAVE been asked... and the answer is an overwhelmingly resounding NO. No, we do not employ "psychic detectives". No, we do not solicit the assistance of "psychic detectives". No, we do not lend the leads and tips of "psychic mediums" any more credibility than we treat leads and tips from any other sources. No, none of our cases have been solved by "psychic detectives". No, "psychic detectives" are not likely to provide usefull information, they are much more likely to waste our time and resources investigating false leads. Specifically, the FBI and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, who have fielded thousands of tips, and offers of assistance from "psychic detectives" yet still maintain that to their knowledge, psychic detectives have never helped solve a single missing-person case.
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
Psiload said:
Not really.
The important thing here is that quite evidently there are some psychics (as listed on the Scotland Yard databse) who provide useable intelligence for the police both in the UK and the US.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,578
http://www.valleyskeptic.com/psychic.htm
http://www.csicop.org/sb/9703/belgium.html
The important thing here is that quite evidently there are some psychics (as listed on the Scotland Yard databse) who provide useable intelligence for the police both in the UK and the US.
So you claim. Yet, has there been 1 police document that listed psychics as being a source of evidence? Has it been used in a court of law?
The only thing evident here is that psychics and the believers will say/fabricate anything to try and give credibility to their claims. You know what you can do to give credibility to psychics, Luci, you can take the JREF million from Randi.
http://www.csicop.org/sb/9703/belgium.html
The important thing here is that quite evidently there are some psychics (as listed on the Scotland Yard databse) who provide useable intelligence for the police both in the UK and the US.
So you claim. Yet, has there been 1 police document that listed psychics as being a source of evidence? Has it been used in a court of law?
The only thing evident here is that psychics and the believers will say/fabricate anything to try and give credibility to their claims. You know what you can do to give credibility to psychics, Luci, you can take the JREF million from Randi.
This is a very strange statement coming from you, of all people, thaiboxerken.
You're the one who fabricated the claim that Claus's 94mb file shows I'm a liar.
When you were repeatedly asked for evidence of your claim, you said you didn't need to give any.
Or did you really mean to write this, tbk: "The only thing evident here is that 'skeptics' like me will say/fabricate anything to try and give credibility to our claims."
Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?
Lucianarchy
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,105
thaiboxerken said:
No one's claiming evidence for use in a Court of Law, we're talking about intelligence gathering. In case you are unaware, the police use many mediums in which to glean intelligence to help them make decisions which will solve a case, and evidently some psychics are one of those mediums. An officer doesn't need to say in Court why he happened to look somewhere, just that he did.
If you're suggesting the Police Federation are guilty of fabrication, then you really need to be upfront about it and provide some evidence of fabrication.
Police & Psychics
Luci, you are in error in a number of areas. Speaking with 16 years experience in the UK Police Service, 12 years as a Detective involved in many Murders and other serious crimes can I correct you on the following issues:
Scotland Yard does NOT hold a database including psychics. The database you allude to is held with the National Crime Faculty. Surely your time in the Home Office would have made you aware that this is, and always has been, held at the Police Staff Training College in Bramshill. To go on the database you merely have to apply in writing, to my knowledge there is no "test", no checks etc. You simply offer your services as being an "expert" in any given field, the force area requesting the assistance of anyone on the list must assess the value of the "expert". Merely because any individual or organisation is on the database does not mean that they have ever been used by UK Police.
It is misleading to state that a Police Officer doesn't have to explain why he looked in a particular place, merely that he did. If asked the question in court the officer most certainly DOES have to explain why he looked in a particular place. Inevitably that question will be asked in any situation where something significant has been found. In any event, your Home Office experience will have made you cognizant of the rules of disclosure - the defence is entitled to all evidence and intelligence unless it is particularly sensitive in which case you must make your case for witholding the information in front of a Crown Court Judge. There is NO WAY that a Judge would agree to "intelligence" from a psychic being witheld.
UK Police do not solicit the assistance of Psychics. If, during a Criminal enquiry someone contacts the Police stating that they have information pertinent to that Crime, then the Police are duty bound to follow up that information. Experience tells me that whenever there is a high-profile enquiry we get deluged with calls from every wacko, delusional nutter and no-lifer who wants to make a name for themselves amongst the honest well meaning call. An astonishing amount of time gets wasted on the dubious claims because everthing HAS to be followed up
In relation the the article in the Police Federation magazine. The majority of articles are written by serving and former Police officers. The views expressed in those articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the Police Federation. The murder referred to in the article was solved, but in no way did the intervention of the psychic assist in solving that crime. The psychic lived on the same estate as the victim, within in walking distance in fact. The information from the psychic would have been far more impressive if there had been some distance between the psychic and the scene. It would have been more impressive if the psychic had been able to repeat her psychic crime solving abilities on another case, I can find no record of her doing so. The offender was in fact the main suspect from the start, mainly due to the fact that he was a lover of the victim and NOT due to any intervention of the psychic.
UK Police officers are (sadly) not trained in critical thinking and the art of detecting cold/warm/hot reading or any of the other techniques used by "psychics". The officer who wrote the article therefore did not have sufficient "tools" available to detect fraud if indeed that was the case in respect of the "psychic".
This is a shocking distortion of the truth. It is more accurate to say that "mediums use the Police to enhance their reputation"
I cannot conceive of any situation where the UK police will use a psychic to guide their decision making process.
I hope this clears up a few misapprehensions that you have.
Best Wishes
Stumpy
Luci, you are in error in a number of areas. Speaking with 16 years experience in the UK Police Service, 12 years as a Detective involved in many Murders and other serious crimes can I correct you on the following issues:
Scotland Yard does NOT hold a database including psychics. The database you allude to is held with the National Crime Faculty. Surely your time in the Home Office would have made you aware that this is, and always has been, held at the Police Staff Training College in Bramshill. To go on the database you merely have to apply in writing, to my knowledge there is no "test", no checks etc. You simply offer your services as being an "expert" in any given field, the force area requesting the assistance of anyone on the list must assess the value of the "expert". Merely because any individual or organisation is on the database does not mean that they have ever been used by UK Police.
It is misleading to state that a Police Officer doesn't have to explain why he looked in a particular place, merely that he did. If asked the question in court the officer most certainly DOES have to explain why he looked in a particular place. Inevitably that question will be asked in any situation where something significant has been found. In any event, your Home Office experience will have made you cognizant of the rules of disclosure - the defence is entitled to all evidence and intelligence unless it is particularly sensitive in which case you must make your case for witholding the information in front of a Crown Court Judge. There is NO WAY that a Judge would agree to "intelligence" from a psychic being witheld.
UK Police do not solicit the assistance of Psychics. If, during a Criminal enquiry someone contacts the Police stating that they have information pertinent to that Crime, then the Police are duty bound to follow up that information. Experience tells me that whenever there is a high-profile enquiry we get deluged with calls from every wacko, delusional nutter and no-lifer who wants to make a name for themselves amongst the honest well meaning call. An astonishing amount of time gets wasted on the dubious claims because everthing HAS to be followed up
In relation the the article in the Police Federation magazine. The majority of articles are written by serving and former Police officers. The views expressed in those articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the Police Federation. The murder referred to in the article was solved, but in no way did the intervention of the psychic assist in solving that crime. The psychic lived on the same estate as the victim, within in walking distance in fact. The information from the psychic would have been far more impressive if there had been some distance between the psychic and the scene. It would have been more impressive if the psychic had been able to repeat her psychic crime solving abilities on another case, I can find no record of her doing so. The offender was in fact the main suspect from the start, mainly due to the fact that he was a lover of the victim and NOT due to any intervention of the psychic.
UK Police officers are (sadly) not trained in critical thinking and the art of detecting cold/warm/hot reading or any of the other techniques used by "psychics". The officer who wrote the article therefore did not have sufficient "tools" available to detect fraud if indeed that was the case in respect of the "psychic".
This is a shocking distortion of the truth. It is more accurate to say that "mediums use the Police to enhance their reputation"
I cannot conceive of any situation where the UK police will use a psychic to guide their decision making process.
I hope this clears up a few misapprehensions that you have.
Best Wishes
Stumpy
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,578
If you're suggesting the Police Federation are guilty of fabrication, then you really need to be upfront about it and provide some evidence of fabrication.
Actually, the Police Federation needs to provide evidence that the people they claim are psychic actually have superpowers. Until then, I'll stick with the reality that people do not have superpowers.
If the FBI said that they sent superman to apprehend Osama Bin Laden, would you believe them?
The fact is, psychic phenomena is not an established fact. To claim a person is psychic is absurd, and will be absurd until the phenomena is established as fact by the scientific community.
Luci, you deluded woo-woo, come take the JREF money and prove to me that people can have superpowers.
Actually, the Police Federation needs to provide evidence that the people they claim are psychic actually have superpowers. Until then, I'll stick with the reality that people do not have superpowers.
If the FBI said that they sent superman to apprehend Osama Bin Laden, would you believe them?
The fact is, psychic phenomena is not an established fact. To claim a person is psychic is absurd, and will be absurd until the phenomena is established as fact by the scientific community.
Luci, you deluded woo-woo, come take the JREF money and prove to me that people can have superpowers.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,578
Re: Police & Psychics
Whoa.. so a psychic may have helped the police, but did so because of mundane knowledge.
I guess if a psychic gives me a buck, I can claim that a psychic helped my financial status.
Wow, believers are stupid.
Stumpy said:
Whoa.. so a psychic may have helped the police, but did so because of mundane knowledge.
I guess if a psychic gives me a buck, I can claim that a psychic helped my financial status.
Wow, believers are stupid.
Why would the UK police use psychics, when psychics are listed as a form of "cross border fraud" the UK Department of Trade and Industry is actively working to end? It would be interesting -- but not surprising for a government -- if the police hired psychics to catch fraudulent psychics -- as if there were any other kind.
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/gnn/national.nsf/TI/8AD14099F33E499280256D4800432C0A?opendocument
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/gnn/national.nsf/TI/8AD14099F33E499280256D4800432C0A?opendocument
RonSceptic
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2001
- Messages
- 514
Re: Police & Psychics
Thank you for this excellent and informative post. Unfortunately it will make little difference to Luci. Last time this topic was raised a poster called Hannibal, a serving officer of many years experience who was even prepared to reveal his ID number (my term not his so excuse me if I got the wrong term) to prove that he was genuine.
That's when Luci posted the stuff about 12 years work with the home office.
Hannibal's experience matches yours. As does the e-mail from Scotland Yard.
But still Luci clings to the article in the Police Federation magazine. And she will continue to do so. Not matter how often it is debunked.
Stumpy said:
Thank you for this excellent and informative post. Unfortunately it will make little difference to Luci. Last time this topic was raised a poster called Hannibal, a serving officer of many years experience who was even prepared to reveal his ID number (my term not his so excuse me if I got the wrong term) to prove that he was genuine.
That's when Luci posted the stuff about 12 years work with the home office.
Hannibal's experience matches yours. As does the e-mail from Scotland Yard.
But still Luci clings to the article in the Police Federation magazine. And she will continue to do so. Not matter how often it is debunked.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Ex UK Police Officer Stumpy makes a number of factual errors. This case was independently investgated by a team of researchers who are publishing it in the JSPR. The investigation is currently undergoing peer review. One of the investigators, M.
Keen, was given the opportunity of seeing Stumpy's assertions and responds thus:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The extract you quote (Stumpy) sounds suspiciously like the efforts of Tony Youens, a skeptic, who writes in the current issue of the UK magazine The Skeptic in an effort to disparage the authenticity and force of the Poole case, about which I had written in an earlier issue of the magazine.
(So Stumpy did you lift this from Tony Yuens and not give him credit? sg)
They were supposed to have printed my reply in the same issue, but none has appeared. Here are the responses to the comments:
The Police Federation's magazine has no views, and the fact is irrelevant to the merits of the case.
Were it not for the medium's information, and the profound impression it created on the mind of the principal police detective involved, Tony Batters, it is very unlikely that he would have gone to the trouble of retaining a discarded pullover from the waste bag of the home of Ruark. It was the DNA material
on this garment which was the evidence that put Ruark behind bars.
The psychic lived about three miles away in West London on the other side of a major arterial road, and a good three quarters of an hour's walk from the residence of the victim.
(Not in the samer estate or housing park)
The psychic ability or otherwise to repeat her success has not the slightest bearing on the merits of the case or the facts involved. In fact Batters has confirmed that the medium has been instrumental in locating missing bodies; but this is strictly irrelevant. The expression "I can find no record of her
doing so" [i.e. 'solving' a similar murder], is silly. No two cases are alike. The police do not announce what help if any they have received from mediums.
The offender had already been ruled out as a prime suspect by the time the police saw the medium, since he had a persuasive alibi, backed up by some of his friends.
The murderer was NOT the victim's lover. She knew but disliked him. There were a great many other suspects.
Cold or hot readings cannot possibly account for the wealth of detail given by the psychic in this case. It is arrogant, offensive and incorrect to imply that the officer in this case was so naive and incompetent as not to be able to determine what information could have derived from well known methods of
extracting information. But even if he were so innocent, it could not possibly account for the sort of information given.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what do we have here? A faulty and rhetorical account by an ex Police Officer who is interested in making sure nobody believes psychics help cops, an account that was peppered with information that may've been plagiarized from another source but that source was also faulty as they made things up (i.e. the assailant was the victim's lover or the psychic lived nearby. etc.)
The usual bending and shading of the truth to extend one's case.
The case was indpendently investigated by Keen and Playfair and they talked to everyone involved. To answer an earlier question by Mark Tidwell, no the paper on this case is not based on the popular magazine article. Hopefully the peer review process will not have to make us wait much longer.
Keen, was given the opportunity of seeing Stumpy's assertions and responds thus:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The extract you quote (Stumpy) sounds suspiciously like the efforts of Tony Youens, a skeptic, who writes in the current issue of the UK magazine The Skeptic in an effort to disparage the authenticity and force of the Poole case, about which I had written in an earlier issue of the magazine.
(So Stumpy did you lift this from Tony Yuens and not give him credit? sg)
They were supposed to have printed my reply in the same issue, but none has appeared. Here are the responses to the comments:
The Police Federation's magazine has no views, and the fact is irrelevant to the merits of the case.
Were it not for the medium's information, and the profound impression it created on the mind of the principal police detective involved, Tony Batters, it is very unlikely that he would have gone to the trouble of retaining a discarded pullover from the waste bag of the home of Ruark. It was the DNA material
on this garment which was the evidence that put Ruark behind bars.
The psychic lived about three miles away in West London on the other side of a major arterial road, and a good three quarters of an hour's walk from the residence of the victim.
(Not in the samer estate or housing park)
The psychic ability or otherwise to repeat her success has not the slightest bearing on the merits of the case or the facts involved. In fact Batters has confirmed that the medium has been instrumental in locating missing bodies; but this is strictly irrelevant. The expression "I can find no record of her
doing so" [i.e. 'solving' a similar murder], is silly. No two cases are alike. The police do not announce what help if any they have received from mediums.
The offender had already been ruled out as a prime suspect by the time the police saw the medium, since he had a persuasive alibi, backed up by some of his friends.
The murderer was NOT the victim's lover. She knew but disliked him. There were a great many other suspects.
Cold or hot readings cannot possibly account for the wealth of detail given by the psychic in this case. It is arrogant, offensive and incorrect to imply that the officer in this case was so naive and incompetent as not to be able to determine what information could have derived from well known methods of
extracting information. But even if he were so innocent, it could not possibly account for the sort of information given.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what do we have here? A faulty and rhetorical account by an ex Police Officer who is interested in making sure nobody believes psychics help cops, an account that was peppered with information that may've been plagiarized from another source but that source was also faulty as they made things up (i.e. the assailant was the victim's lover or the psychic lived nearby. etc.)
The usual bending and shading of the truth to extend one's case.
The case was indpendently investigated by Keen and Playfair and they talked to everyone involved. To answer an earlier question by Mark Tidwell, no the paper on this case is not based on the popular magazine article. Hopefully the peer review process will not have to make us wait much longer.
Clancie said:
Ehhh....Clancie....you did lie. Repeatedly.
You claimed to have "looked at" the file I had uploaded for you.
You also claimed that the file only consisted of your posts. 18Mb.
You claimed that no evidence of your lies were there.
Then, when you realized it really was 94Mb of text of everybody's posts, you changed your tune. After much fiddling, you finally fessed up:
You had not looked at the file.
There were other lies, but I understand why you don't want those to be posted here.
Clancie said:Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?
Can you spell l-i-a-r?