Lucianarchy said:


You make to many leaps of faith for a skeptic, these people are professional detectives not reporters for a local rag, do you even understand how serious withholding evidence is? LOL! You also fail to mention how CR could have provided the specific detail given regarding the police officer on the case.

Been there done that. The other thing I noted was that the interview took place some days after the murder. Newspapers would have certianly given some details and many people would have visited the murder scene.
 
Lucianarchy said:


Police are professional detectives and use DNA to secure evidence in cases like this, anyone who provdided location evidence would be asked to give a DNA sample.

I am not stirring the pot but this is not technically true. Police can only request a sample. The only time a sample can be taken without consent is after the individual has been charged.

There have been cases where the only evidence was DNA that was "illegally" held on file by the Police. The accused walked away because the DNA was rendered inadmissable. It may suck, but dems da facts ma'am:)
 
Posted by Luciananarchy:
You make to many leaps of faith for a skeptic, these people are professional detectives not reporters for a local rag, do you even understand how serious withholding evidence is? LOL! You also fail to mention how CR could have provided the specific detail given regarding the police officer on the case.

The only "leap of faith" I make is that It's easier to obtain information from living people than from dead ones.
And where did I mention anyone withholding evidence?

I didn't mention the police officer's cold reading because because it had already been mentioned in other posts.
 
Lucianarchy,

Firstly I did ask some time ago for references to the quotes you posted (by Jessica Utts), what the J of Sci Exp stands for and whether it's available online.

Also what theories are there about how these powers work.

Please could you reply - you did say you would offer the evidence to anyone interested.

Secondly you have claimed that 'police use psychics'. I do have some contacts at Scotland Yard and will certainly ask them if you want me to.

But an examination of this website:

http://www.met.police.uk/index.shtml

shows no evidence of it.

Some extracts (bolding and comments mine):

'The Notorious Dr Crippen
The shocking case of a murdered wife which provided a historic instance of a criminal being caught with the aid of radio.

>glee: The police are happy to acknowledge first use of new technology / techniques. No mention of psychics.

>glee: A list of their supporting units:

'Traffic, Air Support, Public Order, Mounted Branch and Thames Division, which polices London's main waterway'

The British Transport Police, who are responsible for policing on the rail and tube systems;
The City of London Police, who cover the area within the boundaries of the Corporation of London;
and the Royal Parks Constabulary, who patrol some of London's major parks'

'The London Fire Brigade
The London Ambulance Service
The London Emergency Services Liaison Panel'

>glee: No mention of any psychic organisation (is there one?)

'Assistant Commissioner Michael Todd - responsible for Territorial Policing
Assistant Commissioner David Veness - responsible for Specialist Operations
Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur - responsible for Policy Review and Standards
Assistant Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe - Director of Personnel
Keith Luck - Director of Resources
Dick Fedorcio - Director of Public Affairs'

>glee: which one of these would psychic informants come under?
 
Actually to be fair we have now established that Luci is saying "Police use info provided by Psychics". This is a far more general statement to discuss. Everyone knows already that Police do not employ psychics or consult them.
 
I believe the correct formulation is

Police use info provided by "psychics".

Try this:

Everyone has lied at some time.

Therefore police use information provided by liars.

Is there a fallacy here?
 
I believe my position is more than clear. However, I was trying to clarify what Luci is claiming so that the debate does not degenerate into a "I did not say that..." debacle.

refer to my Ybo example to see what I mean.
 
Dr. Lechter, I wasn't trying to argue with you. Just offering what I thought was another version of Luci's fallacy.
 
Don't worry, I've already eaten!:D

Sorry i should have made myself clearer when I replied. I responded to what I thought was a question to me..damn my ego!

Apologies whitefork...perhaps you would like to come to dinner?....pthpthpthpthpth....:D
 
chrisjt said:
[BThe most glaring omission is that the alleged Psychic lived just 10 minutes walk from the victim. The conclusion that Holohan probably obtained information about Jackie Poole from friends or neighbours(or from Jackie herself…before she died of course) is obvious. Another missing, yet important detail is that Anthony Ruark was Jackie's lover(making Holohan’s knowledge of his nickname a lot less impressive). He was also a known criminal and would have been a prime suspect.[/B]


So now we have the possibility of the 'psychic' having first hand knowledge of both the victim and the accused. So why would anyone take this case as proof of psychic powers? There are clearly alternative explanations for the events are described.

This case gets less mysterious by the minute. It's a pretty weak case for psychic crime solving.

Luci posted earlier that she/he had worked for 12 years for the home office as an expert witness, dealing with hundreds of officers.

So how about a list of the top ten crimnes solved by psychic powers?
 
Hannibal said:
Actually to be fair we have now established that Luci is saying "Police use info provided by Psychics". This is a far more general statement to discuss. Everyone knows already that Police do not employ psychics or consult them.

Ok, I'll discuss that!

How about considering the level of confidence police have in various methods of investigation, and various types of evidence.

Let's rate:

- asking for a description
- collecting forensic evidence from the crime scene
- interviewing suspects
- searching crime databases
- profiling offenders
- using psychics

and also evaluate:

- forensic evidence (e.g. fingerprints or DNA)
- eye-witnesses at an identity parade
- confessions
- lie detectors
- alibi evidence
- psychic testimony

in terms of frequency of use and reliability....
 
RonSceptic said:

Luci posted earlier that she/he had worked for 12 years for the home office as an expert witness, dealing with hundreds of officers.

So how about a list of the top ten crimnes solved by psychic powers?

Sound of leaves slowly rustling on wooden floor..........
 
RonSceptic said:

Luci posted earlier that she/he had worked for 12 years for the home office as an expert witness, dealing with hundreds of officers.

Ron, can you point me to this, I must have missed it?


LUCI, LUCI, LUCI....please say it isn't true!!! If you made this claim exactly what sort of "Expert" were you.... I cannot recall any legal case where the crown or the defence have called an "expert" witness in the areas of parapsychology, psi or spoon bending. Can you give us some details?
 
Lucianarchy said:


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?

Fool,

This is the full text of a post by Luci on page 5 of this thread. Last edited on 19th September.

Thousands of hours on crown court work! That about as many hours as she/he spends posting on this board.
 
The Fool said:
LUCI, LUCI, LUCI....please say it isn't true!!! If you made this claim exactly what sort of "Expert" were you.... I cannot recall any legal case where the crown or the defence have called an "expert" witness in the areas of parapsychology, psi or spoon bending. Can you give us some details?

To be fair, Luci doesn't say what her speciality is.
Courts need doctors, probation officers etc.

I'm certain they don't count any form of psi as an expert witness.
 
glee said:


To be fair, Luci doesn't say what her speciality is.
Courts need doctors, probation officers etc.

I'm certain they don't count any form of psi as an expert witness.

Toilet attendants, cleaners, tea ladies,..........yes I can see a role for someone of Luci's talents.
 
RonSceptic said:
Toilet attendants, cleaners, tea ladies,..........yes I can see a role for someone of Luci's talents.

I'm newish, so don't understand this sarcasm.
Is Luci not highly rated?

P.S. Ronsceptic, if your location is accurate, we can't be more than 50 miles apart. I'm posting from Oakham....
 

Back
Top Bottom