Good stuff to all responders! And regarding Robert's comments about the rapist case Renier has claimed to have been "instrumental" in solving --- a case widely "reenacted" for TV ---
Story House Productions (TV series producers of the TV series ‘Psychic Detectives’) apparently tossed out historical psychic whoppers to the public and pays psychics for such reenactments.
Regarding the rape case claims with the Staunton Police Department, the theme of the re-recreated case involves key psychic visions which are a COMPLETE sham as the police and psychic replay is a bogus retelling of the real historical visions and how they accurately fit the facts.
Events once again just a stone’s throw from the U.S. Department of Justice personnel in Roanoke and Lynchburg who in 2010 won’t allow her bankruptcy creditor to have access to her income sources as they appear on her W2/99 IRS filings, and certainly appear to be protecting disclosures on her behalf!
The real facts are a virtual 180 spin away from the events portrayed in the paid performances by psychic Noreen Renier who has re-created her psychic involvement alongside police personnel. Police personnel who obviously have no problem allowing her re-created history to stray from historical reality --- NOT a single Virginia police agency or officer has publicly set the record straight!
It’s a tight good ‘ol boy network by many, particularly those who interacted with various female psychic detectives who first appeared in these small communities 40 years ago as young, good-looking, single/divorced, and friendly.
A slightly edited version appears below which was posted from amindformurder to the JREF forum on December 11, 2007 --- just after Noreen lost her federal court battle in Seattle in the breach of settlement case held in U.S. District Court, Case Merrell (Plaintiff) versus Renier (Defendant):
Multiple rapes had occurred in 1979 with 5 rapes within a six block area. Renier’s involvement was unsolicited by police.
This is supported by a comment made by Commander King of the Staunton Police Department and referenced in a newspaper article written by Julie Young and published on July 28, 1982 in Charlottesville. King states “She volunteered her services to us.”
In retrospect three items in her statements were judged “coincidental” by an officer on the case, and these were provided during pre-deposition calls in an Oregon courtroom in 1985. The first was that in Renier’s visions she claimed to see the rapist’s mother cooking. The mother it was later learned worked in a restaurant, but she was not a cook. The second was that Renier indicated that the rapist lived at the bottom of a hill across from a live performing arts theatre. Near this time Renier herself was performing in a local theatre and had been involved in a local Charlottesville area performances. But there were no live performing arts theatres or any visiting performers in Staunton at that time. Later however it was found the rapist did live on an elevated area of the town near the Dixie movie theatre. The first reference connecting Renier’s claim to a movie theatre --- not a performing arts theatre --- seems to have come later during a radio station interview with Renier when after-the-fact she indicated her vision had been to a movie theatre.
The third “coincidence” was that Renier claimed the rapist would be arrested before Christmas. The man was arrested on a Peeping Tom charge the week before Christmas though it was not until a follow-up on that charge that led to the rape arrest. These three coincidences came from a Staunton Police officer who died 20 years ago but was directly involved in reviewing Renier’s initial answers to questions posed. Renier’s claim of visioning something going “round and round” stemmed solely from a pages of scribbles and circles that Renier drew on paper. There were no references to a truck, a delivery vehicle, or a cement truck driven by the rapist until weeks after, and then the first such references appear to have been provided once again to the media by Renier herself.
Some statements in those early media stories reference a Commander King of the Staunton Police. Others note a Sergeant King. These are in fact two different men, with the Sergeant reportedly at the time active at the jail and the Commander the one directly involved with criminal cases. Some quotations from Sergeant King appear to reflect second information and one reporter told me he was steered to Sergeant King not Commander King. Why would a jailer with no first hand information be a better source?
Commander King stated in the July 1982 newspaper article --- three years after the case --- that Renier “kept seeing things going round and round.” Things. Plural.
A newspaper article by Ken Hurd in 1980 and published in Lynchburg states “It was Ms. Renier’s ‘visions’ of scars that helped the Staunton police find the man who recently was convicted of attacking women in Staunton. ‘I was lecturing at Blue Ridge Community College when a woman asked me for a reading on the man who had raped her sister,’ she said. Ms. Renier touched the ring of the woman and saw a ‘vision’ of a man with a scar on his leg. ‘Each piece of evidence I gave the police was 100 percent accurate,’ Ms. Renier said.” First scars. Then scar. Plural or singular?
But far from the 100% accurate rating Renier provided to the press --- reports now constantly referenced and recreated for live audiences and TV productions ---her testimony under oath and transcribed in court about the Staunton case reveals more concerns. On page 25 of her testimony in the 1986 Oregon trial the following exchange takes place between her critic’s attorney and Renier.
Q: Okay. Let’s turn to the state of Virginia since you live there and I assume that is where you did the greatest majority of your work, would that be accurate?
A: Yes.
Q: Let’s start with Staunton, Virginia okay? I understand that there was a series of four to five or six rapes that occurred and that you worked with the Staunton Police Department in giving them some assistance. Could you describe for me what kind of assistance you gave to the Staunton Police?
A: I gave a description of the man and maybe a scar on the body and what he did, the uniform he wore, where he lived.
Q: Let’s move back a minute if I can interrupt you. You indicated that --- you said what he did, you mean by occupation?
A: He drove a truck, I saw him driving a truck that went around and around.
Q: And you said you saw where he lived, where did he live?
A: Near a theater, this is mostly not really from recall, it is from I remember reading in one of the press clippings that I usually loose, a theater near the hills, whatever, something like that.
Q: And did you describe what he looked like?
A: I probably did.
Q: Do you remember how you described him?
A: No.
Q: Mrs. Renier, there is an article that appeared in the Ashland Tidings on October 10th, I’m sure you’re familiar with it since it was one of the reasons why we are sitting here today. It was written by John Darling, do you recall having that interview with him?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: He says in here that, “Using her psychic gifts Mrs. Renier was instrumental in identifying a man who was later convicted of multiple rapes in Staunton, Virginia.” Do you think that sentence is accurate?
A: Well, I didn’t say anything like that, I probably gave him press clippings of the case and he ---
Q: Do you think that is accurate?
Mr. Werdell [Renier’s attorney]: Well, let her finish.
The Deponent: --- wrote the story.
Q: I will ask you my question again: Do you think it’s accurate?
A: No, I don’t think it is accurate.”
[Skipping in transcript to further advanced questioning]
Q: Mrs. Renier, do you recall what information is provided in your press clippings that were given to John Darling that relate to the Staunton, Virginia rapes?
A: There are several clippings that relate to the Staunton case, I don’t recall which ones he had or he took with him.
Q: Do you consider yourself responsible for your promotion materials?
A: You mean the press clippings?
Q: Yes.
A: I’m not responsible for what people write about me, no.
Q: If you provide that material to another member of the press for him to then write an additional article about do you feel any responsibility to let him know that the material you are giving him may not be accurate?
A: I don’t think it is 100 percent accurate anything that is written about anyone.
Q: Let me ask you my question again: Do you feel responsible --- a responsibility to provide either accurate material to the press or to alert them if some of the material you are giving them is not accurate?
A: The material I give to the press is not for them to copy, it is for them to get an idea of what I have done to ask me questions about it.
Q: Did John Darling give you any --- ask you any questions about the multiple rapes in Staunton, Virginia?
A: Not that I remember.
Q: You don’t remember what your press clippings had to say about your participation in that particular investigation?
A: I have a lot of press clippings.
Q: Do you review them for accuracy and take them out if they are not accurate?
A: I would have no press clippings.
Q: And you don’t in any way indicate to the new reporter that this may or may not be accurate?
A: No.”
Now today, before the JREF forum, I hope this revealing exchange assists in helping people understand how Renier helped create media stories about the case --- and actually then actually came to depend on those very stories to refresh her own statements even during testimony --- while admitting that statements of being “instrumental” were by her own testimony in 1986 “inaccurate.” Yet in a slew of media stories over the next 24 years the quote being “instrumental” has been referenced to Renier time and time again.
Apparently she simply re-lives and re-creates her own bogus visions recited in previous press clippings --- and gets followers to go along in the bogus reenactments of reality!
